[DEV] BRAMMERTRON

Loot Crates & Weapon Case drops, what are your thoughts?

125 posts in this topic

36 minutes ago, Prizefightr said:

I see what you mean but 15.00 was just an example of cheaper price point. Not saying has to be that low but what I am saying is it should be low enough that people outside of the following it already has is more then willing to give it a try. The more hands this game can touch the better and that comes with having a cheaper price point. Giving it a try hopefully leads to falling in love with it like we did back in the day. As for people thinking it wont be good at a cheaper point. Id argue looking at CSGO. The cheapest fps game to buy yet It is the most active fps pc game in the world why is this because the game is good and the price point is affordable for basically anyone.

I don't disagree what so ever from the thought process but i do have to admit if they sell 100k copies at $30 and there are some micro transactions then allow the gaming community to mod, there will be a high player base. To be honest i feel like they should expect around 200-300k copies. Though will the mods created for PC work with those who are playing xbox/ps4?

 

What is the plan to keep those players (yes master race says for them to upgrade in life but lets not play that card yet)? Just the micro transactions?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Prizefightr said:

example.

100 000 @ 49.99 = 4 999 000 + case sales = ?

1 000 000 @ 15.00 = 15 000 000 + case sales= way more then the above scenario

Hope fully these numbers grow way higher but regardless cheaper price model is better.


Of course your second example is more interesting between both price. You are not comparing the same number of sales.
Before to be interesting your cheaper price must reach more than 330 000 copies.

I guess battalion will reach this goal but nothing sure because players are skeptical front of indie games (Do not neglect this aspect)  and they won't massivly buy it from the start.
Last thing, cheaper price do not guaranty longevity of the game. This part is in players hands only. If the players do not like the game, they will move (quickly) to an other one and BH will never reach their goals.

On this example the expensive price is better :P :
1 000 000 x 49.99 = 49 999 000 without case sales.

Cheers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are skeptical of indie games and this is the point of the DEV team and also me. The reason the sales were higher in second scenario because fact of the matter is at a lower price point more people are willing to take that leap of faith at the start. I know of literally 30 people off hand that 2 people have been involved in the kickstarter and the other 28 are very interested but not at the price point to take that chance. In fact they would rather wait to see what the first 2 have to say about it. I assume many are like that but regardless of the game being good or not if there is not an active communty right from the start it wont even matter. That being a part from the dedicated that are on this forum. It is much easier to get the ball rolling with a higher active population at the start then a smaller one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Soldat Ryan said:


Of course your second example is more interesting between both price. You are not comparing the same number of sales.
Before to be interesting your cheaper price must reach more than 330 000 copies.

I guess battalion will reach this goal but nothing sure because players are skeptical front of indie games (Do not neglect this aspect)  and they won't massivly buy it from the start.
Last thing, cheaper price do not guaranty longevity of the game. This part is in players hands only. If the players do not like the game, they will move (quickly) to an other one and BH will never reach their goals.

On this example the expensive price is better :P :
1 000 000 x 49.99 = 49 999 000 without case sales.

Cheers.

Ryan on the info train again!!

But don't steal my thunder there buddy i said the same thing!! :P <3

 

Though in the end it all matters on the initial buy. If 50,000 copies are sold in the first month and only 2,000-5,000 every month after that by the end of the year there should be around (at 5,000 per month after) 105,000 copies by the end of the year. So a low price like 15 would really have an effect on the future of the game. I hope to see this game flourish with 100,000 on release and get 5-10k per month after that. Now THAT would be a success for the game. Then the stability of the game, to have 20-30k players on per day would be the catch. Those are hopeful numbers, but a game like Rocket League has 40k on a daily basis. It shows indie games are also on a rise and the right game will have those results

Edited by DukeNukem
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Prizefightr said:

People are skeptical of indie games and this is the point of the DEV team and also me. The reason the sales were higher in second scenario because fact of the matter is at a lower price point more people are willing to take that leap of faith at the start. I know of literally 30 people off hand that 2 people have been involved in the kickstarter and the other 28 are very interested but not at the price point to take that chance. In fact they would rather wait to see what the first 2 have to say about it. I assume many are like that but regardless of the game being good or not if there is not an active communty right from the start it wont even matter. That being a part from the dedicated that are on this forum. It is much easier to get the ball rolling with a higher active population at the start then a smaller one.

