Jump to content


Premiums and power creep, thoughts on premiums done right and not.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
61 replies to this topic

awildseaking #21 Posted 10 May 2017 - 05:44 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 985
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015

I think a good premium plays nothing like its tech tree counterpart, assuming it has one. For me, that means Lo Yang and Perth. Since the Minekaze nerf made the Kamikaze a unique ship, the only clone premium I own is the Missouri, which is self explanatory.


One of the many reasons I don't buy nearly as many premiums in WoT is that most premium tanks are not radically different from the tech trees.


Edited by awildseaking, 10 May 2017 - 05:46 PM.


SireneRacker #22 Posted 10 May 2017 - 06:08 PM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,625
  • Member since:
    07-14-2015

View PostSlimeball91, on 10 May 2017 - 05:07 PM, said:

Actually, I'm always surprised that people are willing to shell out the kind of money WG wants for premium ships.  Some are a fairly easy decision, Belfast for example, and some ships fit perfectly with your particular play style.  Still so many premium ships are mediocre and people still buy them.  If you collect premium ships, WoWs is a really expensive game.    

 

You pay, in case of the Prinz Eugen, 50$ for a detailed model of the ship. It can't get broken by your cat, you can sail it out, watch it fire, watch it burn, watch it sink. The only downside is that you don't hold it in your hands, other than that it is far better than any ship model I have ever seen.

Proud member of [WAIFU], nothing beats Prinz Eugen

 

Torpedoes don't have any friends. So they will kill everything in their path. To prevent team kills we should all watch out where we fire those fishes. That means each and everyone of us, DDs of the second line!

No my name does NOT refer to those things from Odysseus! They refer to those loud things attached to a fire truck. Not to beautiful girls singing on the Ocean.


issm #23 Posted 10 May 2017 - 07:59 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,844
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

Premiums should be tech tree ships with a unique appearance, and premium bonuses. Period.

 

WG advertises as a F2P game, all gameplay should be F2P. Russian cruiser with smoke? USN DD with sonar? Should be available for free in a reasonable manner, even if it doesn't have the premium bonuses.

 

WG should make ALL existing premiums available for FXP (at a price where paying real money would be significantly easier than converting/grinding), albeit without the permanent camo, and charge extra for that camo.

 

They would still be difficult to get for free most people would still pay real money to acquire them, but they'd be there.

 

A free to play game should never sell power, only cosmetics and convenience.

 

Several premiums violate that principle.


Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


comtedumas #24 Posted 10 May 2017 - 11:28 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 347
  • Member since:
    04-11-2016

View PostSireneRacker, on 10 May 2017 - 01:08 PM, said:

 

You pay, in case of the Prinz Eugen, 50$ for a detailed model of the ship. It can't get broken by your cat, you can sail it out, watch it fire, watch it burn, watch it sink. The only downside is that you don't hold it in your hands, other than that it is far better than any ship model I have ever seen.

 

Look at your internet model without a internet connection some day and tell me how nice it is.

_Caliph_ #25 Posted 10 May 2017 - 11:55 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,089
  • Member since:
    09-18-2012

View Postissm, on 10 May 2017 - 02:59 PM, said:

Premiums should be tech tree ships with a unique appearance, and premium bonuses. Period.

 

WG advertises as a F2P game, all gameplay should be F2P. Russian cruiser with smoke? USN DD with sonar? Should be available for free in a reasonable manner, even if it doesn't have the premium bonuses.

 

WG should make ALL existing premiums available for FXP (at a price where paying real money would be significantly easier than converting/grinding), albeit without the permanent camo, and charge extra for that camo.

 

They would still be difficult to get for free most people would still pay real money to acquire them, but they'd be there.

 

A free to play game should never sell power, only cosmetics and convenience.

 

Several premiums violate that principle.

