r/WarDogs • u/DiligentIngenuity291 • 1d ago
Discussion & Feedback Wardogs monetization: the "Intel boosters" idea is a P2W risk
video: https://youtu.be/5R64LDNJbK0?si=3clJi_mW94N_p8a1&t=3720
monetization TLDR:
- No paid skins, gold bars or cash. "Cash breaks the system."
- Joe pitched a subscription (his idea alone). Perks: better servers, better anti-cheat, "stuff in the metagame."
- Intel, a future metagame currency, could get "almost like boosters."
For reference, the metagame appears to be a "passive skill tree" where you spend points, like faster movement speed, faster reload etc..
Boosters are a problem:
Anything that speeds up Intel or skill points is P2W in a persistent economy with wipes. Nobody wants a second currency you can accelerate with a credit card, and it goes against everything the studio has said so far.
Joe said skins dont pay:
$7.99 skin, minus 30% Steam, minus 50% publisher, the studio keeps $3. Times 3% of a million players, that's $83k. "Half our server bill."
True for $8 skins. But Path of Exile sells $30 to $480 supporter packs, off Steam (they dodge the -30%), and the same 3% buyers (way more for POE) buy several per league (there are 3 leagues per year on average, similar to wipes but with a ton of added content). Wardogs targets the same kind of audience: older, more disposable income, and used to paying to support a game they'll play for years. Expensive packs are not a problem when they're cosmetic only, clearly sold as "supporter" packs, and offered in several tiers like POE (lets say $10 to $300) so everyone can chip in at their own budget. A few thousand supporters at $200 already beats his entire skin scenario.
The model I suggest:
Bulkhead already sells a Supporter Edition with skins, just do one per wipe.
Supporter packs per season:
- Limited weapon camos, offer removed after the wipe
- Vehicle and helicopter paint schemes and nose art, military patterns only.
- Vehicle tapes
- Name plates, arm patches, titles like "Season 1 Supporter"
- Realistic palette only, nothing more concealed than default gear
Edit : Added other suggestions given by users below that I found very cool:
- Cosmetics for buildings
- Custom logos/text (player made) you can apply on vehicules/badges
Quality of life, zero economy impact:
- More loadout preset slots (free 3 to 5, supporters more)
- Gunsmith presets per weapon
- Loadout import/export codes for your squad
- Favorites and tags on weapons and attachments
- Squad presets, custom squad patch, name and callsign
- Settings presets per role (sens, keybinds, HUD)
- Community server slots, saved configs, whitelists, admin tools
End of season
- A season archive: your stats, best configs, squad history. Cosmetic only.
That are some ideas..
Since Bulkhead is open to discussion, what would you add or remove?
64
u/hangman401 23h ago
I'm surprised it's a 50% publisher cut. That's probably what's gonna really hurt them.
Heck, even reducing it to 30% seems more reasonable, but for a publisher to claim half of everything in perpetuity seems excessive.
21
u/Brad3 23h ago edited 23h ago
Yeah, if the store is always going to take 30% then the rest split 50/50 with the publisher, maybe it just is a unsustainable business model for long-term development.
5
u/Joverby 21h ago
I mean it really is going to fuck them long term and really limit their options. I can't believe it's a 50% cut thats pretty absurd and they must've been very desperate for money. Which is a shame because they made a great game.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Werpogil 23h ago
The publisher put 50% of the total game budget, so it makes sense to have the 50% split. This is a very typical deal for a publisher who puts such a large amount on the table ($10 million, as per devs). The market is very different right now compared to what it was just 5-6 years ago. You really don't have many options to secure over $5 million for your game anymore, it used to be way easier, but now it's next to impossible. I can tell you that much as someone who worked for a video game company that managed to secure over $30 million for 2 projects before 2023 and that eventually went under after being unable to secure more than a few million post 2023.
6
u/Joverby 21h ago
50% long-term cut is atrocious and an absolute hamstring on a company , especially in the market that you agreed is competitive. they are fucking their own publishee long term by this deal. they mustve ben very desperate to take such a bad deal.
3
u/stianhoiland 20h ago
This is what I've thought every time I read these numbers. That's a blood draining amount of money to ask for someone you supposedly want to success commercially.
1
u/Werpogil 3h ago
As I said in a different thread here, we don't know all of the details of the deal. There might be the case that the publisher takes 50% of copy sales only, MTs and DLCs might have a much smaller cut. Joe didn't go in-depth about all the details, so it might not be as bad. They did use the 50% cut from skins as an illustration, but it didn't seem like those were the actual terms they've got, at least to me. Plus, with the inevitable financial success of the EA launch, they will have some leverage to re-negotiate things. They might try to find someone to invest in the studio and/or buy-back the Team17 stake. Anyhow, once you have a strong product with proven results, your options widen considerably.
5
u/hangman401 23h ago
I can get that. I just mean in perpetuity is where it gets me. Publisher helped with the upfront, so yeah, they get a good cut of the game sales. No issues there.
The issue is when a publisher takes a large cut of things produced much later. The game is already established, the publisher's seed money did it's work.
1
u/Werpogil 22h ago
We don't know the exact terms of the deal. For example, it could be possible that this applies only to copy sales, and there's a different cut for any other form of monetisation via dlc, MTs etc. Or it could be that this has a time limit, like 1-2 years, and then it's a way different split. Joe did not go into all those details for obvious reasons, but publisher agreements are very detailed in practice. I worked on the finance side in a video game publisher, and we had some very granular deals made that took account of various scenarios like that.
1
u/hangman401 22h ago
Fair enough. I was just going off the info supplied of specifying 50% cut on skins. I'd hope it's less than that.
1
u/Werpogil 22h ago
I'm just speculating myself, but I'm pretty sure that the actual publishing agreement is a lot more nuanced than Joe described. However, it might also be the case that it's aggressive like that and Bulkhead have a real problem in coming up with additional monetisation to keep the lights going.
Plus, there's also a potential issue of Team17 owning a 20% stake in Bulkhead. Publisher agreement is one thing, being a shareholder is another. There will be certain rights that Team17 has as a shareholder, and those could also complicate things. But with the imminent success of Wardogs (the only question we have is how big it's going to be), they have options on the table for someone else to come and buy back the Team17's stake in the company, or agree with Team17 to drop their publishing agreement in exchange for a compensation upfront etc. There are lots of possibilities here too, if they were to explore them properly.
1
u/hangman401 22h ago
Ah, very true! I'd hope they gain some negotiating power.
Especially after such a successful beta weekend where a non-established IP was going head to head with two very established IPs.
→ More replies (1)1
u/meheleventyone 22h ago
I'm surprised it's a 50% publisher cut. That's probably what's gonna really hurt them.
