i mean, yeah of course variety it’s good 
but i meant, i don’t know how many people plays russia.
this is why we have bots in the first place.
otherwise, we’ll see.
i agree it wont last if changes are not made some of what you posted are some issues, but there is a laundry list of problems and they are core problems of a normal p2p game are some are f2p . the devs do seem to listen but there is so many problems its going to take a 2 years to get this game where it should be. i guess people will have to wait or stick it out to get the final product they deserve.
then it would suffer the same fate as battlefield 4 where few bought this dlc and that dlc but ultimately low pop in each dlc maps
1 Like
It is inevitable that one campaign will be more popular than others.
No good will come of them switching back to pay to play. Even should they go back to that model now, it will only be a sign of them not having any faith in their game and wanting to make some money on the way out. All the issues Enlisted faces now aren’t unavoidable in free games and they are 100% self-imposed by developers.
People (especially in the West) tend to view free to play model as a cheap-out, a “cash grab” and / or a sign of low quality. In reality releasing a free game requires a lot of confidence in your product. Sometimes it is unfounded but players can always see for themselves without paying an entry fee. At the same time paid games are often filled with the same microtransactions, or even turn into proverbial carnival tents where people pay to see the fools only to find themselves in front of the mirror.
1 Like
@4614332
The only thing we desperately need is communication from the devs, whether that be in the shape of a Community Manager or the devs themselves popping in on popular suggestion threads to leave a simple “We’re looking at this right now.”
Minor thing, but at least in prior posts, they have done exactly that.
TBH I don’t know if pay to play is the best option. Generaly speaking microtransactions make more monney than just selling the game. Also F2P means more players and most important thing: devs have to work on their game to keep players and earn money. See for example BFV, devs took the money and game development ended.
2 Likes
Well the P2P setup was to sell each campaign seperately. Meaning that after the initial content and fixes have been added, they work on a new campaign to sell. It would still allow for development to continue that way. Of course, cosmetics could also be sold. But gameplay affecting things like Prem Soldiers would not be a good idea.
2 Likes
Hopefully that’s how it works, though I’m not sure how viable of a payment model it is, as I haven’t seen it alot.
I learned back from Dust 514 that if a game has what looks like an “everyone wins” payment model, the game will shutter because it’s not making enough.
Of course, Dust didn’t have the payment model you’re talking about, but one where payments are all about progressing faster, a bit like War Thunder but where instead of buying straight into the endgame, you can only buy into the next tier, on top of more exp.
Selling campaigns like that only makes the playerbase dry up faster, unless they “force” everyone to pay up and migrate to newer campaigns. Which is even worse in the long run. Also buy to play doesn’t mean no “gameplay affecting things”. If you don’t trust them with a free to play game there’s no reason to trust them with any other model either.
1 Like
From what I’ve seen so far, this game won’t even get off the ground if it isn’t free to play. And it won’t get far unless they can bring some sort of balance between paying and non-paying players and between the factions in each campaign.
Well a lot of people would not be interested in playing certain campaigns. For example, I would be much more interested in mid-late war western front campaigns, so I would buy and play those. Even if the Moscow campaign was free, I wouldn’t play it, so you wouldn’t gain anything from it being free.
1 Like
Unless they rework the premium stuff. The prem soldiers were a huge mistake, tbh. It won’t get off the ground even if it is F2P unless things change. A P2P setup could make it so progression becomes not nearly as needed to keep people paying.
They should be salvaging the game, instead of ignoring the issues and further destroying what’s left of the playerbase.
1 Like
By my opinion would be better if would be Enlisted for Money like Hell Let Loose or Post Scriptum no F2P.
1 Like
1 small update every decade just like Post Scriptum
Yes but Periscope Games is Small Company and Gaijin ?
Gaijin is Big Company so I don’t think that there will be 1 update per year…
And I really hate Premium model in games like Enlisted. So I want to buy Full Game/Campaing no premium Squads etc…
But if devs will make Enlisted F2P like War Thunder then would be nice to make tech trees like in War Thunder with some famous squads from concrete battles as premium (Like I said about it in my Suggestion “Armies”). But without Premium Weapons just with exp boost for example…
1 Like
Periscope’s size is a consequence of how much money they’re making off of the game, as is Gaijin’s size.
Gaijin does not develop this game. Darkflow, a small indie studio, makes this game.
with Gaijin’s wallet
Well I’m boarding ships to be frank just waiting for a certain update to hit & then calling it off, it is really being that case as it seems the developers aren’t keen on developing the came with the testers as much as it is just samples (filled with bots) to tweak numbers.
Main issues that were & still the main take aren’t attended to or even confirmed (the road map sorta did but consider the time that took) that they are working/looking into it, literally when it requires an interactive communication & one side isn’t keen on it.
Well I’ll call my rights to test off after that patch to be of no relation of how the game will release so I couldn’t be blamed on not doing my end of the task. It still not too late to shift into a paid product though it is a matter of a decision being taken then move forward accordingly.