Jump to content


Keep WOT alive


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

Prosqtor #1 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 16:22

    Captain

  • Players
  • 58466 battles
  • 1,982
  • [ONION] ONION
  • Member since:
    12-16-2011

1. Put WOT on Steam.  An amazing number of gamers have never tried WOT.

2. Be nicer to new players.  Make it easier to avoid experienced players. 

3. Embrace true micro-transactions and lower prices.  Really, it is idiotic to pay as much for a premium tank as the cost of an AAA game.  "I" do it, but not everyone is an idiot.



TsarCidron #2 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 16:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 6750 battles
  • 7,772
  • [RAIDM] RAIDM
  • Member since:
    03-16-2012
Never going to Steam.  Wargaming doesnt want to share their profits (even if its to increase the profits)

Insanefriend #3 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 16:35

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 36822 battles
  • 263
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View PostTsarCidron, on Jun 09 2018 - 09:25, said:

Never going to Steam.  Wargaming doesnt want to share their profits (even if its to increase the profits)

 

Steam has quite a few free to play titles all ready, and I'm pretty sure the in game purchases don't kick back a cut to Steam.  Some of which i may add are the blitz versions of world of tanks and world of warships.

_Tsavo_ #4 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 16:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 40986 battles
  • 16,862
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    02-16-2011

They put the mobile Blitz version on steam for some stupid reason.  "Hey guys, here's our really dumbed down and simplified version of game for mobile phone type gamers!  Now on steam!"

 

What do we say about mobile phone/tablet/fablet gaming?  We don't because we're not neanderthals.



xrays_ #5 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 16:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 47719 battles
  • 3,669
  • [FELOW] FELOW
  • Member since:
    08-02-2013

View PostProsqtor, on Jun 09 2018 - 10:22, said:

3. Embrace true micro-transactions and lower prices.  Really, it is idiotic to pay as much for a premium tank as the cost of an AAA game.  "I" do it, but not everyone is an idiot.

 

I truly believe this alone could keep the game's population expanding for years to come. As it is, the prices are far too high for what you get in return, and even slashing all prices by half overnight would boost sales by more than 200%, thus retaining the same or more profit. It's my belief - no stats, so take it as you wish - that at this stage of the game (for me), the costs are the biggest detriment to spending more money.

 

Think about this:

   Tier VII Premium Tanks could cost $20. Wouldn't you think about purchasing more?

   1 Year of Premium time could cost $40. It was near that before (once), and would entice so many to purchase again or for the first time.

 

I am one of those "idiots" that spent the big bucks on this game, and I somewhat regret it because in the end it seems like too much money. I'm not angry or asking for refunds - or even up in arms about the possible changes ahead - but I do believe the prices are simply too high to sustain a growing population as the game ages closer to ten years old.

 

x.



CapPhrases #6 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 16:45

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 7161 battles
  • 3,321
  • [TXV] TXV
  • Member since:
    03-28-2015

"what? you want more premiums and Russian tanks comrade? do not worry we listen to players and this is what they want da?"

 

honestly though putting it on steam would be a nice first step to at least put it where a larger group can see it.

the premium tanks would sell more if the prices were slashed, volume would make up what they lose per sale cost. after all it costs them nothing to sell multiple tanks, they're just digital goods.



mlinke #7 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 17:03

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 48567 battles
  • 691
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
People bought tanks for ton of money and you want to slash prices? Do you think those people who gave money to wg will be happy about that?

the_dude_76 #8 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 17:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 32053 battles
  • 2,827
  • [GSRM] GSRM
  • Member since:
    12-27-2011

View Postmlinke, on Jun 09 2018 - 10:03, said:

People bought tanks for ton of money and you want to slash prices? Do you think those people who gave money to wg will be happy about that?

 

^^^This

 

Enraging half of your current player base in an effort to attract more people doesn't seem like a wise move. 



xrays_ #9 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 17:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 47719 battles
  • 3,669
  • [FELOW] FELOW
  • Member since:
    08-02-2013

View Postmlinke, on Jun 09 2018 - 11:03, said:

People bought tanks for ton of money and you want to slash prices? Do you think those people who gave money to wg will be happy about that?

 

Obviously, an overhaul of the pricing tables wouldn't happen instantly, but over a period of maybe a year. And ultimately, would you rather your money (or, investment, as some people see it) be useful in tanks that you can play because there are enough players to create battles or would you rather the game die in a few years because the costs are too high to boost the population?