I have around 15 or so people who would get into the game and a fellow backer who is hopeful of this game. The 15 though are more skeptical because they see what type of games come out these days. If Battalion is on Rocket League standards in quality and "fun", i am SURE it will be a no brainer for those people to pay no matter the price. Obviously not an insane price but I can see people buying a proper indie game for 40 bucks. I think 25-30 would be better priced for the skeptics and eliminating some risk factor for the DEVs

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a great lot, Prizefightr!

It is exactly as he explains and that's actually basic knowlegde to anyone who has studied some sort of economics. Again thank you for taking your time and compiling such an easy-to-understand writedown. People, please read this and try to comprehend as this really is no rocket-sience and even Steam has figuered this does work some years ago. I'd even go as far as claiming evil EA seems to start changing their 'no-sales'-approach as well. People got to stop thinking things were any different with computer games, then they are with any other consumable.

Lower price equales more sales. That's not only theory. Ask yourself and you'll see you might have bought this other game/record/shirt/bicycle/novel/can of beer/whatsoever, if only it would have cost a little less. It's not neccessarily a matter of what you can afford, but how much of your hard earned money you are willing to spend on.

Actually, the so called 'play for free'-appraoch drove that rule into the ground, because in theory everyone is going to 'buy' your stuff if it costs zero quid. There, you'll most likely will be sort of tricked into spending money afterwards and they sure put some pressure on you. That's where things turn into 'pay to win' and everything that makes a fair game is gone.

To market visual-only customizations in order to cover the costs of a multiplayer-infrastucture is a reasonable and fair solution, in my opinion. Again, look at CS:GO. It's all there and it works alright for them. I see no reason why this wouldn't work for Battalion.

Edited by RLpacifist
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RLpacifist I agree with pretty much everything you have written. Though I do need to add the disclaimer in there that the effectiveness of lowering the price to garner more sales lessens after a certain point. (Not saying you don't know this, just want to add it in for everyone else) Otherwise, I think Bulkhead should factor in the bias considering those who post on the forums and fill out polls will likely by different from most of the player base.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     A better indication is the success of crates in other games, I.E.; CS:GO, Overwatch, and even Rocket League and Killing Floor 2 now. Going off of hearsay, they seem to be doing perfectly fine with the loot crates.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Given that this doesn't excuse Bulkhead from going for loot crates, but their reasoning seems perfectly legitimate. However, I also agree with @WeAsOne that Bulkhead should look into possible alternatives or new ideas. I especially like the possibility of crowdfunding DLC, assuming that Battalion is received well. Otherwise, I'm perfectly fine with loot crates providing cosmetic items (uniforms, weapon skins, etc) as long as they can be earned without being paid for. With my other two insights being, that if we are assuming that the Battalion leveling system is similar to BF or COD, the idea of free drops being given every level up could get very interspersed and sparse fast. A way around this would be to also offer crates through in-game achievements or competitions, I believe someone mentioned a wager match? Lastly, do not pull the TF2 and CS:GO BS of seemingly locking some cosmetic items behind a pay wall (Seemingly having to buy crates to get access to the more rare skins) either don't offer free crates that require keys or make it so you can only buy crates through a store. Thanks for listening. PEACE!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.k.,

after reading all reactions concerning different pro's and cons, i came to the point that for me it is not longer the question "if loot crates would be accepted as a working way of gaining income / making profit" I think it is fair to say that this will most likely work seeing the success of CS:GO.

Aside from that i would like to point out that this GAME and THEME is nothing like CS:GO and neither is the corresponding player base-to-be. Assuming CS:GO attracts a much wider (and younger) audience with less specific interest in WW2 games. So a 1 : 1 comparison will not work thus don't go full mental on this example.