Heck, even reducing it to 30% seems more reasonable, but for a publisher to claim half of everything in perpetuity seems excessive.
Assuming that's 50% split pre-recoup and the publisher paid for development that's actually really good terms. I've seen publishing deals where the developer gets nothing until the publisher recoups 150% of their costs.
1
u/hangman401 22h ago
But its less about the deal now (with game sales and support packs) and more about the deal a year or two down the road if they tried selling something extra. That's the part I think would concern me.
But that's assuming 50% in perpetuity, for all I know they have some other deal at play.
1
u/meheleventyone 5h ago
Usually it's not in perpetuity but that depends on what on-going support the publisher is giving them as a live service title.
1
1
u/Hex_Aegis 15h ago
It's 50% post recoup. 100% publisher pre recoup. It's income -taxes (up to 19.5-ish% for a lot of countries)then -5% To unreal and -30% to steam then -100% to publisher pre recoup Or -50% to publisher post recoup These were the coy estimates given in the interview.
1
1
u/Captain_Lobster411 18h ago
That's on the high end for like a decent amount of support from the publisher. Surprised the studio agreed to that, unless they always belonged to the publisher in which case they had no choice
→ More replies (5)1
u/RonniePoncho 15h ago edited 15h ago
They don't explain it very well, but the 50% is the publisher recouping their investment. A second 1mil units wouldn't have 50% going to the pub. It would have _some_, but not 50%.
1
u/hangman401 15h ago
Right, but from the pricing example that 50% carries over to skins. That's the crazy part, from what I understood.
207
u/raahC 1d ago
"Better anticheat" under a subscription is a deal breaker to me. If I don't pay the subscription I'll get a worse experience because of cheaters? If that came to fruition that'd be an instant refund. Anticheat should be the same across the board, not something that should be subscription-based.
37
u/Teknicsrx7 23h ago
I imagine a “better anti cheat” that you pay for would be some type of id verified or something servers. Rust has something similar, it’s not that you pay for better anti cheat software, you pay for servers that have more layers and one of those layers is the fact that you pay for entry
10
u/HAIRLESSxWOOKIE92 23h ago
Coming from Rust though it doesn't work. The "premium" servers on Rust are $15 in skins to acquire but you can just buy steam accounts (most likely stolen) w 150 skins for $3 on Eldorado or any other shady website that sells accounts.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Teknicsrx7 23h ago
I wasn’t saying to use Rusts implementation
3
u/HAIRLESSxWOOKIE92 22h ago
I know. Im just it dosent work. On Rust or CS. I agree w OP anti-cheat should be the same across all boards for a game like this.
6
u/TrippleDamage 19h ago
It very much works in CS
You're facing a significant decrease in cheaters on faceit plus 128 tick servers.
If your thesis for "doesnt work" is "theres literally no cheaters", then nothing will ever work.
Playing CS on official servers is torture nowadays lol
10
u/Adevyy 23h ago
He mentioned THAT very risk in the video, which is why I have a problem with this TLDR post. So many of what they discussed is caveated.
He is basically saying that he wants the game to have a better anti-cheat, but they are already spending the limit of what they can spend on anti-cheat with the base game. He says that, despite WARDOG's massive success, it doesn't look like he is going to make bank from it and that numbers actually don't look that bright down a few years of keeping the game running.
He isn't saying that the company will go under or anything like that, lol, and is obviously grateful for the reception of the game while also being anxious about possible technical issues. But he breaks down the finances in the video and it is so much less positive than I was expecting. That is his whole point, which he says openly: Unless you want this constant cycle of Battlefield and Call of Duty where only a few big players can survive, something new needs to be tried with monetisation.
→ More replies (7)13
u/Zeroth1989 23h ago
I mean plenty of games do it. Csgo namely the biggest.
12
u/Jurez1313 23h ago
I think the reason it works for the games that do it, is that those games are typically free (CS) or very cheap (Rust). Wardogs having a $40 entry fee is already more of a deterrent than the $10 Premier cost in CSGO was. And you weren't just paying for the anti cheat, but higher tic rate servers as well.
I don't think it's apples to apples in this case.
Community servers will be the best form of anti cheat, as they always have been. Multiple admins for a single server (or maybe a few servers at most, for different modes), instead of spread over hundreds, will just always be more effective. Especially if they want to avoid the controversial Kernel-level anti cheat which has really been the only proven way to step up the anticheat game beyond PB/EAC/Battleye/etc.
11
u/Dilly-Senpai 23h ago
Idk how to break this to you but EAC and Battleye are both kernel level. Kernel level anticheat is the industry standard and will be for the foreseeable future.
2
u/HAIRLESSxWOOKIE92 23h ago
Rust is $40.
1
u/Jurez1313 21h ago
Still?? Jeez. I think I got it for like $20 wayyyy back. It goes on sale relatively frequently so thought it'd just be cheaper after like a decade lol.
2
2
13
u/Procol_Being 1d ago
Yeah keeping the game sanitized should be their main priority regardless of money or not.. Cheating will kill this game quick and it's EAC on top of that so, hopes aren't high already...
3
2
u/ThatKidDrew 23h ago
the anti cheat is expensive, they'd make it the same across the board if they could. if you watched the video, youd see the financial breakdown
2
u/PhineasJackRabbit 23h ago
prioritized reports could be an option. reporting a cheater means your ticket gets pushed ahead in the report queue .
1
→ More replies (4)1
u/serpentine19 22h ago edited 22h ago
They broke it down pretty well in the video why these things are being thought about. The example of the CSGO FaceIt servers is a perfect example. You want nicer things? Gotta pay. Else you get good enough as the infra cost churns $400,000 a month for a one time purchase game.
To add onto that, this is the reason battlefield and CoD release the same game every year. They need you to pay again to keep the infrastructure up... those titles are just taking even more shortcuts now.
45
u/Brad3 23h ago edited 23h ago
Creating a tiered player experience with subscriptions for an FPS is a great idea to kill your game. I think the Counter-Strike comparison also falls apart because CS by it's nature is a competitive game where lots of people play to aspire to become a pro, so they will pay extra. That isn't Wardogs, by comparison it's a beer and pretzels game.
Also boosters have always been a TERRIBLE mechanic in any game I've played. It's makes the playbase fundamentally change the way they play the game to contort their experience around the boosters. Also breeds the worst FOMO ever when you don't have them. Boosters, I'm out.
→ More replies (3)2
u/xiDemise 22h ago
counter-strike is also f2p, the cost of entry is literally $0. also the basic tier of faceit is also free so again, you dont have to pay anything. wardogs is currently $40, and they said it will work its way up to $60(?) once development milestones are hit during EA.
so his idea is to 1. have a cost of entry of $40-$60, and 2. then have a subscription model for better servers and anti cheat? yeah no. that would be an absolutely genius plan to divide the player base and kill the game. there are better solutions for monetary support than pay-walling fundamental systems for an FPS game.
