Jump to content
jokobet

Fundamental Flaws in Gameplay & Business Practices - Discussion

Recommended Posts

These are two videos by the Cloaking Donkey, a semi-known youtuber who makes an argument for why World of Warships and the way Wargaming tries to monetize it (and WoT) is pretty broken:

1. Argument why WoWs should not have gone into open beta (from a players point of view)

 

2. Argument why World of Warships is monetized in a questionable way:

 

His conclusion is to quit on making content in the youtube channel for the game.

A short list of main arguments for the lazy people around here:

Gameplay:

  • WoWs features imbalances between ship classes (Destroyers too strong at lower tiers, too weak at high tiers; the opposite for battle ships etc.)
  • Wargaming rather introduces new ships (German Cruisers, Russian Destroyers) than fix the old ones, the result being that those new ships are mostly underpowered
  • Very slow reaction times with regard to the needs of their customers (think arty, KV-1 and KV-1S, now battleships/destroyers, the role of RNG)

Monetization:

  • Both in WoWs and WoT, Wargaming focuses on milking whales, i.e. making super expensive bundles while making many tanks unnaturally scarce (think KV-5, Type 62, E25) and packaging them in overly expensive bundles
  • No shared gold/dubloons between WG ships and tanks, i.e. forcing people to pay more (otherwise especially CW veterans could easily play premiums in WoWs from their incomes in WoT CW).

To my own sadness, I mostly agree with him, especially the issue with milking whales is pretty annoying and I can understand that he leaves WoWs. In addition, I find the gameplay to be pretty repetitive because unlike with tanks where you will have a different outcome depending on lots of varieties and micromanaging terrain/weakspots etc., the variation in ships is very small - it really doesnt matter whether you are 1km further away from the enemy and driving around in circles shooting at each other gets old.

As such, I believe that WoWs as it is now will have a very short growth period (which could already be over) and will be an additional failed project by Wargaming who will get ever more desperate to milk their customers in WoT.

Please convince me that this is not true. It's sad to see a newly released game be nothing more than a cash-grabbing zombie. :eww:

 

Edited by jokobet
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I really hate in this modern world: "every donkey has to make a video which you have to watch for minutes, only to state some opinions that could have been written down in 3 sentences".

Ok, slightly unrelated, but a perfect example again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I really hate in this modern world: "every donkey has to make a video which you have to watch for minutes, only to state some opinions that could have been written down in 3 sentences".

Ok, slightly unrelated, but a perfect example again.

That fact that lengthy work could be summarized "in 3 sentences" has little to do with the modern world, just think of the relation between plot/core information and additional chitchat in classic novels by Fontane, classic operas by Händel or Verdi or even in religious texts like the Bible. If you think about architecture, it took a long time to develop Bauhaus and if you think about literature, Kafka was also a rather modern author. In fact, isn't the term "modern" itself often used for abstract or very reduced ways ("Scandinavian Design") to couple form and function.

It is, however, our modern world in which everbody can make a video. But then, it is on you to decide whether you want to watch it or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't play WoWS for the realism, the tightness of the game model, its competitiveness or anything else...I play it solely for the eye candy of playing WW2 ships, not having to imagine them trading salvos or firing a spread of torpedoes etc etc anymore, or subpar games, like Fighting Steel from way back in the mid 90's.

 

I think the people that play this game are WW2 naval junkies for the most part, first, gamers looking for a challenge 2nd.

 

And for what it is worth, I agree, your success and earnings in WoT should not carry over to WoWS, you should earn your way separately in both games. Maybe it is a bad business decision as it will take any sort of 'clan wars' a while to take off in WoWS. I think the WGLNA broadcasts are kinda well done and entertaining to listen to, from a WoT player perspective, and perhaps that would attract more people to WoWS, but again, I think the majority of people that play this game are naval buffs first, gamers 2nd...just my humble, uneducated opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the video arguments points out his perception of the flaws in Wargamings business model without offering subjective proof that doing it any other way would make Wargaming the same amount of money.  The whole point of Wargamings existence as a company is to make money, they are not social justice activists trying to make the world a better place. There is a reason that Apple charges a lot of money for iPhones, iPads and Macs, and upgrades them so frequently, it's to make the most amount of money that they can - not just enough to cover expenses, but to make the most they can.  Why?  Maybe so they can afford to pay their employees and shareholders a lot of money, who in turn can afford to be "whales" in the things that they choose to do for entertainment. Your entertainment ( and Mr. Donkey's side job ) are a source of income, one which Wargaming wants to protect but at the same time MAXIMIZE where at all possible.  They give people the base game for free, it is completely 100% playable without premium time, premium tanks, or premium consumables.  One does not need to be in a clan or play in ranked battles to have access to the game.  Enjoyment of the game MAY be significantly enhanced by any or all of the preceding cash investment options, but are not required.  So those who are poor can play the game like a poor person - if they want to get all the shiny options - get a job.