 

Pfft. Your problem my man is that you believe your definition of F2p is the gold standard law. It isn't and your principles are yours. Having spent quite a bit of money with WG I can assure that nothing behind a grind wall would have me part with my cash instead. I parted with cash because it was the only option. I'm 250k in on Mo and I won't have it until I hit 750k. Though i'm currently on hiatus from supporting WG financially and have not purchased Alabama or Duca in response to their removal of Blyskawica's stealth firing. When I say this keep in mind I have the disposable income to buy every premium ship as I have if I so wish. I'm one of the people that can afford to pass the grind if I desired. But the people you assume are most, are not. The only ones in my opinion who would are potentially streamers because they make money playing the game. It's not a matter of can but would. Given the option, people would keep their cash and play the game for ships because they are playing anyway.

Edited by _Caliph_, 11 May 2017 - 12:03 AM.


issm #26 Posted 11 May 2017 - 12:32 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,844
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View Post_Caliph_, on 10 May 2017 - 06:55 PM, said:

Pfft. Your problem my man is that you believe your definition of F2p is the gold standard law. It isn't and your principles are yours. Having spent quite a bit of money with WG I can assure that nothing behind a grind wall would have me part with my cash instead. I parted with cash because it was the only option. I'm 250k in on Mo and I won't have it until I hit 750k. Though i'm currently on hiatus from supporting WG financially and have not purchased Alabama or Duca in response to their removal of Blyskawica's stealth firing. When I say this keep in mind I have the disposable income to buy every premium ship as I have if I so wish. I'm one of the people that can afford to pass the grind if I desired. But the people you assume are most, are not. The only ones in my opinion who would are potentially streamers because they make money playing the game. It's not a matter of can but would. Given the option, people would keep their cash and play the game for ships because they are playing anyway.

 

And you - and for that matter, I, are tiny minorities in the player base in the "will surpass any grind wall" thing.

 

Think back to the Christmas special achievements marathon.

 

Of the people who won a battle, something like half weren't able to get the 1 container per day required for one of the other medals.

 

The vast majority of players are some form of casual who can't spend the time grinding the content, and are willing to pay to get past a grind wall.

 

~~~~~~

 

While my principles are mine, they have at least some basis in reality.

 

> If free players weren't needed for the success of the game, they wouldn't be allowed

> Given the number of games that either feature, or are transitioning to a F2P/F2Demo model of monetisation, having non-paying players around must be doing some form of good to the game.

> Selling power attracts P2W accusations, which hurts your marketability - especially to free to play players.

> Several games have collapsed with P2W as a central problem (among general mismanagement). I used to play Archeage, and the entire in game economy - and even crafting and earning gold - was based on certain cash shop items. Partly thanks to that, the game's entire economy crashed, and people left in droves.

 

Therefore:

 

> Since F2P players are necessary for the game, Selling power hurts the game as a whole

 

This is why you do not sell power. Furthermore, selling unique gameplay will inevitably lead to selling power at some point, unless you make a point of making premium ships objectively inferior - which is also a bad idea.. So how do you monetise the game?

 

> There are several wildly successful games that only monetise on cosmetics and convenience

 

Well, there's your answer.

 

~~~~~~

 

Your opinion is based on.... what?

 

"Well, I wouldn't spend money if the game was monetised that way, so your ideas are wrong".


Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


Jakajan #27 Posted 11 May 2017 - 12:48 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 888
  • Member since:
    09-26-2015
Well, about destroyer premiums for example. Most of the time battleship premiums are just better than their tech tree counterparts, where Destroyers, Russians aside are more side steps.

Sims is somewhat better than Mahan I guess.
Oddly Lo Yang is a weaker Benson with hydro but still okay.
Anshan is okay, but there are better TO DD and more interesting.
Blyska is strong, but matched well vs Sims and Shiratsuyu. Honestly TO DD are well balanced.

Lol, am I complaining about good balance? Maybe I should stop now.

Jakajan #28 Posted 11 May 2017 - 12:49 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 888
  • Member since:
    09-26-2015
I guess what I am saying is DD premiums are well balanced vs tech tree DD, yet the premium BB must always be stronger than tech tree. Strange eh? German BB aside.

_Caliph_ #29 Posted 11 May 2017 - 01:18 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,089
  • Member since:
    09-18-2012

View Postissm, on 10 May 2017 - 07:32 PM, said:

 

And you - and for that matter, I, are tiny minorities in the player base in the "will surpass any grind wall" thing.