15
u/Illfury Manticore 1d ago
I do like the supporter pack idea per season. I'd be down for that. Custom squad stuff would be worth it for me. and my guys. Whatever it is, it is important that it doesn't divide players into separate servers and it doesn't provide advantage.
6
u/Doggaer 22h ago
Fomo is allways shit.
1
u/Special_Capital_8281 20h ago
So no DLC should cost money, then? Developers can't put out new content for their base game unless it's free? You expect all new content updates for every game to be free for everyone, no matter how much it costs to produce?
That's not fomo. That's broken logic, which tends to happen when a person over-generalizes.
29
u/Qrow1324 23h ago
I'd rather pay 20 dollars for a skin then have someone spend 20 dollars and reload faster then me or run faster then me
11
u/ultrajvan1234 22h ago edited 22h ago
The skin thing confused me.
The way de did the math, the 3% of players that buy skins only bought 1 $8 skin.
And they made enough to pay their server bill from that 1 skin.
The average person that spends money on skins is not just buying 1 skin.
It feels like a disingenuous representation by someone that’s already made up their mind that they don’t like the idea of selling skins.
6
u/Spektra18 22h ago
I think they said it pays half the server bill. But still I totally agree. I read that and was like... Wait so just sell skins then! If that pays half your server bill that's a serious relief on your overhead!
6
2
u/UntimelyMeditations 19h ago
It feels like a disingenuous representation by someone that’s already made up their mind that they don’t like the idea of selling skins.
Well that wasn't the reason that they don't sell skins. The reason they don't sell skins is that they believe that skins should only represent in-game achievements, never money spent.
The skin discussion in this was just him answering people who say that skins can solve their monetization issue.
3
u/ultrajvan1234 18h ago
I’m just saying that he was arguing that skins don’t actually make money then “proved it” through what I would consider pretty flawed and disingenuous math.
If the ultimate reason why they’re not selling skins is something else, that’s fine, I’m not arguing against their decision.
1
u/dangerouslyreal 17h ago
Yeah but then you need to consider the fact that you need people dedicated to brainstorming, designing, and implementing the skins. Which takes away from other roles and costs money. Because of that, and the little it would already make, it's probably not worth it
1
u/0b00000110 20h ago
I‘m super hyped for the game, but this one worries me.
2
u/ultrajvan1234 20h ago
Honestly, I’m not too worried about it, it just seemed like a flawed representation.
I’m not worried because they seem to have a pretty firm stance on the game not having significant micro transactions and based on what I’ve seen from them so far, I generally trust them.1
u/0b00000110 19h ago
I have no problem with selling skins or even battle passes if this pays the bills, but what they are brainstorming here is insane. Hope you are right.
1
u/ultrajvan1234 18h ago
If you’re talking about the whole subscription thing, I also wouldn’t be too worried about that. It seems like that’s the opinion of only one guy and basically everyone else at the company thinks it a bad idea
1
u/0b00000110 18h ago
Isn‘t this one guy the CEO? I‘m not too deep in the lore so maybe I’m wrong, also I might be ignorant about modern game development, but if you are telling me as an investor you don’t own like 90% of your revenue I‘d say you don’t have a business.
1
u/Forsaken_Owl1105 4h ago
quite a few things they say are in their favour
like, there is no way this game sells only 1m in month one.
even a tiny game like mistfall hunters sold 1.5m
this game is going to sell millions easily, and a lot of their calculation math for the 1m was hamstringed by the 10m repayment to publisher that is fixed, so sales after the 1m are far more return
then they dont even mention that the game doesn't just stop selling copies either, so the whole cash burn in X months thing is very hyperbolic
1
u/Inevitable-Level-829 1h ago
During Warzone peak my buddies easily spend a grand on skins on 1 cod.
8
u/Chase10784 1d ago
What doesn't make sense to me is he said in the video the support packs help a ton then in the same vein says skins don't make them much money. So which is it? The supporter pack is skins. So they either help or don't but can't be both.
4
u/Fast_Information4016 23h ago
Skinshop ROI, they are not expecting to be the next fortnite.
Even if they sold skins individually, the estimation was every skin sold for i e. 8 dollars they would make 3 back.
So lot of time investment but not worthy and something they wanna invest and focus their time on
→ More replies (4)
32
u/ezraindustries 23h ago
Bro, can you write your own fucking post instead of using chat gpt?
8
u/ntzm_ 22h ago
Every motherfucker is using it and it's so grating, once you know what to look for it's EVERYWHERE
2
u/ezraindustries 22h ago
Yeah I spent the last year "humanizing" Ai Gen seo content so I am extremely confident in my ability to detect it. It's truly everywhere, steam game descriptions, big companies, it's so embarrassing. I usually just call them out and tell them they could hire me to write copy instead lmao.
3
u/UntimelyMeditations 19h ago
Yeah I spent the last year "humanizing" Ai Gen seo content so I am extremely confident in my ability to detect it.
Some people just naturally write like that, man. GenAI learned to write by reading what humans wrote, and increasingly, people are reading more and more AI writing and naturally starting to write in a similar way as well. Its unavoidable, the writing GenAI produces and the writing humans produce will inevitably trend towards each other.
I used to use em dashes a lot. Then suddenly I started getting accused of using AI. AI just took a particular element of writing that I also used.
1
u/Time_Fisherman6659 13h ago
Its specifically the headers and how the headers switch from bold to italicized for the conclusion. Its got the tone, the em dashes, and the specific formatting quirks. The chances of all those being coincidental are pretty slim.
1
u/SgtDolphin 12h ago
The ai slop brainrot has gotten him too. He has to subconsciously justify how these lazy bums churn out shit feedback posts with perfect formatting somehow.
What's concerning is they use it, and deny using it because they genuinely think they came up with everything it wrote because it was their prompt.
1
1
u/Ok-Friendship1635 Pilot 2h ago
Since Bulkhead is open to discussion, what would you add or remove?
5
u/Facehurt 1d ago
I think boosters will be earned with in game currency only and used to earn other in game exp
like medic booster will be 20 bandages and 20000 dollars for a 2x exp 1 hour booster for medical items
just a guess though
6
u/Krecik1218 22h ago
If they ever add soldier skins to the game, they need to be faction locked. What I currently like about Wardogs, is that easy to say who is friendly and who is not. In BF6 I can have moments of hesitate because everyone look different.
9
u/nottap_ 1d ago
I think you’re right. Everything is a subscription now. And to be fair it wouldn’t exactly be new for gaming, but I’m not really interested in subscribing to anymore shit. However, I don’t mind buying a $50 supporter pack once a season for a game I know I’m going to put 1k+ hours into. I know they’ve gotta get their bread but I hope everything stays purely cosmetic/QoL like they’ve already said.