Therefor i personally am convinced that people who will buy (or have backed) this game will most likely (again, i presume since i have no factual figures) be of older ages and willing to spend a tad more on a solid/perfectly finished base game after so many years playing more expensive so/so games (read: all COD and BF games from the last 6/7 years)

I am sure that an additional 100K copies will sell for €30, thus totaling the gross income to at least 3.500K€ (including early access).  Go any lower and people will frown upon a game as 'mediocre', which seems like the devs have little trust in themselves (to make the same real life comparison as RLpacifist did: when you see two pair of optical identical jeans lying on a shelf from which one is priced €10 higher than the other one, wouldn't you wonder why it is and go for the one that is a little more expensive thus expecting it to be of a higher quality? ;) ) . Make it significantly higher and people will expect a AAA super duper polished game such as BF1.

The trick is, again, to make correct expectations and price your game accordingly. How? By sending out demo's and making sure to give a good bang for the buck. This always worked for franchises that eventually turned out to be as great as COD, BF and CS series are today. They too started out gentle and gave players a lot of game play, relatively to the price of the game (remember the absurdly well polished SP campaign of first 3 COD and MOH games?) The rest went naturally. Next games sold like hot buns. nowadays they overpriced themselves and can no longer live up to the expectations. So again, price/quality is the golden egg here. 

To get back to my point: 3.500K to develop a MP game (needed: 300K -> see stretch goals), do marketing and host a few servers should be more than enough to leave enough room in budget (3.000K€, MILLION) to actually make free DLC, such as new maps or even a (small) SP campaign. To keep the game a float, work on additional payable SP content, place adds on the servers (there is a LOT to be gained by doing so) and perhaps place a donation button. If people love and embrace the game, they will live the game.

Then why the hurry/need of already working (i do not say 'thinking' since you should always have a future plan) on loot crates that even though only cosmetically, changes the game significantly in terms of optics/ 'look&feel'?.

Even cosmetic changes can mentally 'split' a community you know.. Example:

player A that did not buy loot crate to player B: "hey see that guy running around with his special elite carbon black M1 garand?"

player B:"yeah haha, man he thinks he is so pro now but i pwned him 5 times already!"

player A+B go in chat: "nooob with wanna be pro rifle owned!!" ---> toxic community has been created.

And YES this is how it WILL go since that is how competitive minded players simply are in their cores ;)

Again, whatever the choice may be i have trust in the devs and their game. But since the question was asked how we all felt about it, this is my two cents. There is no "wrong or right" and i think either way will most likely work. All it differs is how your product will be received by the audience.

 

GL

Edited by y!NMastah
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one thing that everyone has to understand, is this game will have those core values, mechanics, and features that we all fell in love with back playing those old titles. BUT this game will not be JUST for the older generation of players. If it is to be a success it needs to be in as many hands as possible. That's right the younger generation will be playing a long side you. 

Truth be told, it is them who will make this game a success. I am talking real success, Franchise building success. They have all the time in the world to be playing the game, all day everyday. This game needs to be done correctly and make them fall in love with WW2 and old school raw skill based gameplay. By doing this you keep the old school players happy by having that core gameplay, a long with ushering in the new generation.

I think the DEV team is on the right track with their thinking. That includes change of price, not talking dirt cheap but also not expensive to the point that a teen will be able to afford it if mom and dad wont pay for it. Also the cases are a great idea to create an income stream for the DEV team but the fact is the younger generation love this stuff. It also has no impact what so ever to the game as in the core values and game play.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all those who like to learn something, rather than getting lost between made-up figures, please have a look at this article.

Edit:

And here is another one I just came across.

Edited by RLpacifist
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, RLpacifist said:

For all those who like to learn something, rather than getting lost between made-up figures, please have a look at this article.

Edit:

And here is another one I just came across.

Thanks for the heads up. Interesting read.

Concerning the 5-year old Valve Experiment article: i am all for promotional sales to increase sales/revenues on both short and longer term (as their experiment pointed out). If it is for the well being and success of Battalion:1944, sure why not? 