 

Think back to the Christmas special achievements marathon.

 

Of the people who won a battle, something like half weren't able to get the 1 container per day required for one of the other medals.

 

The vast majority of players are some form of casual who can't spend the time grinding the content, and are willing to pay to get past a grind wall.

 

~~~~~~

 

While my principles are mine, they have at least some basis in reality.

 

> If free players weren't needed for the success of the game, they wouldn't be allowed

> Given the number of games that either feature, or are transitioning to a F2P/F2Demo model of monetisation, having non-paying players around must be doing some form of good to the game.

> Selling power attracts P2W accusations, which hurts your marketability - especially to free to play players.

> Several games have collapsed with P2W as a central problem (among general mismanagement). I used to play Archeage, and the entire in game economy - and even crafting and earning gold - was based on certain cash shop items. Partly thanks to that, the game's entire economy crashed, and people left in droves.

 

Therefore:

 

> Since F2P players are necessary for the game, Selling power hurts the game as a whole

 

This is why you do not sell power. Furthermore, selling unique gameplay will inevitably lead to selling power at some point, unless you make a point of making premium ships objectively inferior - which is also a bad idea.. So how do you monetise the game?

 

> There are several wildly successful games that only monetise on cosmetics and convenience

 

Well, there's your answer.

 

~~~~~~

 

Your opinion is based on.... what?

 

"Well, I wouldn't spend money if the game was monetised that way, so your ideas are wrong".

 

The thing is Issm i'm drawing from the fact I own all the premiums sans the two I mentioned, i'm the spender. I can present myself as evidence. While I don't represent everyone I do represent one. Who can you present as evidence? Match the one and i'll concede but if you can't then you lack even enough evidence to match the little I present. That said Issm I am a fair person. I understand your point and I endorse fair play. But people aren't parting with cash, 90% anyway, given an option to avoid it. Yes that statistic is made up but would you really argue against it being a reasonable approximation? Also, which ship can I pay for that doesn't have loss as an option?

Edited by _Caliph_, 11 May 2017 - 01:21 AM.


issm #30 Posted 11 May 2017 - 02:31 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,844
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View Post_Caliph_, on 10 May 2017 - 08:18 PM, said:

The thing is Issm i'm drawing from the fact I own all the premiums sans the two I mentioned, i'm the spender. I can present myself as evidence. While I don't represent everyone I do represent one. Who can you present as evidence? Match the one and i'll concede but if you can't then you lack even enough evidence to match the little I present. That said Issm I am a fair person. I understand your point and I endorse fair play. But people aren't parting with cash, 90% anyway, given an option to avoid it. Yes that statistic is made up but would you really argue against it being a reasonable approximation? Also, which ship can I pay for that doesn't have loss as an option?

 

I see a few major issues here.

 

1) You can't handle nuance. Ships aren't P2W just because they don't have 100% W/R. Ignoring the fact that premiums dominated the last ranked season, or how Takao and Kutuzov were extremely strong picks for the season before that.

 

2) I provided evidence. Your problem is you seem to be unable to accept anything but anecdotes as evidence - which, unfortunately, means you are unable to accept evidence, period.

 

My evidence:

 

- The proliferation of games that are F2P or have F2P elements demonstrate hat having free players around is necessary. If they weren't, the for profit companies would't be letting people mooch off their products and services.

 

- P2W being bad. I provided the example of Archeage. The majority of the game, crafting, trade runs, etc, all depended on cash shop items. The P2W elements in the game, combined with an economy based on the assumption that X amount of cash shop content would be used ended up driving hordes of players away from the game.

 

  - WoWS isn't bad on the first case, outside of a few exceptions, but the second is in definite conflict with the expectations some players may enter the game with 

  (I'm going to get to play a Yamato......what do you mean it'll take me a year of grinding just to get there, and upkeep requires me to play 2 T5 games for every Yamato game I play?)

 

  - An additional addendum, Being actually P2W is not as important as an appearance of P2W. Having high profile issues like "Buy a Belfast to rank out" = not god.