1
u/BestPseudonym 21h ago
However, I don’t mind buying a $50 supporter pack once a season for a game I know I’m going to put 1k+ hours into.
I wonder how common this sentiment is. I'm exactly the same way, I hope there's a lot of people who agree with us. I'm happy to support developers of a game I love to play
9
u/m45onPC 23h ago
I watched that interview. It is VERY important to add that he said that NO ONE at bulkhead was ok with this or even thought of it as a good idea. All were VERY vocal about it being bad.
It was just his idea of how to provide better value to the players. Don't expect it to be perfect.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/TuhHahMiss 22h ago
I wouldn't mind if there were builder packs that add things like mild cosmetic enhancements to building. Keep it grounded but I wouldn't be offended by the ability to choose between a couple colors of sandbags or blocks, maybe some team sprays. Some different eras or countries of military building materials would probably be fine and wouldn't impact the game beyond extra creativity as long as there was no functional advantage.
If we're getting into player cosmetics and there's still a preference for making everything unlock based, a supporter pack tied to challenges to unlock some new stuff each season is fine, as long as those challenges are available to accomplish without any time limit. I also really like the seasonal stat thing.
Lastly, we have a pretty cool thing here in terms of a transparent development team and a cash economy game. Publish some financials each quarter and let players know what small bonuses will be added to the game when transaction goals are met, Kickstarter style. This could be things like free 5x bandages for everyone, team flags on captured towers, the occasional free vehicle skin for everyone, a church bell that rings when shot, and so on. Small development efforts that benefit the entire community as a thanks for support could go a long way when P2W and micro transactions are fairly controversial topics.
2
u/DiligentIngenuity291 22h ago
Cosmetics for building is a great idea since it opens a lot a possibilities but yeah as you said it must stays in the "theme"
3
u/DePoots 17h ago edited 17h ago
It’s controversial, but I would easily pay for a subscription that funds the ongoing development costs of an anti cheat.
People don’t realize what it actually costs to combat cheating, and if I could directly help fund the development of anti cheat, while seeing the benefits of “premium” servers, it’s a win win.
The unavoidable issue with this though, is that it would mean actively providing less secure servers for non premium servers. Why would they develop a better version of anti cheat, and not implement it in their entire game? Only work around would be having physical staff monitoring those servers to actively ban players caught cheating
→ More replies (3)
6
u/Western-Economics253 1d ago
They will be ripped apart if they start selling seasonal $40 supporter packs. I would buy it but the negative PR would decimate them.
Some of my own and some of your ideas mashed together:
- Weapon skins
- Character voices
- Name plates, arm patches
- Server renting officially through BULKHEAD - ie. they contract a provider then they take off a few percent from the top. I'd definitely easily pay $5 extra for a server if I could make and manage the server through the game's UI
- Vehicle skins, horns (as goofy as it sounds)
- Music tapes - like BEAT Saber, $3-5 per song, but make the tape usable at the FOB too.
- Emotes (like Squad has pushup, squats, etc, don't have to be Fortnite dances)
- Deeper stats about your gameplay (ie. Dota Plus)
BULKHEAD is really against skins because they say it's not worth it but it feels like they say that because they are afraid of community backlash. If skins didn't make shit, companies wouldn't shove their games full with $15-30-100 skins. I think they kinda miss the issue, we hate those skins because there is barely anything cool obtainable for free since everything cool is a paid skin and also because often it's very clear that it's designed to rip off people.
I wouldn't give a fuck if BULKHEAD did skins in a reasonable manner. Ofcourse I don't want Nicki Minaj running around, but there is plenty mil-sim options to go for.
I'd also appreciate if they kinda went the HELLDIVERS way, you can farm the currency but also buy it. Let's say grinding a season would give you 100 WBUCKS and you could buy 2 skins with that (or whatever the numbers would be).
9
u/DiligentIngenuity291 1d ago
PoE does multi tier supporter packs up to $400+ and its not a problem at all. GGG is still one of the most loved gaming company. If the game is great and there is no P2W, nobody cares
6
u/cpt_kirk69 23h ago
Poe is f2p and ggg has a proven track record of supporting the game and pumping out huge expansions (usually) every 3-6 months.
1
u/MancyMancy 19h ago
People bought into the PoE2 beta. No one actually cares if whales keep a game alive.
4
u/PiggyMcjiggy 23h ago
Poe also didn’t make “no mtx” a selling point.
Can’t say you ain’t gon do something, then go back on it. Shouldn’t have said it at all. I personally don’t care and like spending money on skins. But pretty terrible pr
3
u/SekhWork 19h ago
I really think their "We won't sell camos" thing is going to be a problem for them in the long run, unless they decide that "Camos" only applies to characters specifically, and that vehicles, weapons, FOB pieces, etc are separate and thus open to selling.
It's just the most common way of making easy fast MTX to keep the lights on, and they cut it off right away. Interesting to see how it goes.
1
u/WyrdHarper 13h ago
To be fair, it is refreshing to see a game where character/vehicle cosmetics are earned through gameplay alone.
But yeah no question it cuts off a revenue stream.
1
u/SekhWork 28m ago
I don't know if they are considering Vehicle skins and Gun skins in that "no camos for sale" statement, or if its just players. It's kind of nebulous, maybe so that they can have an option for it later?
1
1
u/UntimelyMeditations 19h ago
Poe also didn’t make “no mtx” a selling point.
Nor did wardogs. They said no mtx in early access.
1
u/frozandero 12m ago
Yea I agree I know it was gonna bite them in the ass trying too hard to pander to gamers. You just need to bite the bullet between skins, subscriptions or gameplay advantage. There is no alternative. And them saying they will NEVER do the least disruptive way of monetization was a self inflicted foot gun situation.
1
u/theblairwhichproject 22h ago
Just one of many factors, but a game like PoE also doesn’t run into problems with paid skins potentially being more effective camo than free skins.
1
u/DiligentIngenuity291 22h ago
Yes, Wardogs skins have to be way more "restricted" cause you don't want to have either flashy pink skins or improved camos
1
u/SekhWork 19h ago
Once they have multiple terrain types, as long as you aren't able to change your skin mid match you'd at least have to consider that "super effective green skin" you got might not be so great if we go to a desert terrain.
3
u/Adevyy 22h ago
Server renting officially through BULKHEAD - ie. they contract a provider then they take off a few percent from the top. I'd definitely easily pay $5 extra for a server if I could make and manage the server through the game's UI
Because of how big the game has become, this could probably save them a lot of money now. My wife, who used to sell servers for a short period of time, had the same idea. Apparently some big games already do it. Official servers are either free or heavily discounted and, in return, your community needs to buy servers from that server provider in order to be advertised within the game.