Point discussed in here originally is, if we would be happy with loot crates yes or no. And this article does not answer the question if it is better to have a lower priced game but gaining revenue from loot crates or having a higher priced game with more base content. I am fairly sure that the hype created around Battalion:1944 + releasing more additional teasers + a DEMO to hype it up even more, will be enough to attract a big enough audience willing to pay for the last resulting in sufficient revenue to create more additional content, free of charge.

Concerning the second article: As far as i understand, 3rd paragraph says that a considerable amount of customers is not willing to invest in micro transactions (loot-crates) since they expect that content to be already there in a full game price? 

So here again i personally rather see them offering Battalion:1944 with more content against a higher price rather than releasing the game at a lower price but hoping to gain additional revenue from loot crates and such.

Problem is, i am merely speculating since i do not have factual figures and perhaps a tad biased since i am no fan of in game purchasable items too. But hey, it does lead to interesting discussions no?

I wonder if Bulkhead have decided what to do yet?


GL

Edited by y!NMastah
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think that a higher base price of the base game, will be a (albeit weak) hacker/cheater repellent. Take CS:GO for example, i have known some people who decided to buy a new copy of the game, just to try some aimbots. If the base price of the game is a bit higher, i think this sort of behavior would be less prevalent. Since there is a greater risk involved, or rather you lose more value when you get caught.

Bringing me back to topic;
I don't mind lootcrates, as long as you don't make them feel obligatory. I also don't mind paying "Full Price" for a game that has lootcrates. I'd compare it to overwatch. You pay full retailprice, and the content of the lootcrates don't really matter. You can buy them if you feel like it, but also you can just level up to get the crates. I especially love the currency system they have, so you can also just save for that one specific unlock you want.
 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, y!NMastah said:

But hey, it does lead to interesting discussions no?

Yes, of course and I understand your concerns about that first article being rather outdated and both not being exactly relevant to the initial question - Are you ok with that? - this thread is asking.

However, the whole discussion grew bigger than the simple question long before already, so that Prizefightr eventually engaged and explained some basic mechanics, which ought to be considered. I suppose we both just try to broaden the ‘field of view’ on that subject, in hopes it will make more people feel comfortable with having loot crates and micro transactions in this game, as there aren’t much promising alternatives.

Let me be clear, this is not a matter of opinions, but a matter of expertise (economics), experience and researches. We can expect Bulkhead to have access to quite a pool of data and support from Steam, which is (at least one of) the greatest market research facilities in the gaming industry. Don’t underrate this, there are millions of customers and billions of purchases put into perspective. The wet dream of the sales and marketing department…

Now, instead of going through your well elaborated reply bit by bit, my intention was to provide some more general source of insight on the very underlying of pricing/supply and demand mechanics. I might as well have just directed to wikipedia, but that's quite a long read and probably too much of a theory lesson and an even more generalized look at things anyway.

The point is, I don't mind people disapproving the whole concept of micro transactions and I am not the biggest fan of those myself. However, stepping back from personal sensitivities and approaching the subject as objectively as possible you most likely will learn that micro transactions aren’t a bad thing by nature, but only have been poorly implemented for too long.

Either way, there is an actual issue that needs to be addressed. Namely, the monthly amount of running costs which modern multiplayer-infrastructures generate. Just think about services like personal stat tracking/clan support/match making/Battlerank/anti cheat/security/maintenance of all that and so forth. Community servers don't help any here.

The idea of making enough money through retail for the years to come will not do you any good in at least half the possible scenarios, because nobody knows how successful the game will be and how long this will last. Look, it is quite different whether there will be a need of 5k or 50k player-slots average and maybe 25 – 75% more on peak times. (Please don’t nail me down on those numbers, those are just examples.) You would want to have a scalable, yet constant inflow to cover such a dynamic, yet regular outflow.

Edited by RLpacifist
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope I'm not too late to the party but I'd like to chime in.