I never thought that WoWs would be close to WoT in terms of interest or participation.  I did think it would do much better than WoWp because of the actual dynamics of aerial combat, where an inordinate amount of time is spent flying around just trying to get in a position to get a shot on target.  The player base will skew older than WoT because of the game pacing - older players with slower reflexes can have a fighting chance in this game which requires more patience and forethought than some tank battles.  Older players have more money as well, which means that even if the game does not develop as large a playerbase, it may significantly more affluent and extend support for the product.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing has been said recently. But if you are playing WOWS, you will notice that the economies are vastly different. WOT is more exp limited, WOWS is credit limited. The gold to credit conversion factor is different. They could link gold across accounts. But not free exp. Free exp comes much more easily in WoWS, so linking that item of the economy won't happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could have sworn shortly after release something was said by WG about gold staying separate for WoT/WoWp and WoWs, but I haven't found the forum post yet. Will update if I do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They could link gold across accounts. But not free exp. Free exp comes much more easily in WoWS, so linking that item of the economy won't happen.

By that logic, they cannot link anything.  XP and credits come much more easily in ships.  Gold comes much more easily in tanks.  Until ships gets CW or tournaments that are as easily farmable as those in tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally I thought they said everything would be linked. Most recently they said only premium time would ever be linked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://na.wargaming.net/

Unified account. Unified economics. Unified gaming universe. Wargaming.net offers a unique world of epic online battles and ultimate struggle for global supremacy.

Show me any official statements that say it is NOT going to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually there are 2 seperate issues here.

First, the issue is not WG making money but rather that they don't live up to their promises. They said they would fully sync accounts but they didn't and most likely won't. Moreover, bundling limits the freedom of customers into a narrow spread of choices, i.e. pricing some customers out of the market. Take two goods, bundle them, group customers in 2 categories (A = wants both products, B = wants only one of the two, be it gold or a ship/tank). Group A is well catered for and potentially better off due to bundling discounts but group B is forced to either buy the bundle and pay more than they wanted to (unnecessary dubloons) or not buy at all, i.e. some are effectively priced out of the market. In effect, WG themselves price some of their own customers out of their own game.

From a global point of view, you can argue this is fair but it sucks from the pov of these customers and this is what the Cloaking Donkey complains about. When creating a F2P game, the company itself invites everyone to play and players cross-fund each other. This is partially prevented by excessive use of bundling as described above, limits the choice of potential customers and arguably increases a company's welfare at the expense of social welfare and is therefore inefficient (check economic theory on bundling and price discrimination). This is a very capitalist argument, btw, not a "feel-good-about-society" one.

Whatever the stance on the monetization, however, this leads to a 2nd conclusion:

2. WoWs is not growing anymore and maybe already dying.

The playerbase of a F2P game can be divided into a large part that does play for free and a small part that pays for the game. This part can itself be divided into groups of players, notably a majority that pays a little every now and then a minority (whales) who pays a lot. The whales are more likely to stick to the game due to their sunk costs and the majority group is more mobile (more newcomers but also more likely to leave when they dislike the game as they have smaller sunk costs). The thing is that the above-described group B (see 1.) is most likely to overlap with the flexible majority while group A overlaps with the whales.

WG caters more and more for those inflexible whales and (relatively!) less and less for newcomers and flexible spend-a-little-sometimes-users, this indicates that whales get relatively more important and newcomers etc. less so.

(Note: Edited from now on)

This is something that may happen when a game is past its peak in its life-cycle, alternatively, WG simply changed their monetization strategy for some reason.

If the first explanation is true, WoT is likely past its peak (no surprise but doesn't matter too much due to the sheer size as World of Warcraft shows) but so is World of Warships, ironically at the time of its release. As it appears, it is either a zombie (small but stable playerbase, mainly whales) or dying (playerbase declining). That being said, it means that investing time and/or money into the game is pointless for players who care about competitive aspects unless you simply like the history part or are a ship nut.