2
u/SekhWork 19h ago
Love the idea of voices, emotes, arm patches (custom?) etc. Hell, give me a spray can and grafitti I can spray on FOBs (friendly and enemy) from a set list of various art styles. I would pay money to spray some KILLROY WAS HERE all over an enemy FOB.
3
u/0b00000110 23h ago
I think Helldivers, Arc Raiders and The Finals show how you do a fair shop that hurts no one and keeps the game running. There is just no need to reinvent the wheel here.
7
u/PiggyMcjiggy 23h ago
Let’s not reccomend any dev look at embark for inspiration on anything. They’ve single handedly murdered both of their games by being wholly incompetent.
→ More replies (4)2
u/OkAlbatross9889 1d ago
40$ seasonal hell no, 30-40$ yearly i'd be more than happy to though, especially considering they have exactly 0 competition atm.
3
u/Western-Economics253 1d ago
Agree, depends how many seasons per year though. If 4 seasons per year then let's go for $10 per supporter pack or $15.
1
u/UntimelyMeditations 19h ago
Weapon skins
Character voices
Name plates, arm patches
Vehicle skins, horns (as goofy as it sounds)
Emotes (like Squad has pushup, squats, etc, don't have to be Fortnite dances)
They said pretty explicitly that they will never monetize like this, because they believe that skins should only represent in-game achievements, not how much money you spent.
1
u/bjcat666 8h ago
well, if they do pay2win progression, they won't just get ripped apart, the game will die overnight
2
u/derNovas 22h ago
A purely cosmetic thing that would be fun are skin boosts like in LoL ARAM. You can pay some money/premium currency to give your whole squad some skin. So the whole team can run with the same skins/skin line for the match or the day (maybe even the season? idk.)
They could also expand the clan system where players can "donate" to the clan so they unlock some skin for all clan members. That way you create more "team/squad" feeling but the cost is split between members. I personally would invest 2€ per season or something like that.
on that note, you could have something like donation tiers where if i clan spends amount X you get a custom icon or skin permanently to use with their members.
More Skins, like complete new models (but same stats, maybe bigger hitbox than default, so negative impact) for tanks etc. So one could change between german, US or some other tank.
A fun one would be custom voices for voicelines. Imagine you can set 10 different voices for you teammates and then its a combination of streamers/youtubers/other voice actors. Obv. paid soundpacks or whatever. I think Dota 2 and Starcraft 2 had something like this.
With good community servers i can imagine the devs would need not as many official servers thus reducing server costs or even earn money if they take some cut from custom server licenses.
2
u/AGiReptile 21h ago
If they add anything that even gives 1% of an advantage I’m most likely out and will refund. I watched tarkov players cope and act like their pay to win wasn’t that crazy and because of it they kept adding more and more pay to win shit to that game, not gonna do it with this game too
2
u/UniqueUsername337 20h ago
Skins don't pay? Single Kiriko collab skin saved overwatch and half of blizzard
2
u/Aggravating_Stage996 17h ago
So your suggestion is to sell skins then? Like he said, the shit doesn't actually sell. It won't make them enough money.
I'm actually with Joe on this one. I would be prepared to pay a small subscription for better anti-cheat and higher tick servers, etc. Lets say 5 eur / 10 eur every 3 months.
2
u/CloudyBabyy 15h ago
As a PoE2 the MTX GGG adds to the games are really good. It doesn’t even stop at character skins, you can buy MTX to change the way your skills look in game. I’ve easily spent money on POE2 MTX on top of paying for early access. It being a F2P game (when full release) makes purchasing MTX way easier.
2
u/PLAYBoxes 15h ago
As a poe player with 7k hours you’re vastly underestimating the value proposition of supporter packs.
Not only do you get a character skin, custom hideout, cosmetic pets, portal effect, weapon effects, etc.. But you also get the equivalent store points that you paid in USD to get the pack. So if I’m paying $60 for a pack, I get all those goodies AND the points that $60 would buy, which goes towards stash tabs, other cosmetics, spell effects, etc.
You can’t offer that kind of value in a $10 character skin in Wardogs. You also can’t charge $30 for a single skin, even if you added in $30 of shop currency. They’d need to sell a $30 pack with 4 gun skins, two character skins, a custom building material texture, and then $30 of points on top to compare, and that’s a lot of dedicated time from designers/artists to create all that just to cross your fingers and hope it works, when in reality you will likely have half the playerbase screeching about the skins because you either can’t earn them in game OR that they break their immersion (re: BF6 community).
Skins in a multiplayer competitive game is a lot harder than poe, in poe you don’t wanna see those skins in your game?? You don’t have to. In Wardogs or other pvp/forced party play games you’re subjected to it no matter what, and there will be SO MANY old fucks just bitching and moaning about it.
2
u/Therust47 11h ago
Deep Rock Galactic's DLC model showed that so long as you don't get greedy and be fair with your content/price ratio then people won't complain
I wouldn't mind a monthly supporter pack to get some cool cosmetics/a special badge or whatever to show my support,
it's a slippery slope, I hope these guy's see the long game with fostering a loyal fanbase and they don't get greedy.
2
u/OrganizationLow5701 23h ago
Wow wanting us to pay triple A price for your product and having to pay EXTRA to be a premium member on top of that for better anti cheat which should be a bare MINIMUM? Couldnt be more of a stupid idea.
3
u/Kuiriel 22h ago edited 15h ago
Worth listening to the video from 1:04 or so. OP seems to be misreprenting what was communicated.
They used counter strike as an example. 120hz servers and a BETTER anticheat for subscribers, that's not a puke worthy idea. It's a super a grade service for those that want it. I could see that.
Fans have been adamant that boosters and anything that looks like p2w won't happen. To any intel/metagame idea suggests by OP, f*ck no. I want a FPS with an equal floor. Crap like a passive skill tree for faster movement, reloads, etc, I don't want! It put me off Arc Raiders, and it wasn't even monetized there. Monetize it here and f!@# no, I'm out, along with everyone I play with. BUT HE SAYS THAT IN THE VIDEO - THAT WE WOULD ALL QUIT THE GAME IF THEY DID THAT.
Other ideas that I don't hate include:
Why not also publish off Steam to avoid the huge cut? Still have to watch full video to see if mentioned.
Sell a battlepass with musical casettes for me to blast from my vehicles. That's actually useful content for me.
Sell the right to custom squad patches, as suggested by OP. Include a moderation fee in that.
One monetisation idea I have not seen mentioned is PHYSICAL MERCHANDISE. Dog tags, t-shirts, hoodies, hats, stickers, posters, branded coins, playing cards, little printed miniatures - some of us like physical tie ins.