I myself am not a fan of microtransactions. I think it's a slimy way to milk your customer base after they've paid full price for what should be a complete game. I realize that making games is expensive but microtransactions aren't the only way to sustain a game post-launch, it's just what's trending right now and an easy cash grab. There are plenty of multiplayer games both past(!) and present that don't utilize this model have sustained their communities and servers for years.

I feel that adding microtransactions goes against the spirit of the game. When I funded Battalion 1944, I was excited at the notion of a developer and game that went against the modern and damaging trends of the industry. To me, Battalion 1944 is supposed to be the antithesis of modern shooter design, a protest against weapon, ability, and gear unlocks; bullshit killstreaks; a skill ceiling catered to the lowest common denominator; pink zebra striped camos; and microtransactions.

It doesn't make sense that all of a sudden Bulkhead Interactive is asking us to implement microtransactions to support the game's servers post-launch when it was clearly included in the budget plan that was laid out. Take a look at the pie chart from the Kickstarter, 7.5% of funds are to be allocated to "Server Hosting and Anti-Cheat."

5c732f731d443f26bb54a65065df2346_origina

In Bulkhead Interactive's own words:

We’ve also allocated a dedicated amount of the funds towards hosting solid servers and anti-cheat systems to help make Battalion a reliable and fair experience. 

Bulkhead also states:

We are under no illusions and estimate it will cost in the region of £200,000 ($300k) to fully fund the initial vision of the project, which is why we're investing £100,000 of our own funds once our initial funding goal is reached to ensure Battalion 1944's successful release and post game support.

According to the Kickstarter that was pitched to us, of the £317,281 that we raised plus "£100,000 of our own funds", a portion of that, 7.5%, is to allocated to providing server hosting. To be honest, I'm not sure how much servers actually cost but Bulkhead does and this percentage and budget was calculated based on the initial funding goal of £100,000 (which we well exceeded). This game was funded on the good faith that Bulkhead had everything figured out, including server costs. I remember Bulkhead also stating that the profits from The Turing Test would be going towards the development of Battalion, plus whatever you're getting from the alpha/beta/early access sales on Steam, plus the actual sales from the full release. There's either some serious mismanaging of funds going on or we're being had.

We gave you money with the intent that it would cover the cost of servers because that's what you stated on the Kickstarter. At no point did you state that "We need need £100,000 to develop this game which will be followed by in-game microtransactions to support the servers." No one would have ever funded this game if that was the case.

 

Edited by PyratRum
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good point, we don't even know how many servers it will be needed to sustain the unknown number of people from game's community yet.

I think it would only be explained if those numbers go past the numbers they projected initially

 

the game is fully funded supposedly

Edited by mazh
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PyratRum said:

It doesn't make sense that all of a sudden Bulkhead Interactive is asking us to implement microtransactions to support the game's servers post-launch when it was clearly included in the budget plan that was laid out

Come on,... Bulkhead would be the first company ever that would have hit their plannings point blank at first shot. And this ain't a single player game, where the amount of customers doesn't make any difference.

That chart is old and a lot of factors might have changed since it has been set up. That is not at all unusual in business. That fixed budget for servers was based on some predicted amount of players. Maybe, just maybe by now they have reasons to assume that this initial value will be exceeded greatly and now adjust their plannings. What do you want them to do in order to stick to that plan? Simply cut off the amount of servers provided to meet the plannings and stop selling the game as soon as all slots are occupied? Probably not.

I have full understanding you dislike microtransactions, though I kindly ask you to give it a try and read through some of the opposing ideas given in this thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whilst the scepticism of BH's motives in PyratRum's comments are understandable, given that most developers with the exception of CD Projeckt Red and Blizzard have bent their players over and shafted them with micro-transactions, to think that games can be developed and supported nowadays without some form of constant revenue is living in the dark ages. BH have been open and honest in bringing this issue to us this early in development when most other developers would have kept quiet until they were closer to shipping the game. they deserve some credit for that and our trust to implement micro-transactions in a way similar to Overwatch. micro-transactions in themselves don't have to be bad. it's their poor implementation that has been bad. i'm an accountant used to managing budgets and forecasts totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. if businesses were forced to stick rigidly to their budgets there'd be no businesses.