 

- As for evidence that games can get by without selling unique gameplay, I point you no further than LoL. LoL only works because of it's playerbase? Then I point you to games like DoTA, Hearthstone, Path of Exile, CS:GO, and so on.


Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


Raptor_alcor #31 Posted 11 May 2017 - 03:01 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 5,932
  • Member since:
    12-23-2012

View Post_RC1138, on 10 May 2017 - 04:15 AM, said:

I like ships like the Molotov, Graff Spee, and Atlanta in the spirit of premiums. Ships that either don't fit in a practical way in the trees or are slightly buffed, but uptiered versions of a tree ship. NOT the Belfast which is a tree ship, 'nerfed' and dropped a tier, or a blatant better version of a tree ship like the Texas.

 

I mean, the texas' only real draw is ungodly AA, so in matches without carriers you still are forced to show enough side to get citadelled and her bow can still be punched through by her own guns. 

The happy blue fox. 


Tembin #32 Posted 11 May 2017 - 03:17 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 446
  • Member since:
    10-11-2015

View Postyamatotamura, on 10 May 2017 - 04:07 AM, said:

Just please don't make more Kutusov and I'll be happy. 

Kaga? No need to fear just wip out a Saipan or an Atlanta and all your problems are solved. Plus Kaga will see Baltimore's so idt its over powered at all. 

 

As a CV, the iteration of the Kaga that I saw on youtube appeared massively OP.  Sure, it can show up in a match with Baltimores, but I would just cross drop DDs.  Two squads of 6 TBs with super fast torps will wreck DDs.  It might take some time to learn how to do that cross drop, but once mastered, they wouldn't stand a chance.

As for the Saipan...  I think I could deal with it.  It would be tough, but I think I could pull it off.  I really wish I could get my hands on this ship to test it though.

Jakajan #33 Posted 11 May 2017 - 04:42 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 888
  • Member since:
    09-26-2015
The Texas is better than a new York though with no drawback but .5 knots.

The Arizona is better than New Mexico.

And now a days every single premium BB will be compared to German BB of the same tier because they are so forgivingly sturdy.

Just like Harekaze will be compared not so much to Kaveri, but more so to Benson because she is the queen of DD for that tier

SireneRacker #34 Posted 11 May 2017 - 11:16 AM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,625
  • Member since:
    07-14-2015

View Postcomtedumas, on 11 May 2017 - 12:28 AM, said:

 

Look at your internet model without a internet connection some day and tell me how nice it is.

 

Since I am not living on the moon this is unlikely to happen and could be compared to nighttime with the power cut. Very unlikely to happen.

Proud member of [WAIFU], nothing beats Prinz Eugen

 

Torpedoes don't have any friends. So they will kill everything in their path. To prevent team kills we should all watch out where we fire those fishes. That means each and everyone of us, DDs of the second line!

No my name does NOT refer to those things from Odysseus! They refer to those loud things attached to a fire truck. Not to beautiful girls singing on the Ocean.


_Caliph_ #35 Posted 11 May 2017 - 01:30 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,089
  • Member since:
    09-18-2012

View Postissm, on 10 May 2017 - 09:31 PM, said:

 

I see a few major issues here.

 

1) You can't handle nuance. Ships aren't P2W just because they don't have 100% W/R. Ignoring the fact that premiums dominated the last ranked season, or how Takao and Kutuzov were extremely strong picks for the season before that.

 

2) I provided evidence. Your problem is you seem to be unable to accept anything but anecdotes as evidence - which, unfortunately, means you are unable to accept evidence, period.

 

My evidence:

 

- The proliferation of games that are F2P or have F2P elements demonstrate hat having free players around is necessary. If they weren't, the for profit companies would't be letting people mooch off their products and services.

 

- P2W being bad. I provided the example of Archeage. The majority of the game, crafting, trade runs, etc, all depended on cash shop items. The P2W elements in the game, combined with an economy based on the assumption that X amount of cash shop content would be used ended up driving hordes of players away from the game.

 

  - WoWS isn't bad on the first case, outside of a few exceptions, but the second is in definite conflict with the expectations some players may enter the game with

  (I'm going to get to play a Yamato......what do you mean it'll take me a year of grinding just to get there, and upkeep requires me to play 2 T5 games for every Yamato game I play?)