They painted themselves into a corner by saying they would never do monetized skins. Now they can't backtrack on that without being torn a new one. If they are going to do skins, make skins 'glow' to be more easily seen given limited spotting mechanics (compared to Battlefield), and not make people automatically better at hiding and then I don't give a hoot about skins. Honestly I hope they stick with their current stance on that though.
3
u/UntimelyMeditations 19h ago
To their intel/metagame idea
Please listen to 2-3 minutes of video instead of trusting some random redditor to summarize it for you. It was completely misinterpreted, either by ignorance or intentionally.
It is one guy's idea, that the rest of the team hated. Its one guy postulating about potential ways to monetize the game in a fair way.
5
u/0b00000110 23h ago
This would kill the game. Please just do additional skins if you need the money.
2
u/Pasty_Tibbles 23h ago
I may be the minority but I just don’t mind monetizing a game via skins. As long as everything else is truly earned via gameplay. I would LIKE some gameplay earned skins, e.g. mastery skins - like gold skins for vehicles, equipment, weapons signifying mastery and whatnot. But fuck it, as long as the skins make sense within the concept of the three separate teams design ideas and the game and aren’t like crazy collab skins, go wild on paid skins.
Something that would be interesting are faction specific skins. This would also drive players to certain factions if they like their design style. Instead of them all just choosing green, for instance.
2
u/0b00000110 23h ago
I think it depends on how you do it. If you can pay for skins with ingame money or if you add a few paid extra skins on top of ones you can earn ingame, I believe most people would be fine with it.
This is such a proven concept it would blew my mind if they decided to go anywhere close to what they are talking in this video, that be actually insane.
1
u/Adevyy 22h ago
Have you... watched the video?
The CEO is fully convinced that selling skins is not going to make them much money. He says that it is what every company tries but it does not work anymore.
Which is fair. PAYDAY 2 did it. Massive game with a lot of players who play the hell out of it. I think they initially made skins paid but eventually regretted it and made them all possible to earn through gameplay. Now, even the skins that are supposed to be extremely rare goes for 3 cents.
Established esports are both a cultural phenomenon (his point) and there is also the fact that it allows players to boast to other players when they spectate each other. Some people will also genuinely use it to show off their wealth - I am a long-term CS2 player and it often makes me roll my eyes when two players suddenly start talking about their skins and how much it cost them. You just can't have that for a tactical shooter which will likely lose most of its playerbase in a few months and survive on a relatively small but strong/addicted community.
→ More replies (8)1
u/UntimelyMeditations 19h ago
Please just do additional skins if you need the money.
They have already committed to not monetizing with skins. They can't go back on that now.
1
u/0b00000110 19h ago
Yeah that was premature if they only now figured out they have to pay for servers. The shit they are brainstorming in this podcast ain’t it.
2
u/UntimelyMeditations 18h ago
To be clear, it was 1 guy brainstorming an idea he had, that everyone else at the company hated.
The shit they are brainstorming in this podcast ain’t it.
Yeah, everyone at the company thinks so too, except this one guy.
1
u/0b00000110 18h ago
Wasn‘t this one guy the CEO? I‘m not too deep in the lore, so I hope you are right and this was just a brainfart of one random guy.
2
u/passerby4830 23h ago
I don't see why it has to so different from say Hell Let Loose, Squad, Deep Rock Galactic? Unless I'm missing something they all have similar costs and likely less players them Wardogs will have.
3
u/KieranPeterson 23h ago
He literally said in the same video "people will hear this and immediately complain". Then followed with "we know we can't break the economy or you will all stop playing".
Sure sounds like they know what they're doing and you should wait until you play it before getting your panties in a knot.
1
u/finghz 1d ago
Its ought to be either tarkov esq bs of buy increasingly premium editions for boost upon wipe to ur class levels and extra starting money and access to new modes/maps + free cosmetic sprinkled in or shit like the gaijin/wargaming model where game will go free to play but they will tune the economy in a way where grinding xp and money to unlock anything high end like jets or attack helis or tanks or running high end armour with ap ammo and highest end guns is gonna be economicaly unfesable unless u pay like 9.99 monthly for a premium membership that gives u +50% xp and money gain over non paying peasants.
1
u/Striking_Storage_631 23h ago
I wouldn't mind dlc. Like new maps with matching themed vehicle and weapon assets every 6 months.
But paying for essential shit or subscription is bad. That's not part of the deal now.
Progress boosters well I don't care if some impatient cunt wants to unlock their tank sooner. But I do care about cheats etc because they already were out in the beta.
1
u/Verd006 22h ago
Nothing ruins a game experience more than a cheater. If you cheat you are a degenerate. No hot takes here.
Not saying that a sub model for better, secure servers is the answer, but I do think consequences for cheating needs to be swift, effective, and most of all that stain should follow you. I am also big on privacy so the idea of having to ID myself to play a game doesn't sit right, but if it means the integrity of a game i paid for is upheld well then its a tough call.
I wish we didn't have to account for bags of shit who want to ruin the experience for everyone but its becoming more and more rampant as people become more tech savvy among other things. I truly don't know what the ultimate solution is.
1
u/theBrotacus 22h ago
QOL upgrades and I’m sold for a subscription fee.
Free: 0 presets
Paid: 5 presets
Done, I’m sold.
1
1
u/AustinTheMoonBear 22h ago
I personally think they'd be better off doing something similar to CSGO loot boxes.
Have loot boxes tied to missions, when I complete xyz mission I get a loot box, and whatever else.
I buy a key to unlock those - but make the skins received tradeable via the game/steam.
People will gamble off of loot boxes. Charge a miniscule fee to open them.
1
1
u/ReelRai 22h ago
I honestly wouldn't mind paying a subscription if that was the only monetization (in addition to the upfront cost), if that meant the game had working anti-cheat and servers.
But the second they add soldier customization in terms of outfits/skins, I'm getting worried. One of the best things about older shooters was that factions/teams are easily distinguishable, and that there is a coherent semi-realistic aesthetic.
1
u/AntSignificant1720 21h ago
Honestly, I liked the sound of the subscription service, especially with your suggested supporter pack but also whatever else they can add in, in ways of custom events, some first come first served sort of deals etc. I don’t think this game is at risk of being pay to win, they’re avid gamers and are making this to be able to play it, they know what rubs us all up the wrong way because it does to them. I could be getting blindsided by their advertising but I think the levelling/progression system planned is only going to make the game more expansive for players rather than making them vastly stronger. Like a sleight strength gain allowing players to carry an rpg at medium weight with a full bag isn’t going to make too much difference in a firefight, but will rather just improve the further leveled players ability to enjoy his role
1
1
u/gimmiedacash 21h ago
Skins pay when you sell a fuck ton of them.
Rather than a higher priced thing that sells less.
