No license and how it hurts the community.

Game Discussion Levelling and Economy
41

$10.50/month is expensive? What demographic should an online game be chasing that can’t afford 30 cents a day?

 

It’s fine in a F2P model where that money is used to advance a player farther than a free user. That’s just common knowledge. Getting back to the topic, the question should be, “Do I really need to spend $10.50 a month to ensure I play with more than one person at a time?”

 

 

I’m sure some people are willing to continue using the excuse its “free 2 play” or “that isnt much money” but for some people like myself I enjoy comparing value vs cost, and the value of one ship for 25+ dollars, or 10.50 a month to simply ASSIST with my grind is a bit too much money for myself to pay and the numbers of people leaving show me that I’m not alone.

 

I’m in that category to an extent but I don’t mind giving back to the game, especially if I’ve had a lot of fun with it. I can see a license purchase once, maybe twice, but I can’t drop $10 a month all the time and I don’t have the luxury of buying ships/items so I completely agree with you. I mostly play games with my friends and the entire purpose of playing with them is to do just that. If the issues of free vs. paid squad size isn’t resolved I probably won’t play this as much after a month or two.

 

I think you’re correct about the reason people are leaving.

42

I much expect that having one or two people pay for a license so that all their friends can play together will work for a little while, until those licenses run out.

 

You’re going to have a larger pool of players who don’t want to pay, obviously.

The people who do pay though, how many times will they buy a license? Once? Twice? Five or six times? They’re going to spend hundreds of dollars to play with their friends?

 

And you expect 25% of the playerbase to buy a license? It’ll be more like 5-10% at best, so what of those 90% of players without a license? Even if all of them knew a friend with one, they wouldn’t have a chance to play with friends all the time. There are going to be many many people who never even get the opportunity to play in a group.

 

When these people stop buying licenses, what then? That social aspect of the game might as well be gone. If you think it’s bad now, wait until people get a little burned out on it in a few months, AND can’t play with any friends. Why stick around with this game, when they can play other games, for free, with their friends? It’ll create embittered formerly loyal customers who will turn away other potential players from the game.

 

Trouble is, businesses are very bad at seeing this sort of thing, of thinking ahead effectively once on a set path. I daresay greed - the possibility that things won’t happen this way and it’ll work out like World of Tanks - is the only thing being considered for the future, that it’s blinding the company to greater long term profits. I imagine when things go south, that Gaijin will wait right up until player numbers are falling critically, and then they will remove the restriction to attract more players. At that point, it will be futile, they’ll have waited until it’s too late. Making much the same mistake that so many pay to play MMO’s have made in the past. Did free-to-play save LOTR online, Warhammer online, Star Wars the Old Republic, and a half dozen other MMO’s? No! Removing the restriction on friends playing with friends won’t save this game either, when the time comes.

 

If something needs to change with this business model, it needs to happen now, while the playerbase has room for growth and the game isn’t well known. Not after it’s in its death throes.

43

On the other hand this business model works for them pretty well in War Thunder so far, so I don’t think they would agree with you on that one.

 

Many folks here describe issues with free 2 play model which aren’t actually rooted in the model itself but in most cases created by “consumer” mentality of players.

Statements like “some people like myself enjoy comparing value vs cost” could apply when buying new PC, car or taking your GF for a dinner - but become pretty much invalid when you try to use them when talking about gaming industry and virtual items.

 

Only way for a game to make money on “comparing value vs cost” crowd is to sell power items. Pay to win. There’s no doubt about it. Bigger storage, faster ships, better weapons. That’s because this kind of items represent value in wider context - hence gaining a “real value”.

 

Any other item - not only cosmetics but also XP boosts - can have only subjective value, hence they appeal only to certain people while can be totally worthless in perception of other players.

What that sticker really gives me? People barely can see it in the combat anyway, right?

 

Truth is, F2P model won’t change or be more “fair” for non-paying customers if that mentality won’t change. Most of the games you pay 50$ for you can finish during a weekend. Some - maybe week or two. Very few have long lasting value - and mostly because you are asked to pay even more for all sort of DLCs. So, yeah - argument with one payment and months of fun with free patches is rather invalid, no?