Edited by jokobet
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not interesting in inflating CloakingFuckwit's viewer count. He's a salty shitter with an axe to grind.

 

Edited by OnboardG1
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://na.wargaming.net/

Show me any official statements that say it is NOT going to happen.

Looks like WG has modified their post, but at the very least it's not going to happen this year.

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/47684-official-launch-date-september-17/page__pid__1185134#entry1185134

Currently premium accounts for the whole trilogy are unified as well as login, password, nickname etc. All information about any sort of further account unification will come with a separate announcement.

EDIT: Clarified wording about Unified Accounts

Edited by Quemapueblos, 04 September 2015 - 10:36 AM.

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/49866-unified-account/page__p__1233921#entry1233921

 

 

 

Edited by engineered
Link to post
Share on other sites

CloakingDonkey is not only bad at the game, he's also barely played it since Open Beta came out.  That was in July.  He's played 32 battles above tier 5.  He made a video a few days ago about how terrible the upcoming Russian destroyers are, when other streamers were running around wrecking things because they knew how to use the detection-range deadzone and he had no clue.  Why anybody continues to give a shit about his opinions is beyond me.

He's literally the Stephen A. Smith of WoWS YouTube "personalities".  If he's going to cease making videos about a game that he seemingly quit months ago, that can only be considered a positive thing for the WoWS community.

As for unified accounts, my guess is that gold between WoWS and WoT will only be unified once WoWS has it's own tournaments, skirmishes, and possibly clan wars in order to provide it's own in-house gold-winning system to compete with a sudden surge of incoming tourney and CW gold from WoT.

Edited by Mesrith
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am totally not suprised by his departure from WoWs. Furthermore his main argument is: "I want to earn money from Youtube, Wargaming is not facilitating this, so I leave".

If your freaking motivation for making videos related to games isn't helping the community with good content then what the hell do you expect from that community/developer?

Most of his content related to WoWs was subjective and when it would come to the "facts" he is most of the time plainly wrong.... 

 

Every argument he has on the monetization of WoWs by WG can be dealt with in 1 sentence: "you do not have to buy their product all, you can play it for free"

(and yes I tested this is CBT: I ran an account for 4 weeks without premium account/ships and actually worked my way up to tier9)

 

 

Edited by DeleRT83
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the video arguments points out his perception of the flaws in Wargamings business model without offering subjective proof that doing it any other way would make Wargaming the same amount of money.  The whole point of Wargamings existence as a company is to make money, they are not social justice activists trying to make the world a better place. There is a reason that Apple charges a lot of money for iPhones, iPads and Macs, and upgrades them so frequently, it's to make the most amount of money that they can - not just enough to cover expenses, but to make the most they can.  Why?  Maybe so they can afford to pay their employees and shareholders a lot of money, who in turn can afford to be "whales" in the things that they choose to do for entertainment. Your entertainment ( and Mr. Donkey's side job ) are a source of income, one which Wargaming wants to protect but at the same time MAXIMIZE where at all possible.  They give people the base game for free, it is completely 100% playable without premium time, premium tanks, or premium consumables.  One does not need to be in a clan or play in ranked battles to have access to the game.  Enjoyment of the game MAY be significantly enhanced by any or all of the preceding cash investment options, but are not required.  So those who are poor can play the game like a poor person - if they want to get all the shiny options - get a job.

I never thought that WoWs would be close to WoT in terms of interest or participation.  I did think it would do much better than WoWp because of the actual dynamics of aerial combat, where an inordinate amount of time is spent flying around just trying to get in a position to get a shot on target.  The player base will skew older than WoT because of the game pacing - older players with slower reflexes can have a fighting chance in this game which requires more patience and forethought than some tank battles.  Older players have more money as well, which means that even if the game does not develop as large a playerbase, it may significantly more affluent and extend support for the product.

This reasoning is incredibly obnoxious and has an annoying tendency of being wrong. There's no natural law that for-profit entities always do the most profitable thing, even big companies like Wargaming.

 

"Milk the whales for all you can" isn't by default the best business model. In large part, the whales will be spending a lot of money on the game whatever you do. If you believe forum posts, some people are spending nearly $100 a week on tanks. Even with its relatively whale-friendly model, nobody's spending that kind of money just on buying the newly released premiums.