Edited by Farq-S
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, RLpacifist said:

That chart is old and a lot of factors might have changed since it has been set up. That is not at all unusual in business. That fixed budget for servers was based on some predicted amount of players. Maybe, just maybe by now they have reasons to assume that this initial value will be exceeded greatly and now adjust their plannings. What do you want them to do in order to stick to that plan? Simply cut off the amount of servers provided to meet the plannings and stop selling the game as soon as all slots are occupied? Probably not.

Sorry but there is a little contradiction here.

They fixed a budget even if it was long time ago and they calculated what they needed to make the game and maintaining the community.

Quote

The costs of maintaining a strong community presence are also included in the chart, albeit a modest amount, it's important that the community is managed appropriately.

They have to adjust their budget only if they have a low amount of sales, not if they exceed it.
All new sales are a + in the wallet, not a -
So all new sales should be enought to rent servers (or whatever they want to do) as they are not included in development of the game from the start.
That is called "benefits" and "benefits" can/must be reinvest.

---

@Farq-S's answer make me think about an interesting article from GAMASUTRA about DLCs/Microtransactions/SeasonPass

Edited by Soldat Ryan
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Soldat Ryan said:

They fixed a budget even if it was long time ago and they calculated what they needed to make the game and maintaining the community.

Making the game and maintaining the commnity doesn't exactly address the costs of a maintained multiplayer infrastructure. You are missing the point here.

 

9 hours ago, Soldat Ryan said:

They have to adjust their budget only if they have a low amount of sales, not if they exceed it.
All new sales are a + in the wallet, not a -

That's where you go fail, because in a multiplayer environment, every additional customer generates additional costs. Therefore, no, I am not contradicting at all. Let me elaborate.

The more people buy the game, the more players will be demanding access to servers, the more server slots will have to be provided, the more data has to be stored, the more costs anti-cheat will create and so forth. When only depending on retail revenue you’re eventually going to run out of money, because ‘regular retail’ will naturally go down over time (price reduction, discounts, less interest in the game), but the infrastructure and the costs it generates, will stay at the same level for much longer, because most people won’t just drop out of the game after playing it for 3 months.

We can’t sufficiently calculate, because we lack too much actual information and values, but I highly doubt that 20, or even 40 € will pay for the total costs from continued development (support, bug fixes, engine updates, additional contents) and a thoroughly maintained infrastructure (official servers, don’t forget about consoles here, Battlerank, anti-cheat, stats tracking) for the next 5 to 10 years.

 

Seriously, name me only one single multiplayer game, that has come with nothing but the retail price and absolutely no further costs to its players, which is still properly supported (anti-cheat, updates, bug fixes) after 5+ years. I don't know of any ever accomplishing this successfully to this day and time and finding one example would honestly be the only way to make me reconsider. I'm not saying it was impossible, but so far I haven't seen any real promising solution. The idea of retail will fill the vault for the years to come is as naive as it gets. Do you think Bulkhead is going to put all that money into the bank and go there once a year taking only as much as is needed to pay the bills for Battalion, regardless any other expenses and projects? That's not how you run a business.

Edited by RLpacifist
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RLpacifist said:

The more people buy the game, the more players will be demanding access to servers, the more server slots will have to be provided, the more data has to be stored, the more costs anti-cheat will create and so forth.

Server slot : Things you forgot about servers is they will be hosted mainly by community itself, so it would cost nothing to BH. I doubt BH will host hundreds of servers.
Data store : That is a point. This is the only thing that could cost always something more.
Anti-cheat : I guess they talked with to know how it will cost to maintain it. (it is planned too 7.5% of the budget)
 

4 hours ago, RLpacifist said:

name me only one single multiplayer game, that has come with nothing but the retail price and absolutely no further costs to its players, which is still properly supported (anti-cheat, updates, bug fixes) after 5+ years.

Before 5 years i guess BH will release others games. ;)
As example, COD1 --> COD5 cost only retail price. They have been updated (not for 5 years that is true), but they are still played today even without any support by Activision (and anticheat). Custom Maps have been done long time after thier release and new custom maps are still released today by fans.