 

Now, back to Star Conflict - take a look at your profile and see how many hours you spent in the game, and how much you spent already per hour of fun playing the game.

 

Seriously. most people need to understand that you don’t pay for that ship, sticker or even ability to form bigger squad in this case - you pay because you want to contribute towards this game existence on the market. You pay to show developers and distributors that it’s worth putting hours of their time and thousands $$ to create and release such game. Finally, you pay them to show them that they indeed don’t have to introduce power items to earn any serious money.

 

And you know what’s most invalid in your statements?

You don’t have to pay at all. No one is forcing you to do so. Whether you stick to the game or come back here after 6 months you’ll still be able to play it and enjoy it - with all patches and new content brought in the meantime. Maybe engine improvements, maybe new items, maybe new maps or global domination game.

 

Where all that fits to your “value vs cost” equation?

 

Honestly, what makes most of  F2P titles collapse - even those with great character and gameplay - are people who keep complaining about donations prices  - because it’s so difficult for them to sacrifice those 4 beers / month.

 

Also - gotta love how every time in such discussion there is some doom-sayer with “game will die” statements while giving most dull and repetitive WoW clones existing out there as an example. 

 

*Hint: the reason why those titles you mentioned have a problem is not their transition to F2P but blunt gameplay, broken system favouring wallet-warriors total disrespect for the player-base and high hype with established IP they failed to approach properly.

44

I was under the impression that War Thunder did not force people to pay money to play with friends.

45

The last thread commenting on this subject was locked because it turned into a whine/rage fest. I suggest that we use this one as a way to calmly explain how not being able to invite more than one person into a squad is not a proper social tactic for this game.

 

My friends and I don’t make a lot of money. That doesn’t mean we’re not willing to give a little back to games that give us fun at no cost. I come from a group of gamers. We’ve been together for over seven years now and we play every game together. It’s hard enough splitting the group because we could only have a maximum of four people to a squad. But we figured it was a reasonable size based on the F2P model. We sometimes have an odd-man out but we manage to deal with it.

 

Now we’re faced with a real dilemma. I’m sure some of us will be willing to put money into this game but the idea of only needing one person with a license to fill a squad is good only on paper. My friends and I live in different time zones and even different countries. We try to see each other as often as we can but after seven years life has nudged it’s way between some of us. Work, school, girl-friends, marriage; Some of us can’t always show up for our “game-time.”

 

I realize other games have used this very same tactic of reduced party size but I was hoping that Star Conflict had learned from those games. They are NOT good mechanics. They divide friends and keep the community far from each other. I’ve had plenty of games this past week where I’ve invited random people to my squad because they were nice, fun, or good players. If I didn’t have a license I wouldn’t be able to do that anymore. I’d have to choose between making new friends or keeping the ones I have.

 

That’s just horrible.

 

For me, this aspect takes away the most important part of the game. Meeting new people who love to go pew pew in space.

 

I suggest that this should be a priority and should be changed immediately. There is nothing more important than keeping a community thriving and close-knit. I hope everyone understands the implications of this affect, socially and financially.

 

 

 

TL;DR Version: I understand reduction for in-game currency and reputation but there should be no reason to punish social interaction for people who don’t pay. A proper F2P model should give basic social rights to all players and give paying players unique ways to express themselves through skins, stickers, ship models, and the luxury of quicker leveling/money making.

 

We should be able to max squads regardless of our license.

I agree with you. I have set group of friends in other countries i play with (around 5-8 of us at a time), and we have already been fighting this issue ourselfs =( We have to have 3+ squads going to play together. Which makes if very frustrating that we can not game together with out paying out of pocket for it. I really hope this gets fixed in the future.