 

In the "real world", prices on products typically go down over time, so I'm not sure why digital goods can't follow the same patterns, especially since there are no physical costs associated with generating more of the same product. I bought a 55" LCD screen 8 years ago for nearly $2,000 and that same screen (or similar) today sells for about $800 - I'm not upset at the drop in price, because I got those 8 years of enjoyment out of the screen. Unfortunately, in World of Tanks, WartGaming has decided to not decrease prices over time, and has possibly increased them as newer models were released.

 

x.



Kamahl1234 #10 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 17:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 18390 battles
  • 10,078
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View PostInsanefriend, on Jun 09 2018 - 15:35, said:

 

Steam has quite a few free to play titles all ready, and I'm pretty sure the in game purchases don't kick back a cut to Steam.  Some of which i may add are the blitz versions of world of tanks and world of warships.

 

They absolutely do. Steam isn't a free platform that any game can get hosted on. WG pays them for that. Both games you mentioned are lower population games, so WG decided to try it out to see the value. Clearly it's not high enough or they'd have added WoT to that list. 

 

Steam is also very good at making money, and that money is made through F2P games on their service as well. 



Kamahl1234 #11 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 17:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 18390 battles
  • 10,078
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View Postxrays_, on Jun 09 2018 - 16:32, said:

 

 

In the "real world", prices on products typically go down over time, so I'm not sure why digital goods can't follow the same patterns, especially since there are no physical costs associated with generating more of the same product. I bought a 55" LCD screen 8 years ago for nearly $2,000 and that same screen (or similar) today sells for about $800 - I'm not upset at the drop in price, because I got those 8 years of enjoyment out of the screen. Unfortunately, in World of Tanks, WartGaming has decided to not decrease prices over time, and has possibly increased them as newer models were released.

 

x.

In this case it's more because what you're paying for isn't so much a product that depreciates as it both becomes outdated, and potentially worn out with a finite life span (arguably this has a finite life span as well, but a different kind). It's because this is a service you're paying for.

 

It's not common to see say a cleaning service become 5$/hr because the service has been around for 80 years. It stays roughly at the same rate (adjusted for inflation) so a equivalent of say a 35$/hr service might stay at 35$/hr forever. 

 

 

WoT is gaming as a service, heck a lot of games are treated as such when they aren't even fully services. I can't tell you of any F2P games where prices on in-game goods would go down over time. 



ZoM_2014 #12 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 17:44

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 14478 battles
  • 165
  • [MUSK] MUSK
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View Postmlinke, on Jun 09 2018 - 10:03, said:

People bought tanks for ton of money and you want to slash prices? Do you think those people who gave money to wg will be happy about that?

 

Nope, but at the same time i think wg doesn't giv a single f**k since they are buffing the KV5 so it can see tier 10 but also anything at tier 6 and tier 7 now can't pen it. Next would be buffing Type 59 so it would see tier 10, and now thats gonna be a complete s**t show.

the_dude_76 #13 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 18:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 32053 battles
  • 2,827
  • [GSRM] GSRM
  • Member since:
    12-27-2011

View Postxrays_, on Jun 09 2018 - 10:32, said:

 

Obviously, an overhaul of the pricing tables wouldn't happen instantly, but over a period of maybe a year. And ultimately, would you rather your money (or, investment, as some people see it) be useful in tanks that you can play because there are enough players to create battles or would you rather the game die in a few years because the costs are too high to boost the population?

 

In the "real world", prices on products typically go down over time, so I'm not sure why digital goods can't follow the same patterns, especially since there are no physical costs associated with generating more of the same product. I bought a 55" LCD screen 8 years ago for nearly $2,000 and that same screen (or similar) today sells for about $800 - I'm not upset at the drop in price, because I got those 8 years of enjoyment out of the screen. Unfortunately, in World of Tanks, WartGaming has decided to not decrease prices over time, and has possibly increased them as newer models were released.

 

x.

 

You seem to be assuming that all of the people who play this game can think rationally. 