 

  - An additional addendum, Being actually P2W is not as important as an appearance of P2W. Having high profile issues like "Buy a Belfast to rank out" = not god.

 

- As for evidence that games can get by without selling unique gameplay, I point you no further than LoL. LoL only works because of it's playerbase? Then I point you to games like DoTA, Hearthstone, Path of Exile, CS:GO, and so on.

 

No Issm what you are doing is creating your own terms and definitions and changing them on the fly as you need to.

 

Let's start with Pay2Win. This term you toss around to place yourself in a moral high ground for anyone reading it. But if the ship can not be forced to win then it isn't Pay2Win. It's you labeling something you can not or will not afford as such. It's the personal name you give to the straw man you like to beat up.

 

You've provided no evidence. You have made assertions and fallacious claims.

 

Free players aren't necessary. They are useful though. Without free players the community would be smaller but financially stable. Free players provide none of the actual revenue needed to keep the game above water.

A large community isn't necessary for the games survival, a spending community is however because the servers cost money to run and the dev team has to be paid. I suppose theoretically a mega rich CEO could keep the game open with no income coming in if they wanted, but it's not the case here nor anywhere else.

 

This isn't Archeage. And what may or may not be bad in that game has no relevance to this game. It's just more of you demonizing things you can not or will not afford by muddying the waters with rhetoric about that game.

This isn't Dota or LoL. And actually I could display proof of how much money I've spent in Dota. I'm in for a few hundred every year around the International for the limited edition costumes and map that comes with the levels of the compendium. I would not buy cosmetics in this game for ships because the camos look ridiculous and it's just not the same.

 

If you enter the game with expectations whose fault is that? You're a free player, why expect anything? You certainly don't have an entitlement to anything.

 

The game doesn't appear Pay2Win to everyone. Just you. You speak for yourself. There is no large crowd of free players behind you, if that would even matter.

 

The proliferation of Free2Play games doesn't show free players importance. It shows a decline in peoples interest to pay a subscription for theme park mmos, patch cycles, forum politics that result in nerfs based on whinge and just the public waking up to being milked for a subpar experience. It also shows that a few Dev Studios considered if they could bring a million players to the game that if even a small portion spent some money that maybe they could be successful. The free players were never the important part. That's just the bait. As one who has played both I can tell you free players aren't the heaven sent influx you like to insist they are. Not only do they not have a financial stake in the games success, they have no fear from rule breaking and just as too many immigrants at once can change a country to the point it's cultural fabric is destroyed so to can a sudden wave of people who aren't tied to the community. Granted in WGs case this started as F2P so it doesn't apply. But much of the toxicity people complain about in games comes from free players. Anyone with money tied up in the game thinks long and hard before doing such.

 


Edited by _Caliph_, 11 May 2017 - 02:07 PM.


crzyhawk #36 Posted 11 May 2017 - 01:47 PM

    Admiral

  • Members
  • Beta Testers

  • 10,859
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015

View PostSireneRacker, on 10 May 2017 - 01:08 PM, said:

 

You pay, in case of the Prinz Eugen, 50$ for a detailed model of the ship. It can't get broken by your cat, you can sail it out, watch it fire, watch it burn, watch it sink. The only downside is that you don't hold it in your hands, other than that it is far better than any ship model I have ever seen.

 

My RC combat models sail out, shoot at things, and sink them/get sunk.  They cost a hell of a lot more than an 80 dollar prinz eugen though.


SireneRacker #37 Posted 11 May 2017 - 04:48 PM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,625
  • Member since:
    07-14-2015

View Postcrzyhawk, on 11 May 2017 - 02:47 PM, said:

My RC combat models sail out, shoot at things, and sink them/get sunk.  They cost a hell of a lot more than an 80 dollar prinz eugen though.

 

Can you set it on fire as well? :trollface:


Proud member of [WAIFU], nothing beats Prinz Eugen

 

Torpedoes don't have any friends. So they will kill everything in their path. To prevent team kills we should all watch out where we fire those fishes. That means each and everyone of us, DDs of the second line!