4 hours ago, RLpacifist said:

Making the game and maintaining the commnity doesn't exactly address the costs of a maintained multiplayer infrastructure. You are missing the point here.

It is not me who is saying this. It is BH itself. Read back my quote on my previous post, it comes from Kickstarter campaign.

4 hours ago, RLpacifist said:

When only depending on retail revenue you’re eventually going to run out of money, because ‘regular retail’ will naturally go down over time (price reduction, discounts, less interest in the game), but the infrastructure and the costs it generates, will stay at the same level for much longer, because most people won’t just drop out of the game after playing it for 3 months.

I m not economist or business man but i think i have a little common sense and i know 1+1 = 2 (after is it more complicated ! lol)
Come back to the start : BH are saying (kickstarter campaign) with 200 000£ (100 000 from own ressource + 100 000 from kickstarter) they are building a full game with abbility to support it. They did a budget prevision with this amount. And finally they did much more (read again financial report).
So today ALL new sales are full "benefits" (after taxes). They are free to invest them in Bat44 features, servers and/or new game and adjust thier budget. They are lucky to be able to adjust freely their budget because they have a large financial leeway due to the kickstarter and new sales.
Again don't forget we are not talking about a fail but about a success in regards of dev's expectations.
Make revision about microtransaction because the game is a fail, i can understand because they do not reach their goal and have not enought money but it is not the case here or BH made a mistake thinking they need enought with 200 000£ to build the game, in this case, they are bad managers/businessmen (this is worst - but i don't think so).

Again to resume basicly : They said they need 200 000£ to build the game they reach more than 345 000£ (after taxes).
With a medium/high retail price (40-60€) with 100 000 retails (so 4 000 000€ minimum), they should be able to maintain the game. If less retail well no need biggest structure.

EDIT : (sorry if i seem a bit rude)
Last thing, currently BH got our blind faith in their work (it is also our fault because we want to believe). That do not allow them to step back or doing foolish things. The harder is to come, they have to earn our trust. It is not with changing the rules they will get it.
In kickstarter it was clearly said "We have no plans for micro transactions to be added to the game on launch (or after for that matter). Battalion 1944 will be a pay once full access title, with hours of multi player content! " and it was one of the most important thing in this project.

My though.

BR

Edited by Soldat Ryan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey @PyratRum thanks for posting this. We wondered if somebody would ask us this. 

I can totally understand your frustration here, and I want to assure you your point has been noted by the team and by myself personally. 

First off; we made a mistake in not putting in plain English that these plans can change or evolve over time. Our goal with Battalion is to build a competitive old-school shooter, that is our first responsibility. 
Throughout this development process we have regularly listened to the community and taken on board what they've said. One of the issues that has reoccurred since the beginning of the Kickstarter was the price of Battalion. People felt uncomfortable with the price; we acknowledged this and started looking at other options. 

Multiplayer games, especially shooters live and die on how popular the servers are. If you can't find a game, you won't bother looking any more. We decided that by lowering the price, we will also lower the barrier to entry for new players. 
We also need to find a way to honor, thank and respect our brave Kickstarter backers who spent their hard earned cash on backing this game from the beginning, we have found ways and will be finding more ways to make sure these players are supported and taken care of. We will never forget what they did for not just this game, but hopefully the FPS genre. 

We are remaining true to the core game that Battalion pitched to fans.

Quote

Battalion 1944 recaptures the core of classic multiplayer shooters and propels WW2 into the next generation. Battalion 1944 utilizes the most advanced industry technology to create a visceral and heart-thumping multiplayer experience that has been crafted by the designers who have grown up playing Medal of Honor and Call of Duty 2. 

This will never be sacrificed. Some of the features may evolve and change, but the core values that Bulkhead and Battalion stand for will never change. With the addition of loot crates/weapons cases whatever you want to call them, they will always be optional. They will never be forced upon a player and they will NEVER contain items that alter gameplay or improve a players abilities. All additional content will be cosmetic. 