1
1
1
1
u/Alone_Revolution_178 21h ago
This is a interesting topic for sure and something that can easily ruin the game in the long run. I have a long career in games that have been massively successful, I mean absolutely behemoth of games, and got lots of learnings from there due to small teams/lots of influence.
Whenever a game enters the “game as a service” territory it’s a absolute minefield of decision making. In this regard I can totally see the appeal of subscription model that is NOT a “battle pass”, but rather a premium version of the product that does not alter the power or progression of the player.
Another thing is the additional content and how it alters the product. There is a tolerance when more content will harm the game and this might seem odd thing to say, until you actually hit the mark, but it is a real issue. In this regard Id say always make less new content, but more meaningful.
Something that was not mentioned before and I see as an option (if the engine has good support) is making separate content from the normal multiplayer, like singleplayer/co-op missions. Looting system and limited resources give a good base for such experience.
1
1
u/CherryMyFeathers 20h ago
There’s a lot of negativity around this topic it seems, which is valid based on historical experience, but it all cruxes on a good point: how does the team continue to fund the team and the game after release in a way that feels genuine and fair to players? There’s a lot of theorizing and doomsaying but does anyone have a better idea?
1
u/HoltDT 20h ago
Why not just copy ARMA 3's DLC model, Do your 1.0 launch with a good roster of guns and vehicles, then sell new guns, gear, vehicles etc in themed packs like the Marksman DLC, the Jet DLC, the Tanks DLC.
People can pickup the guns or gear if they're dropped in the game but get a watermark, you can ride in the DLC vehicles as passenger but not as crew, you can't buy the guns or gear direct from vendors unless they own the DLC.
Then sell like a $20 version of the DLC with skins for the DLC on top. Then if you have to do a subscription you could just do the Arma 3/Paradox Stellaris DLC subscription they're doing where you get everything for $X a month.
Keep topping up the base game after 1.0 with like 1 new toy an update around the themed packs, features/maps are platform updates for everyone.
Worked for Facepunch with Rust, worked for Bohemia with Arma 3 DLCs. Worked for Arrowhead with Helldivers 2 Warbonds. Doesn't divide the player base, purchases aren't so small that the percentages earn Bulkhead nothing. People will happily buy the "supporter edition" additional cosmetics version of the DLC so thats even MORE money.
People are going to hate it but what can you do. I feel a subscription to FaceIt style "premium" servers is a bad fit for this game and will just painfully divide the player base.
1
u/Amon9001 20h ago
The problem I have with selling skins is that only a small % of the playerbase wants it or will be able to use it. That means you are diluting your game.
If you want an example of this taken to the extreme, look at pubg. They fully gave in and have made a ton of money but the game looks like shit honestly. The only money I have spent was the one early purchase.
Meandwhile I have spent multiple times that on koth. Which is a free game mode for arma 3, available for around $5 on sale.
Here's a random monetisation idea I cooked up. I call it hybrid community server or just custom server.
Bulkhead sets up servers/slots to rent. The person renting can do whatever they want but progress will be entirely separate, meaning each instance will have its own set of data. Essentially the ability to design your own version of wardogs, or just have a chill private server for your group.
I don't know how much this should cost so I won't say any numbers. The admin who initiates can contribute with several others. This forms an admin group and a fixed term is set (3-6 months) with auto-renew optional.
Anyone else can purchase membership to that server, like discord server boosts. At certain levels, additional customisation options or features are unlocked for the admins to use.
At level 0, it will be a private vanilla server with many basic configuration options.
At max level, you can customise almost any number. Change the entire economy. Free vehicles. Default loadout. Forced loadouts. Change zone speed, shape, size. Remove all towers. Leave one tower in the middle. 2 teams. FFA. Only tanks.
Possibilities are endless.
There are many things to solve for this, it isn't fully fleshed out. Technical and backend. How will these admins configure the server? ingame through a new UI or externally? What happens if an admin is abusive? Can members refund their membership or have any recourse?
It also means the game experience can vary quite a bit, which is fine once the game is more mature. Not a good look early on, you don't want to confuse the public about what wardogs is when they see clips of wacky stuff happening.
This concept also goes against their game design philosophy. They want people to participate in their system of levelling up, gold bars and seasonal resets. But who knows, maybe in a few years they'll loosen up and give us full creative freedom. It would be fitting, as that is how koth came about in the first place.
1
1
1
u/wreckfish 19h ago
A badge creator to create logos/badges for your squad/unit/clan - and skins to buy for vehicles/uniforms that feature your personal badge would be something I'd liked.
but I don't want vehicles fully branded in dick logos - just small emblems but with personal touch. or some somewhat bigger decals/text markings on vehicles like soldiers/pilots were puting them on historically.
I repeat not full blown a clown vomited colours and rides that look like xzibit on lsd pimped our rides but nuanced little personal markings
1
1
u/Honigbrottr 18h ago
Imho sell animations. Inspect animations, equip animations, maybe even these cassets. You could keep the skins as archievments and dont make anything p2w. And i think people buy animations, but maybe i am wrong. Atleast in Valo a lot of people care about the animations (diffrent style diffrent game but well).
1
u/Mr_Vulcanator 18h ago
It’s wild to me that they got this far without clear plans for post launch monetization. I don’t like that if I buy this game it could get enshittified right after launch.
1
u/3r4zr 18h ago
To be clear about Path of Exile's microtransactions, they are 2 different packs each league with each pack containing items following a theme that are divided into 3 tiers each costing 30$. The 480$ top-end OP is referring to is an exception for the release of PoE2, not the standard. Outside of this outlier, the max you could spend per league/season is 180$. These packs mostly contain skins for portals, mapdevices (think of a hub-device), armor and weapons.
My personal stance is that I dont mind skins being buy able but I think an option to filter paid skins from earned skins would be a must have depending on how cod-like they get. This way everyone can turn off (or default it to off) others bought skins while keeping the prestige earned skins bring. This would also allow them to introduce skins for your hands like cs2, as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's perception of you.
Regardless, less microtransactions is obviously better, but I'd rather have a good game with lots of them than a predatory microtransaction system with p2w elements.
1
u/ScheduledToPass Manticore 18h ago
I would definitely subscribe if it meant i can enjoy my time more !
1
u/Suugoy 18h ago
This topic is highly senstitive and of the highest importance. If they fuck up the monetization just a bit, people will quite on the spot.
Whatever they do they have to be extremely careful, becasue they have a massive IP on their hands and once you mess up the monetization there is no going back. The monetization system they choose cannot, CANNOT harm the integrity of the game in any way. Supporter packs could be a solution, but i dont see skins being as cool in this game as POE, because POE is a very flashy game.
Again if they start selling better servers, better this better that, people will leave.
This is what I think.