World of Warships isn't inherently a game for whales, that's absurd. It's a game for whales because it's marketed to whales. There's no reason to assume a game about boats won't get anywhere. Before tanks was released, who'd have thought a third person shooter/low realism simulator about WWII tanks would get so popular? (and remember that in the first couple years of tanks they weren't selling nearly as many whale bundles, Type 59 cost ~30-40 dollars, and the first tank lines didn't have many overpowered tier 10s gated behind godawful middle tiers) There's a lot of money in the "sometimes spends money on a game" group, but the way this game prices its premium items discourages them from buying in.

If your game is free to play, expect it to be judged as a free game.

 

Aside from one dollar on the humble bundle (none of which went to Wargaming), I haven't spent any money on this game. I spend more than $70 a month on entertainment - I could easily have bought a Tirpitz on my entertainment budget, but I don't just buy a ship because it's there and I have the money. That 70 dollar ship is competing against other things, it's not just "well I have 70 dollars, and world of boats is selling a boat for 70 dollars, so I guess I'll buy it!" It's incredibly short-sighted to say that people aren't spending money on boats because they can't afford it; people aren't spending money on boats because they don't think it's worth it. If someone had given me a hundred dollars on the day Tirpitz sales started I still wouldn't have bought a premium ship.

 

For an analogy, why not look at other videogame sales? Computer wargames tend to be priced as new AAA releases, even years after their release. If you look at computer wargame forums (don't) you'll often see posters, even developers and publishers, criticizing the idea of going on a mainstream platform like Steam or selling their game for less. It's a niche title after all, and the people who play it spend enough on their hobby that $80 isn't much, right?

Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations is far more of a niche title than World of <thing> could ever dream of being. It simulates airstrikes and naval battles in excruciating detail, and its user interface has such friendly decisions as writing "RTB when Winchester" instead of "return to base when out of ammo," with no translation to normal language. Its standard price tag is eighty dollars. And it makes far more - not just more raw sales, more money total - when it goes on Steam sale. That's not unique, it's consistent across virtually anything.

 

You cannot compare virtual goods with zero marginal costs of production to Apple products. They do not work the same way.

 

Of all the things I've seen on this forum, going into a screed on your personal political beliefs to defend overpriced ship bundles is definitely some quality gamers.txt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every argument he has on the monetization of WoWs by WG can be dealt with in 1 sentence: "you do not have to buy their product all, you can play it for free"

 

This is wrong, the monetization is an issue because it drives people away from the game. The argument for that you can find a few posts above - if you feel something is wrong with my argument, please tell me. But just saying "It's f2p, so you don't have to play it" does not touch the issue at all.

I cannot can't comment on skill or his evaluation of ships in the game, it's absolutely possible that he is talking rubbish there. And for his motivation - true, probably not the most noble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is wrong, the monetization is an issue because it drives people away from the game. The argument for that you can find a few posts above - if you feel something is wrong with my argument, please tell me. But just saying "It's f2p, so you don't have to play it" does not touch the issue at all.

I cannot can't comment on skill or his evaluation of ships in the game, it's absolutely possible that he is talking rubbish there. And for his motivation - true, probably not the most noble.

After reading your arguments I had written about 50 sentences about whats wrong with it and why it totally does not apply to this situation. I deleted it all and I think I can summarize it in 1 sentence: "You make an insane amount of assumptions and are basing 0 on actual numbers/facts" (almost like Cloaking Donkey ;) ). Actually, if you look really closely to your argument, you can almost find 1 assumption in every sentence. Maybe you do have sources or numbers. Then your story, could actually be an argument, which I would be really interested in. However, I think you could be surprised with the found information yourself.

tl;dr: don't confuse opinions with facts

Edited by DeleRT83
Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading your arguments I had written about 50 sentences about whats wrong with it and why it totally does not apply to this situation. I deleted it all and I think I can summarize it in 1 sentence: "You make an insane amount of assumptions and are basing 0 on actual numbers/facts" (almost like Cloaking Donkey ;) ). Actually, if you look really closely to your argument, you can almost find 1 assumption in every sentence. Maybe you do have sources or numbers. Then your story, could actually be an argument, which I would be really interested in. However, I think you could be surprised with the found information yourself.

tl;dr: don't confuse opinions with facts

Ofc these are assumptions. I know that I cannot prove whether WG profit-maximizes, whether customers decide not to buy at all if they have to decide between spending 50€ on a bundle or none at all or whether the WoWs player base has a larger share of players who pay nothing than the share of players who pay something. But I see little reason not to believe that these assumptions are correct. I'd be interested in your 50 sentences and I don't mind being shown why you think these assumptions have no basis, on the contrary.

