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.
Gaijin will not let this game eat away at their funds. Sure, there probably was initial investment, but I highly doubt Gaijin will just take the losses.
Gaijin and their related companies are sadly only really known for listening to the russian side of the forums. Very rarely do they take things from the English forum. You can see this from the bug reports alone and how rarely a developer replies with “thank you for your report” on the English forums.
Of course any dev can prove me wrong with a quick reply, but I highly doubt that will happen.
2 Likes
Just lurking while server is down but… i’m frankly for F2P, that’s why warthunder ( or even star conflict on a smaller scale) is still alive, you need to have the largest playerbase possible in order to have interesting battles, from there you can choose who you will pit against whom. if you lock some battles behind paywall you’ll end up with way less player and bots… which will end up killing the fun. Having a faster progression for people paying, or even some shinny small advantages, is expected from any F2P. Still the game is young and there is room for improvment especially on the premium side.
1 Like
The issue is that War Thunder monetization scheme & literally with same numbers isn’t applicable to this, the concern is the game being dead on arrival, You weren’t here on the alpha & start referring back to topics dating all the way to mid September & so on.
The talk here isn’t about small advantages & the numbers are concerning, a way too much convenience is a literal P2W & that isn’t speaking about the premium squads or the battle pass system that they are testing in War Thunder. The game still faces issues with design decisions & yet we are waiting for a change so we could test & give feedback accordingly, & you are talking about monetization !?.
If this game gets enough players, they must add skill based matchmaking. As a Soviet main, i have to say win-rates were not a problem for me for a long time. It seems more players are starting to buy Soviet pack. I also play with my friends and we are all top 3 in every game so maybe i didn’t feel the issue because I play with good players. I also play on both EU and Eastern Europe serves and it seems that sometimes my team has no trouble winning but also sometimes, I have to carry my whole team. In EU servers germany wins but in eastern european server it’s the opposite. What we need is skill based matchmaking and we need it ASAP. The lack of skill based matchmaking threw battlefield V into the fire. The problem is that a lot of good players leave the match if they see bad players on their team
1 Like
People like this should get their squads locked for the whole match, that’s it. Furthermore I saw you leaving, and I left some matches too. Sometimes you just don’t want to play with people and matchmaker is not going to change this.