 

I understand companies need to make money through cash shops and selling points to buy ingame stuff, thats fine, but stick to cosmetic stuff IMO. Selling power drives people away (which this game does not seem to do). Selling socialization is bad also. Along with restricting end game content to “subscribers” (one of the reasons i wont play SOE games any more)

46

Something isn’t right, two weeks ago when I was playing there were over 2.5 thousand players on, the last few days(licenses running out I’m going to guess) there’s barely been 1.5k dropping even low as 1.1-1.2 (evenings eastern times for me).     It’s scary  ><

47

Sorry Original Poster, I have to disagree on the basis that platoon sizes are already too large.  4 man platoons mean 50% of the enemy team is a well-oiled, voice-enabled, killing machine…  I solo queue a lot, and platoons are already a problem for me.  One platoon of 3l33tz on the enemy team and its a loss. 

 

I’d rather not see more platoons of 4.  I dont think people should be (practically) guarenteed a win because they have 3 other friends playing at the same time.  Way too often I see a bunch of clanless solo-pugs (including myself) vs SuperInjusticeLeagueSuperPalSquad!  /flex

 

Now if they’d increase battles to 15 v 15 while also reducing platoon sizes to 3, then I’d not be so opposed to your idea.

 

48

Something isn’t right, two weeks ago when I was playing there were over 2.5 thousand players on, the last few days(licenses running out I’m going to guess) there’s barely been 1.5k dropping even low as 1.1-1.2 (evenings eastern times for me).     It’s scary  ><

 

yea they are killing there game. by putting all the focas into war thunder. the latest news feed was nice. but still doesnt actually give us anything except for " we are doing this" but the game will be dead by the time they do anything. and its their own fault. and it sucks because this game has so much chance to be amazing and good.

49

Sorry Original Poster, I have to disagree on the basis that platoon sizes are already too large.  4 man platoons mean 50% of the enemy team is a well-oiled, voice-enabled, killing machine…  I solo queue a lot, and platoons are already a problem for me.  One platoon of 3l33tz on the enemy team and its a loss. 

 

I’d rather not see more platoons of 4.  I dont think people should be (practically) guarenteed a win because they have 3 other friends playing at the same time.  Way too often I see a bunch of clanless solo-pugs (including myself) vs SuperInjusticeLeagueSuperPalSquad!  /flex

 

Now if they’d increase battles to 15 v 15 while also reducing platoon sizes to 3, then I’d not be so opposed to your idea.

 

This was already addressed in the thread.

 

If the case is that 4-man squads turns the team into a rape machine, then in essence, paying money to team up with people is paying to win.

 

Would you not prefer everyone be on an equal footing and if you want to compete, you can simply just join a squad with friends working together for free, or would you prefer that such things be relegated only to those with the money?

50

Sorry Original Poster, I have to disagree on the basis that platoon sizes are already too large.  4 man platoons mean 50% of the enemy team is a well-oiled, voice-enabled, killing machine…  I solo queue a lot, and platoons are already a problem for me.  One platoon of 3l33tz on the enemy team and its a loss. 

 

I’d rather not see more platoons of 4.  I dont think people should be (practically) guarenteed a win because they have 3 other friends playing at the same time.  Way too often I see a bunch of clanless solo-pugs (including myself) vs SuperInjusticeLeagueSuperPalSquad!  /flex

 

Now if they’d increase battles to 15 v 15 while also reducing platoon sizes to 3, then I’d not be so opposed to your idea.

 

 

More people would be a good idea, either way. Sounds like that would be a lot of fun.

 

I do understand the pain in solo queue but there have been just as many times where one side had 4 man squads and was still beaten. For such a team oriented game it’s just shocking to me that they would reserve more team members for paying players.

 

It wouldn’t be a problem if the game modes didn’t focus on the fact that they are all VERY team dependent. Free for All, Rabbit, Last Team Standing; These kinds of modes would fit much better for Solo queue players who could actually shine in them.

 

To be honest I wouldn’t mind if it was reduced to 2 squad members, I would just want to see things equal across the board. As it stands now, paying offers the privilege or potential of better team composition.

51

I had a really long response provided for OXIA and a few others in this thread but really what it comes down to is this.

 

 

If you dismiss my “value vs cost” then you might be losing a customer.  If you think this only applies to real world things and not virtual ones then you are sadly mistaken and I have no idea where or how you got that idea.  If you think that people will not pay for quick-advancement but not “power” and cosmetics then you’ve not seen the success of League of Legends.