No my name does NOT refer to those things from Odysseus! They refer to those loud things attached to a fire truck. Not to beautiful girls singing on the Ocean.


issm #38 Posted 11 May 2017 - 07:51 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,844
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View Post_Caliph_, on 11 May 2017 - 08:30 AM, said:

~snip~

 

No, what you're doing is forcing absolute definitions, and ignoring nuance.

 

There is literally no game where paying literally hands you free wins. P2W ALWAYS comes in the form of "pay to have a huge advantage you'd have to be an idiot to lose with"

 

Furthermore, I'm not even accusing WoWS of being P2W. I've explicitly defended the game against such claims in the past.

 

HOWEVER.

 

Things like ranked last season, with the dominance of T7 premiums like Belfast and Scharnhorst, certainty does give the impression of being P2W - and impressions are, sadly, as important as substance.

 

~~~~~~

 

Second, I ask you again, IF FREE PLAYERS ARE NOT NESSESARY, WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED?

 

No, free players are not needed to financially support games.

 

But free players ARE necessary to maintain a quality level of gameplay.

 

Free players are necessary such that MM doesn't take 5 mins to find enough people for a 10 minute match, or that WG can keep a 3 tier spread with reasonable queue times, instead of having 5 tier spreads just so people only wait 5 minutes for a match instead of 10 minutes.

 

Online games need PLAYERS as well as revenue to survive.

 

It doesn't matter if the reason F2P is rising because people are no longer willing to pay for a subscription, or to B2P.

 

What matters is that you can no longer maintain a large enough playerbase through only paid users to have a game worth playing.

 

Regardless of reason, this makes free players necessary.


Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


_Caliph_ #39 Posted 12 May 2017 - 12:54 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,089
  • Member since:
    09-18-2012

View Postissm, on 11 May 2017 - 02:51 PM, said:

 

No, what you're doing is forcing absolute definitions, and ignoring nuance.

 

There is literally no game where paying literally hands you free wins. P2W ALWAYS comes in the form of "pay to have a huge advantage you'd have to be an idiot to lose with"

 

Furthermore, I'm not even accusing WoWS of being P2W. I've explicitly defended the game against such claims in the past.

 

HOWEVER.

 

Things like ranked last season, with the dominance of T7 premiums like Belfast and Scharnhorst, certainty does give the impression of being P2W - and impressions are, sadly, as important as substance.

 

~~~~~~

 

Second, I ask you again, IF FREE PLAYERS ARE NOT NESSESARY, WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED?

 

No, free players are not needed to financially support games.

 

But free players ARE necessary to maintain a quality level of gameplay.

 

Free players are necessary such that MM doesn't take 5 mins to find enough people for a 10 minute match, or that WG can keep a 3 tier spread with reasonable queue times, instead of having 5 tier spreads just so people only wait 5 minutes for a match instead of 10 minutes.

 

Online games need PLAYERS as well as revenue to survive.

 

It doesn't matter if the reason F2P is rising because people are no longer willing to pay for a subscription, or to B2P.

 

What matters is that you can no longer maintain a large enough playerbase through only paid users to have a game worth playing.

 

Regardless of reason, this makes free players necessary.

 

No one is going to buy $50 ships that are excluded from ranked play. Whether it's an advantage or not the reality is that it's how things are going to be. So it's pointless to argue over. If the ships are balanced enough for play at tier 7 random then whether they change the name to ranked or league doesn't matter. If you exclude them then the argument can be made that something is unfair about them so why allow them at all in any mode. You might as well build a bridge and get over that issue because WG isn't going to kill their income to appease your sense of fairplay.

 

Free players are large blocks of potential income. Until they become income they are a liability. They require extra server space to support. It's a gamble. That's why they are allowed. The same reason the casino allows people to come into the casino without demanding they provide a bank statement and cost of living report.

