Change the monitizeaion of the game to focas on cosmetics and other non gameplay aspects

i understand that this game took a long time to create and thus you want to get the most ammount of money but i fear the aggressive gates may turn away players in stead id suggest cosmetics such as customizing your solider or eventhings like weapon and vehicle camos. i truly do love this game and i think the best way to grow it is to divorce money and gamplay…

3 Likes

I could not agree more, the current campaign progression system is a really big problem, I just made a post about it actually. Obviously the perfect scenario was we get skins and specially themed characters and such, but sadly, I don’t think it’s realistic. Here’s my post on campaign progression, might help put into perspective just how flawed the current progression is.

1 Like

no

3 Likes

No, it would turn into transfield 5 and the progression would not change and none is gonna pay for some minor change in uniform this is not a colossus like CS with low effort developement competitive autism millions upon millions of active players and autists who ply millions for skins that look identical and have the difference of one pixel

3 Likes

Cosmetics only gets boring real fast, I like the idea of being able improve my soldiers either by grinding or paying.
Sea of Thieves has cosmetics only, sounds like a good idea because everyone is equal, but the lack of a persistent world and there being nothing to work towards makes the game rather dull.

2 Likes

The game isn’t popular enough for cosmetics to be remotely viable, and I don’t want to see every character look like a clown like battlefield.

1 Like

Absolutely!

Skins are overwhelmingly popular and even in full price AAA games they have made companies vast fortunes on top of the price of the game.

As for historical accuracy, there are a huge number of different tank camos they could release. Especially if they don’t limit them to what was used by certain units at the time.

I honestly don’t think many (any?) people play this game specifically because the units are as historically accurate as possible.
So if they allowed soldier and tank customisation (keeping it realistic to what existed at the time), it would bring in a huge amount of money, and mean they don’t have to focus on pay walls and grinds as a way of generating income.

2 Likes

This was done by other games and it’s not financial viable. I prefer some payed advantages in a healthy game that is being updated and developed further, rather than “fair” game that dies from lack of funding.

Gaming is a luxury, if you can’t spend money on it, you probably should be doing something else with your time. And don’t bring “single entry payment” argument, that doesn’t work for long term development games like WT.

1 Like

Both AAA games and F2P games have made hundreds of millions of dollars from selling cosmetics. It’s literally an entire finely tuned hugely profitable market for CS:GO.

The idea that it isn’t profitable is utterly laughable.

Could you list those games? Like what else besides CS:GO do you know and have some numbers to prove?

1 Like

Well, an expample, althought it ain´t having anything to do with a FPS would be the mobile side scrolling game Azur lane. They get a lot of revenue from their skins. Revenue in Q1 2019 was at 14.3 million $.

Personally i don´t think selling skins would work in this kinda game. there are just so much historically skins you could sell and then? I mean, i still want my pink MG 42 with a unicorn on it just for giggles and even that would be a 1 time purchase and thats it so there is not enough and no constant money gain.

As it is now it´s quite okish, personally i´d only remove the “skip campaign progress” button as well as the newly added “skip battle pass” buttons.

And something being profitable just means that cost of making that skin is lower than revenue collected from selling it. It doesn’t mean that skins alone finance all other aspects of development.

Of course not and i don´t even mind. As an Example, Azur Lane sells their L2D skins for around 20$ give or take and the normal one runs between 10-15$ and they sell quite well, while also having other stuff to buy, as most games do nowadays. Personally i can live with it, the artist has to be paid (hopefully adequat) and the company want to make an earning too and also has to pay employees. The difference is, they are not bound by historically camouflage and what not

Just to be clear, I’m not against cosmetics, I’m against them being the only source of monetization.

1 Like

For me the pay-to-progress-faster concept is fine.

However, with how it is implemented currently, it seems like the developers are purposefully trying to frustrate players into paying for premium time etc. It is getting a bit too predatory to my taste.

The premium squads as they are now are underpowered. Their guns offer some changes in playstyle which makes them worthwhile to get if their squad size wasn’t as small as they are now. However, if they were upgraded to full size as they were during closed beta, some would be overpowered due to their guns overperforming compared to their free counterparts. Finding the right balance for premium squads and/or offering the ability to give their uniform skins to other soldiers would be a good alternative to the “pure cosmetics” monetization scheme.

The only monetization thing I actively have issues with right now is the extra squad slots in battle. They offer real advantages and really need a way to be obtained for free, even if you can only get like 1 slot every 2-3 months.

3 Likes

Understood that and i am totally with you on that aspect, especially in a game where there would be only a few possibilities.

EA anual report last to this year.
Apex legends will be the first ea game worth a billion dollars in transactions.

All Apex have is skins and batlepass

1 Like