 

I look at the cost and I decide with my limited budget that maybe $50 every 6-months to casually play a game and move along at a decent pace is not worth it for me, or to be able to play with more than one friend at a time.

 

I look at the cost of ships and I think it’s too expensive and it isn’t really “buying power” but it kinda is, in a way.  Then I think about how I could earn a ship like that but it’s rank 9 in another faction and I only get 1800 per win at most, and 50-70k credits.  Then I quit out of Star Conflict.

 

I have played without my license now for a few days and before with my license I was easily playing 3-4 hours a day, addicted.  I am rank 7, 8, 6.  I want to get 7-8 with Jericho next so I can move up to the higher Tier 2 and Tier 3 beginning ships and it’s an incredibly slow grind that makes me play 10+ games to buy a single T2 module(mk.iii).

 

I am sure that many people have taken a look at this and quit the game and this is why we have >2k people online during the hours I play instead of the original 5k+.

 

This is a big deal.  Anyone dismissing it is not actually paying attention and the transition from having a free License and being used to that speed to the slow stagnation of repairing your ships and seeing your profits drop drastically becomes a reality and a drag.

52

This post came up before and I’ll say this again.

 

World of Tanks has the exact same model and that model didn’t hurt its gameplay. granted, I don’t know how the clans are setup in that game. 

 

WOT has more players. I am concerned Star Conflict needs to grow its player base. Cheaper prices could help that. I think they don’t want to make things cheaper because its considered a  no no to raise prices later so basically once you drop prices you can’t go back up.  But if the current system and its pricing is driving away players who would other wise continue to play and pay something then  Gaijnent/Star Conflict maybe hurting themselves more than helping.   Its a pvp game so free players are “content” for paying players in a sense too.  I think the low pricing and high volume idea is somewhat hampered because it appears players either pay a decent amount or they don’t at all pay.  There are not many that pay a little each month. 

 

My biggest concern is that the pricing scheme  hurts player growth to the point game population exponentially falls. 

53

I am for the Licens.

 

Why this : The game is a real F2P and it is very good.

That it should stay. Thats why the devs need income from other sources.->> the License!!!

 

However, I would be for a price reduction. :rolleyes:

54

My idea is that you could trade credits <<>> GS with other players. That way, the devs could get the same amount of money, and the players would be able to choose between buy or farm licenses (and other stuff). There could even be an entire game system for that.

55

My idea is that you could trade credits <<>> GS with other players. That way, the devs could get the same amount of money, and the players would be able to choose between buy or farm licenses (and other stuff). There could even be an entire game system for that.

 

Player to player credit and GS trade is an open invitation to all sort of gold farming bots.

 

In other words: No.

 

@Antherage  your every post shows more and more the exact type of mentality which makes F2P business model fail. When I hear such statements I really wish F2P never happened and whoever wants to play a game need to pay a subscription. It tells me that you’re the kind of player who would play donation founded game for years praising its awesomeness but never actually donate a dime…

56

I quit playing Star conflict after I realized the licence thing, and that Frigates and support ships at T4 Suck crap and are garbage. I only want to play a support / tanky / healer, but it’s not like Im healing much or even getting props for trying to help people. All I get is “Oh no… another xxxx Frigate”…  I think eventually All people will play are Inties and fighters because they teamkill their frigs and cuss them out when they lose even if the frig pilot is always in the top 3.

 

On the licence thing, Yea not really interested in playing a game that has 150 man corps, but you can’t even make a 10-20 man squad (so you could all make up an entire team). Whats the point? Your always going to have to play with randoms no matter what because of this squad mechanic…

57

I quit playing Star conflict after I realized the licence thing, and that Frigates and support ships at T4 Suck crap and are garbage. I only want to play a support / tanky / healer, but it’s not like Im healing much or even getting props for trying to help people. All I get is “Oh no… another xxxx Frigate”…  I think eventually All people will play are Inties and fighters because they teamkill their frigs and cuss them out when they lose even if the frig pilot is always in the top 3.