I have put quite some money into WoWs so I would in fact be happy if I was wrong. Finally, my wording with regard to dead or zombie was too harsh, I freely admit that.

Edited by jokobet
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ofc these are assumptions. I know that I cannot prove whether WG profit-maximizes, whether customers decide not to buy at all if they have to decide between spending 50€ on a bundle or none at all

There's clearly a third choice of buying a different premium ship, and potentially a fourth choice of buying the same ship later when/if it's released unbundled. You can only sell each premium ship to each player once, and 16 Tirpitzes in a game is not good.

If the game was actually dying, the natural response is a fire sale, not time-restricted whale bundles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, all the information could be found in academic literature combines with company information websites (with information on finances/year reports and so on). Thats a little bit to much work for me if I am honest, but lets go to the beginning of this thread and lets discuss the points 1 by 1:

 

Gameplay:

  • WoWs features imbalances between ship classes (Destroyers too strong at lower tiers, too weak at high tiers; the opposite for battle ships etc.)
  • Wargaming rather introduces new ships (German Cruisers, Russian Destroyers) than fix the old ones, the result being that those new ships are mostly underpowered
  • Very slow reaction times with regard to the needs of their customers (think arty, KV-1 and KV-1S, now battleships/destroyers, the role of RNG)

Monetization:

  • Both in WoWs and WoT, Wargaming focuses on milking whales, i.e. making super expensive bundles while making many tanks unnaturally scarce (think KV-5, Type 62, E25) and packaging them in overly expensive bundles
  • No shared gold/dubloons between WG ships and tanks, i.e. forcing people to pay more (otherwise especially CW veterans could easily play premiums in WoWs from their incomes in WoT CW).

 

 

Gameplay:

  • For the first argument: The game is officially launched now, but is it? Lets be honest here, it is still under development and calling this game "complete" would be a joke. No arguing here, it does face imbalances. One could argue that players need to mature in the game to deal with those "unbalances" and a skilled player could see that there are some imbalances, but for the DD/BB/CA those are actually not that big (if you know how to play them)
  • Does WG prioritize new tech trees? Didn't CloakingDonkey just admit in his own video that he has no contact at all with ANY of the WG employees. So how does he know this? What is the product/development/marketing roadmap for the game? New ships underpowered? You got to be kidding me: RU DDs can be insanely OP, if you know how to exploit it, yet again, the player needs to learn. KM Cruisers, will most likely also have an aspect that can be "exploited". CloakingDonkey has very little understanding of the game, this "new ships are OP argument" is another example of that
  • WG is a huge company with different titles and quite a big player base with an insane amount of different communities (only the language regions alone are quite a lot). Furthermore, each patch of World of Warships some the mayor issues have been adressed (and come on: replays not working...... which games have that as a core component? And who actually watches replays apart from youtubers (so no mayor game issue there)). Do not forget that in the World of Tanks startuptime, WG wasn't that big at all. It is a bad comparison.

Monetization:

  • Monetization wise Wargaming is focussing on people spending money on the game. This is not so strange. However, in WoT only 25% spends money and 1-2% can be called a "whale" (more then $100 a month). What are the incentives for these "whales" to spend their money? I hardly think that is to buy a ship that has nothing special at all to it. Overly expensive? For 98% of the players, probably yes. For "whales"? Probably no. So the pricing will be right. If these "whales" find the prices to high, they will spend it on something different, wargaming will notice this in the sales and they will adjust it accordingly
  • No shared gold/doubloons: I think someone already answered that in a previous post. It will be there in the future. Again CloakingDonkey claims this is technically not an argument. Wait WHAT? Did he just gained secret inside knowledge of WG? Oooh wait, he actually did not talk with ANY of the WG employees....... Please keep in mind that the priority of WG is to focus on the development of the game which satisfies most of their customers. A part of that customer used to play World of Tanks. Not all and not many have a big amount of gold on their WoT account (we do, but well, this is Wotlabs ;) ), so again, no big priority at the moment if you would think logically

Now as you can see, there are issues, but the issues are there for just a small fraction of the players. If you add some dramatic music, some lagging gameplay and let your viewers believe that it affects everyone that plays the game, well, you have a good youtube movie, but thats about it.