Quote

No one would have ever funded this game if that was the case.

This is simply not true, people are backing the game Battalion 1944, and the game hasn't changed. We're not forcing anyone into anything here. We aren't making a Pay2Win market and we aren't becoming some money grabbing get rich quick scheme. 

The graph you are quoting to us; are based off of selling a premium model. We will no longer be selling a premium business model game. This means costs have to be made up in other ways. 

You accuse my team of mismanagement or some conspiracy to steal your money, which is frustrating because we've tried to be open from the start about our finances. You have incorrectly quoted numbers in your post. You can read our entire Kickstarter break down in one of our earlier updates here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/bulkheadinteractive/battalion-1944-pc-xb1-ps4/posts/1577060

That will show you how much money we ACTUALLY received from Kickstarter, this is what other studios don't tell you. We have spent money from The Turing Test on Battalion already, even though that is our own title and has little to do with Battalion, and we've done everything we can to make sure we don't undersell Battalion, we want it to have the best chance at success because we know we are the right studio to support this kind of game; because we genuinely do care. All the decisions we make are in Battalion's best interests.

Thanks for querying this, we do appreciate vocal fans, especially our early backers. But have faith, we know what we're doing and we have no intentions of screwing anybody over. Only making the best shooter we can possibly make.

Joe

Edited by [CM] BigTuna
4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

So I've intentionally been staying out of the debate to ensure we can get a range of unbiased opinions and really see how the bulk of the Battalion community would react. Joe actually just beat me to posting after Tuna tagged us in! I do feel however, that I need to clear up some misconceptions and add my personal opinion. I've been reading all of the comments and really do appreciate the time you're taking to share your perspectives.

Traditionally in videogame development these kind of financial decisions aren't usually made alongside the community and are usually implemented by publishers without even letting their communities know the full extent of their reasonings.This time it's different because we're in control and as gamers ourselves know the potential implications. We're genuinely doing this for the players, as more FREE content/maps/customizations will only extend the life of the game for years to come. Yes, games like Call of Duty 2/5 still just about survive (hopefully forever so we don't lose these gems) on community servers without any post release support. However, their player bases are so small, finding casual games and new recruits is a challenge. For example, look at Call of Duty 4. It was an amazing game which we enjoy to this very day, yet we all know how Activision handle their titles. Support from even the most dedicated players has dwindled. Amazing core communities just about remain, but imagine how great it would have been if InfinityWard had actually pumped new FREE content into CoD4 after release. I don't want to see the day anytime soon where the Battalion community has to make videos like this about our game: Is CoD4 Dead?

 

I'd much rather be able to play Battalion 1944 with a healthy player base and many new users for years to come. You're our most dedicated and informed supporters, you're not idiots. Of course, we're looking to profit from the the game because, sadly, we have to be business minded or the game will die. We work our asses off to be able to 'survive' as a studio because we love what we do and we want this game to be a success as badly as you do. Profits mean we can invest more back into content creation for the game. This means free Russian/British DLC, support for competitive LAN tournaments, support for community map/mod creation contests, more official maps/factions with AAA design/art process behind them, more visual unlocks and customizations... the list goes on. Considering this will not impact the gameplay itself in any form and is completely optional for players to participate in and support us with, it seems like a solid decision to make for the long term benefit of the game and our players.

Rainbow Six: Siege is a good (not perfect but good) example. It has a consistent core community of players that keep receiving free content updates & patches thanks to their store purchases. Whilst we do not agree with everything they've done (especially the fairly botched launch servers/support), that game, which most expected to shrivel and die before the end of the year, has grown and revitalized it's player base. Like I said, it's not a perfect example but we are actively looking to avoid their many mistakes and design a completely fair system for our players.

We appreciate this discussion is being had and are reading all these comments. I can't stress how much we're thinking everyday about how we can benefit the game, not only in terms of day to day development but also thinking about the best way to make this game thriving and successful years after launch.

And remember, no none of this will stop the awesome feeling of out-gaming other players and sniping your friends with your own personalised Kar98 ;) 

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now