 

On the licence thing, Yea not really interested in playing a game that has 150 man corps, but you can’t even make a 10-20 man squad (so you could all make up an entire team). Whats the point? Your always going to have to play with randoms no matter what because of this squad mechanic…

 

they are making lobbys soon :frowning:

58

Player to player credit and GS trade is an open invitation to all sort of gold farming bots.

 

In other words: No.

 

@Antherage  your every post shows more and more the exact type of mentality which makes F2P business model fail. When I hear such statements I really wish F2P never happened and whoever wants to play a game need to pay a subscription. It tells me that you’re the kind of player who would play donation founded game for years praising its awesomeness but never actually donate a dime…

That would be the reason of a entire game system for that. Direct trade between players would not be allowed, just an exchange menu where you could put offers of credits or GS and someone would buy it. All the trades would be public and you could just pick the offer that has the better ratio.

59

Now, back to Star Conflict - take a look at your profile and see how many hours you spent in the game, and how much you spent already per hour of fun playing the game.

 

Seriously. most people need to understand that you don’t pay for that ship, sticker or even ability to form bigger squad in this case - you pay because you want to contribute towards this game existence on the market. You pay to show developers and distributors that it’s worth putting hours of their time and thousands $$ to create and release such game. Finally, you pay them to show them that they indeed don’t have to introduce power items to earn any serious money.

 

And you know what’s most invalid in your statements?

You don’t have to pay at all. No one is forcing you to do so. Whether you stick to the game or come back here after 6 months you’ll still be able to play it and enjoy it - with all patches and new content brought in the meantime. Maybe engine improvements, maybe new items, maybe new maps or global domination game.

 

Where all that fits to your “value vs cost” equation?

 

Honestly, what makes most of  F2P titles collapse - even those with great character and gameplay - are people who keep complaining about donations prices  - because it’s so difficult for them to sacrifice those 4 beers / month.

 

For what i bolded over there, i love you man. And i have really strong feelings towards all those people who actually take pride in not paying for their enjoyment time. For using work that others have done and giving nothing in return. I understand that some of all this global population actually don’t have even 4 beers to give for hours and hours and maybe days of using a product (maybe because they play too much and need a better job but that’s another discussion). But bragging about “moral integrity” or whatever they think it is, saying “Nooo, i’m not stupid to pay for any game, i’m too cool for that”…it’s just shameful.

 

If food and drinks and beds and houses would be on a f2p model…those people would take everything and let everybody else starve…

You are doing something bad guys, and you should feel bad :slight_smile:

60

Player to player credit and GS trade is an open invitation to all sort of gold farming bots.

 

In other words: No.

 

@Antherage  your every post shows more and more the exact type of mentality which makes F2P business model fail. When I hear such statements I really wish F2P never happened and whoever wants to play a game need to pay a subscription. It tells me that you’re the kind of player who would play donation founded game for years praising its awesomeness but never actually donate a dime…

 

I am now not entirely sure if you read my posts before commenting on them because I never said anything about needing to pay a subscription to play a game.  I simply used subscriptions as a comparison to cost of a License(every 6 months basically = $10 a month or close to it).

 

Your summary of me is entirely innaccurate as well.  I simply said that I have a Cost Vs Value relationship with the games I play because I have limited funds nowadays to buy them.  I have paid money for plenty of “Free 2 play” games such as League of Legends or FireFall, but I have to have a cost vs reward ratio that makes sense to me and Star Conflict does not make sense.

The ships are too expensive.  I have to pay every 6 months to renew my license(or less, the horrible cost for anything less than 6 months is even worse) just to play with more than 1 friend(and reduce the grind).  I would 100 percent rather pay a single cost associated with any sort of new game nowadays, $59.99 and simply have this content unlocked for me.  I think plenty of people agree with me because the numbers are dwindling.

I’m sorry that I’ve not pleased you with my responses and I am likely not to pay money to Gaijin for their game, but don’t make sweeping statements about me when you have no idea who I am or what I do, and read my posts.