 

IRL, there are many factors which influence the reduced cost of things like tech that have little impact in a closed and virtual environment, economies of scale probably being the biggest. And of course there isn't really any competition to further drive down the cost. If you want a 55" TV you have many manufacturers to choose from each producing a product that is very similar. There are other games that have the same basic function, drive a tank and shoot sht, but there is a massive difference in content and quality. If WoT provides you with the experience you enjoy then WoT is the game you're going to play because there is nothing else that is basically the same thing. And if there is no risk that you'll spend your money on the same product being produced by someone else there is little incentive to reduce the cost.



GeorgePreddy #14 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 18:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 14345 battles
  • 9,264
  • [L_LEG] L_LEG
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

View PostZoM_2014, on Jun 09 2018 - 13:44, said:

Nope, but at the same time i think wg doesn't giv a single f**k since they are buffing the

KV5 so it can see tier 10 but also anything at tier 6 and tier 7 now   can't pen it.   can finally pen its rear and sides.

 

 

Fixed that for you.

 

 

 

 

 



george68 #15 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 19:03

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 76635 battles
  • 58
  • [RAI] RAI
  • Member since:
    02-14-2012

View PostProsqtor, on Jun 09 2018 - 15:22, said:

1. Put WOT on Steam.  An amazing number of gamers have never tried WOT.

2. Be nicer to new players.  Make it easier to avoid experienced players. 

3. Embrace true micro-transactions and lower prices.  Really, it is idiotic to pay as much for a premium tank as the cost of an AAA game.  "I" do it, but not everyone is an idiot.

 



george68 #16 Posted Jun 09 2018 - 19:04

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 76635 battles
  • 58
  • [RAI] RAI
  • Member since:
    02-14-2012
yes is too much crapin this game because of this many players are leavingyes is too much crapin this game because of this many players are leaving

warblade100 #17 Posted Jun 10 2018 - 00:58

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 11683 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    11-17-2013

main problem with wot right now is the match making in my opinion the match maker should prioritize battles between two tier not 3 as its so rare that you're top tier that you don't praise that aspect and being bottom tier is so prevalent that its frustrating, sure you're not useless but you're probably going to run in to one of the top tiers unless its you're team that's dominating.

a second problem is that the game is that there's too much camping. a way to fix that is make cover better the closer you get to the center of the battle that way you can be rewarded for pushing for example only have building that block arty at the center of the fray and the farther away you get the lower it would be making you a lot more likely to be sniped.

a third thing war gaming can do is stop having the left and right flank next to map border instead line the border with a tin line of bushes so that light tanks can spot the campers and to prevent the scouts from running amok the bushes are in a tin line next to the border so that in the case the light tank fires it will lose all the bonus as it cant get far enough behind the bush to not loose the bushes camo when firing. another thing you can do is in places that lights might want to hang out put a tin layer of water so they cant run away so quickly

a good example of the third is whit the new iteration of Erlinberg sometimes both teams mostly go center allowing for vehicles to dominate the sides of the center flank including the back of the line stragglers to in those situations i feel like the light has to much freedom which is why i am only trying to give them a tight rope of bushes near the edge.

lastly i don't ever think wargaming will ever implement this but i feel like perm ammo should have a 10% longer reload so that there is a trade of from using gold. as credits aren't a thing to people who always run on perm account with credit busters in a premium tank with a well set up clan.



docroberts #18 Posted Jun 10 2018 - 03:50

    Captain

  • Players
  • 18878 battles
  • 1,091
  • [TONKX] TONKX
  • Member since:
    03-08-2013

View PostTsarCidron, on Jun 09 2018 - 09:25, said:

Never going to Steam.  Wargaming doesnt want to share their profits (even if its to increase the profits)

 

Warships is on there now … 

rich73 #19 Posted Jun 10 2018 - 03:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 49580 battles
  • 6,217
  • Member since:
    10-17-2011

View Postthe_dude_76, on Jun 09 2018 - 08:28, said:

 

^^^This

 

Enraging half of your current player base in an effort to attract more people doesn't seem like a wise move. 

 

And yet they are changing  preferential premium tanks.

Prosqtor #20 Posted Jun 10 2018 - 05:54

    Captain

  • Players
  • 58466 battles
  • 1,982
  • [ONION] ONION
  • Member since:
    12-16-2011

View Postmlinke, on Jun 09 2018 - 11:03, said:

People bought tanks for ton of money and you want to slash prices? Do you think those people who gave money to wg will be happy about that?

 

Good golly, it happens all the time in the real world.  My purchases are sunk costs.  I want the game to succeed.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users