 

You're using circular logic to justify ever more need for more players. The queues wouldn't take any longer to fill, save for a game with literally not enough people to fill the queue to the point the game starts, than it will with a million people. You either have the required amount of people in the right ships to start the game or you don't. And there will always be stragglers waiting for enough to fill the next queue after every possible game has started. Further, if but 500 people in total played WoWs the game size could be scaled back to accommodate that. There is also a maximum amount of concurrent games the server could host and having too many people could very well increase queue times with that too. Unless those free players become spenders the hardware doesn't magically expand to accommodate them.
 

Quite frankly, having too many free players that do not convert to spenders increases the server overhead and cost to the point that the spenders can not possibly spend enough money to keep the game viable. So in reality the more that play and refuse to spend can very well lead to the games closing assuming they refused to start charging to play and opted to cancel the project instead.


 Sure ad revenue brings income but not what many like to claim it does. First, if you don't click those ads they bring nothing. Advertisers have many places to spend their advertising dollars and they aren't paying that money to host a gif on your site that no one bothers to click. Even if they do click the ad the revenue is chump change in the grand scheme of things. It's supplementary income at best and wouldn't scratch the paint in terms of cost if this forum and website were plastered with ads to the point every spot you clicked had one. Free players aren't going around clicking ads for a hobby either. It's a pipedream. Just like the dot.com collapse in the 90s.

 

Your whole premise boils down to games without large populations aren't fun and can't be successful. If that were the case we'd all be playing Warcraft, CSGO or Dota at the moment.


Edited by _Caliph_, 12 May 2017 - 01:18 AM.


issm #40 Posted 12 May 2017 - 01:18 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,844
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View Post_Caliph_, on 11 May 2017 - 07:54 PM, said:

 

No one is going to buy $50 ships that are excluded from ranked play. Whether it's an advantage or not the reality is that it's how things are going to be. So it's pointless to argue over. If the ships are balanced enough for play at tier 7 random then whether you change the name to ranked or league doesn't matter. If you exclude them then the argument can be made that something is unfair about them so why allow them at all in any mode. You might as well build a bridge and get over that issue because WG isn't going to kill their income to appease your sense of fairplay.

 

Free players are large blocks of potential income. Until they become income they are a liability. They require extra server space to support. It's a gamble.

 

You're using circular logic to justify ever more need for more players. The queues wouldn't take any longer to fill, save for a game with literally not enough people to fill the queue to the point the game starts, than it will with a million people. You either have the required amount of people in the right ships to start the game or you don't. And there will always be stragglers waiting for enough to fill the next queue after every possible game has started. Further, if but 500 people in total played WoWs the game size could be scaled back to accommodate that. There is also a maximum amount of concurrent games the server could host and having to many people could very well increase queue times with that too.
 

Quite frankly, having too many free players that do not convert to spenders increases the server overhead and cost to the point that the spenders can not possibly spend enough money to keep the game viable. So in reality the more that play can very well lead to the games closing assuming they refused to start charging to play and opted to cancel the project instead.

 

- Which is why I suggested that, you know, those premium ships be made available for free, in a difficult, but reasonable manner, a la Missouri, except without any premium bonuses.

 

But no, just because that wouldn't convince YOUR special snowflakeness to buy premium, it clearly would never work.

 

- Please, show how I'm using circular logic. You seem to be confusing "circular logic" with "feedback loop".

 

My logic is straightforwards and linear:

 

1) Online games are not fun if there are not sufficient people to play with

2) As B2P/S2P games lose players, the game slowly becomes less and less engaging.

  Ergo, fewer people > less fun > even fewer people > even less fun > etc.

3) The cause of this is completely irrelevant to the argument. It can be because people don't like the changes to the game, because they get sick of forum politics, whatever,

4) Free players solve this problem, by opening up the game to a huge new potential playerbase.

 

And sure, having too many free users for your paying players to support can absolutely be a problem, and pretending this isn't a valid problem is delusional. But pretending that free players are completely unnecessary is just as delusional.

 

If you want a successful game, you have to balance keeping your free players happy with converting enough of them to paying users to keep the lights on. Be too nice to the free players, and you risk running a deficit. Monetise too aggressively, and you risk losing your free playerbase. Both are bad for your game.

 

Selling objectively more powerful ships is a clear case of monetising too aggressively.


Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users