Edited by DeleRT83
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's clearly a third choice of buying a different premium ship, and potentially a fourth choice of buying the same ship later when/if it's released unbundled. You can only sell each premium ship to each player once, and 16 Tirpitzes in a game is not good.

If the game was actually dying, the natural response is a fire sale, not time-restricted whale bundles.

For players who just want a premium ship, the 3rd option works but for those who want exactly this one ship it doesn't. And regarding 4th, some ships don't appear unbundled at all - btw, I rely on Cloaking Donkey here, I haven't checked it for ships but for tanks. I agree on the fire sale, however, so that would be a point against CD's claims.

Well, all the information could be found in academic literature combines with company information websites (with information on finances/year reports and so on). Thats a little bit to much work for me if I am honest, but lets go to the beginning of this thread and lets discuss the points 1 by 1:

Monetization:

  • Monetization wise Wargaming is focussing on people spending money on the game. This is not so strange. However, in WoT only 25% spends money and 1-2% can be called a "whale" (more then $100 a month). What are the incentives for these "whales" to spend their money? I hardly think that is to buy a ship that has nothing special at all to it. Overly expensive? For 98% of the players, probably yes. For "whales"? Probably no. So the pricing will be right. If these "whales" find the prices to high, they will spend it on something different, wargaming will notice this in the sales and they will adjust it accordingly
  • No shared gold/doubloons: I think someone already answered that in a previous post. It will be there in the future. Again CloakingDonkey claims this is technically not an argument. Wait WHAT? Did he just gained secret inside knowledge of WG? Oooh wait, he actually did not talk with ANY of the WG employees....... Please keep in mind that the priority of WG is to focus on the development of the game which satisfies most of their customers. A part of that customer used to play World of Tanks. Not all and not many have a big amount of gold on their WoT account (we do, but well, this is Wotlabs ;) ), so again, no big priority at the moment if you would think logically

Now as you can see, there are issues, but the issues are there for just a small fraction of the players. If you add some dramatic music, some lagging gameplay and let your viewers believe that it affects everyone that plays the game, well, you have a good youtube movie, but thats about it.

I can't comment on the gameplay stuff because I simply have no grasp of the game myself so I assume you are right with your reply. But regarding monetization, the question arises why WG suddenly seems so eager to cater for whales when in the past they did less so. Maybe it just is their new general strategy because they recently discovered that this way they make more money but maybe player base growth is levelling out. As you said, I don't have numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't comment on the gameplay stuff because I simply have no grasp of the game myself so I assume you are right with your reply. But regarding monetization, the question arises why WG suddenly seems so eager to cater for whales when in the past they did less so. Maybe it just is their new general strategy because they recently discovered that this way they make more money but maybe player base growth is levelling out. As you said, I don't have numbers.

If you consider the following assumptions:

  • WoT/WoWP/WoWs is run by WG
  • Sales & Marketing of WG has good experiences in a mature user base of WoT with selling in packages. The profits are good (assumption)
  • WoWP was a failure and such it would not be a stretch to think it was a financial disaster for WG
  • Sales & Marketing of WG wants to try the selling of bundles in WoW, because they have good experiences with that within WoT and they are most likely instructed for high Sales, as WG wants to make sure WoWs won't at least be a financial disaster (assumption)

Wether this "bundle selling" is a good idea in a relative young game and a relative young game community (with that I mean the community itself is fairly young, I do not mean the average age of the players in the community) is a whole other thing. I wouldn't be surprised that the Sales&Marketing department has a monthly/quarterly meeting with the Community Managers and that they will get feedback from those CMs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the reason they can get away with such expensive bundles is that there was and is a tremendous interest in WoWs.  People want to see the ships...these are the things that capture nerds hearts and wallets.  Far more so than random Japanese tank, or Russian tank of the month.  

Wait and see what happens when they release a Yorktown Class USS Enterprise premium carrier for $60.  That thing will sell like hotcakes because of the historical connection alone.  Part of the reason why people race up the German tree in WoT...so they can play a Tiger tank.  

Also, no they game is not even remotely close to be a finished product, but it's not really what you would call a beta product either.  It's a totally playable and stable (for me anyway) game.  It just doesn't have much depth yet.  But it's getting there.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...