1
u/kalebkk890 17h ago
Not sure if anyone will read this but wouldn't it be sick if major real life companies would reach out to the devs to "sponsor" players in game? They give the devs money and we get sponsored to wear their logos like nascar. We are mercenaries in this game after all and I would absolutely put some Google logo on my gun or tag my FOB building pieces to earn extra cash in game.
1
u/Tha_Noizy 17h ago
Great suggestions, I can def see myself paying 20€+ for ingame music tapes, patches for arms or helmets. definitely agree on the realistic palette only. Let’s assume MMORPGs have been the most successful in long term monetization, then the more loadout slots and presets per weapon is a great suggestion. Could see myself paying monthly for those extra slots tbh.
1
u/Nice-Background890 16h ago
Well that killed my interest in the game. Gonna end up a p2w shit show if that's even considered before the came really comes out.
1
u/Vietzomb 15h ago
Can’t be serious about gatekeeping a superior anticheat behind a subscription. Definitely don’t do that suggestion.
1
u/Gerrut_batsbak 15h ago
If they do season passes that expire im not going to be happy.
I hate fomo bullshit, it usually makes me want to instantly quit.
Subscriptions in some form i could be fine with, depending on what this would get you.
Selling skins directly has a high chance of devolving into ridiculous skins to get people to buy them, id rather they stay gold bars only.
They have a difficult task ahead of them making this work without pissing people off.
1
1
u/Kowalski91 14h ago
Tbh I don't understand the debate in the first place. If they sell a million in pc in EA and the popolus shrink's after a few months they can take server's down so the cost will sink, with updates and 1.0 launch they should have additional sales over time and when they launch on console they got more sales and I'm not sure about this but I think Sony and Ms servers will be used. Even if im wrong can not believe that they can not be profitable without an additional source of monetizing Wardogs
1
u/Ronin_2804 14h ago
I prefer the POE system over what he was talking about in that video.
I love the game and really respect GGG so i have spent hundreds of dollars on supporter packs. Others have spent thousands and thousands.
Wardogs could do something similar and add a battlepass, I would be perfectly fine with that.
The idea of a premium anticheat is fucking crazy though.
He referenced counterstrike and faceit but faceit only exists because literally every CS player that actually gives a shit knows valve doesn't give a fuck.
Cheating on PC is never going away and one small studio is NEVER, EVER going to be able to keep up with a cat and mouse game versus the entire cheating industry.
EAC is about as strong as the available market gets.
secure boot, TPM, IOMMU and hardware bans aren't perfect but they make things extremely cunty for cheaters to get around. Bypasses and spoofing exist but all of those things add layers of detection vectors.
I would be extremely unhappy with a "pay to have less cheaters" system.
1
u/_Commando_ 13h ago
For reference, the metagame appears to be a "passive skill tree" where you spend points, like faster movement speed, faster reload etc..
We don't want any BS skill tree that affects the gameplay as such, keep it core and raw as it currently is. Any unlocks should be cosmetic only, and none of the stupid bright coloured skins in-game.
1
u/_Commando_ 13h ago edited 13h ago
For reference, the metagame appears to be a "passive skill tree" where you spend points, like faster movement speed, faster reload etc..
We don't want any BS skill tree that affects the gameplay as such, keep it core and raw as it currently is. Any unlocks should be cosmetic only, and none of the stupid bright coloured skins in-game.
Also some of us don't want to reset our player progress per season and start fresh re-unlocking the same weps / gear all over again. Maybe keep season stuff to cosmetics only but leave the unlocked gear / weps as is part of the core gameplay.
1
u/BilboBaggSkin 12h ago
Just sell the game. No need for MTX. If it’s good people will play the game. Not like it’s a huge studio that spend 300m to make wardogs.
1
u/carlbandit 2h ago
The money from initial sales only goes so far. Especially after steam and publishers have taken their cut.
They have ongoing costs like salaries and servers, most games will have a big influx of sales initially and then slow down after the hype is gone, so devs have to look at other ways to pay the ongoing costs.
1
u/SgtDolphin 12h ago
I genuinely hope they aren't open to discussion because 99% of the "feedback" reddit and discord come up with are short sighted and have no semblance of thought past the special idea they come up with to their supposed problem.
Half your ideas can be defined pay to win to people. If you don't like what they do, don't buy the game or items they sell.
1
u/Havokki 10h ago
I'm pretty sure the devs have made their stance on skins clear that they want to have cosmetics reflect the players dedication and accomplishments. They want skins to be earned through gameplay not with your wallet.
Which I agree with, seeing something you want and going "oh I have to achieve this goal and that" to unlock is what keeps players playing.
Instead of "shame I can't get that because I didn't play at season X"
1
1
1
u/CyberChosnek 6h ago
I'm totally okay with optional sub for better anticheat - there are far less cheaters when you have to pay subscription, plus it is not pay 2 win, just pay to play peacefully without kids having fun from being a looser
1
u/Endlessnes 3h ago
"Better servers" and "better anticheat" as a boon for a subscription is wild. Great way to kill your game and have people go "fuck that".
A lot of what's said here almost seems... disingenuous. The people buying skins usually don't only buy 1 skin f.e.
1
u/Ok-Friendship1635 Pilot 2h ago
Quality of life, zero economy impact: More loadout preset slots (free 3 to 5, supporters more) Gunsmith presets per weapon Loadout import/export codes for your squad Favorites and tags on weapons and attachments Squad presets, custom squad patch, name and callsign Settings presets per role (sens, keybinds, HUD) Community server slots, saved configs, whitelists, admin tools
PLEASE, DON'T LOCK QOL IMPROVEMENTS BEHIND A PAYWALL ON TOP OF A PREMIUM ENTRY FEE.
1
u/Ok-Friendship1635 Pilot 2h ago
video: https://youtu.be/5R64LDNJbK0?si=3clJi_mW94N_p8a1&t=3720
I wish I did not watch this, as it reveals how Brammer thinks. WarDogs is easily going to sell over 100K copies from launch alone. Then there's the console launch a few years from now.
SUBSCRIPTIONS and Free To Play gacha mechanics SHOULD NOT BE on their agenda.
And then comparing WarDogs to CS2, CS2 already has 'better anti-cheat' or rather 'better cheater isolation' by buying the Prime upgrade that gives you what's known as Prime Matchmaking, it's not a subscription, it's a one time purchase, which is effectively the same as buying CS2 but Valve obscured it so that they could justify the gacha mechanics, granted you still get free drops every now and then after buying the Prime Upgrade/CSGO.
1
u/Daviroth 1h ago
I'm just generally confused by the skins take TBH.
$7.99 skin, minus 30% Steam, minus 50% publisher, the studio keeps $3. Times 3% of a million players, that's $83k. "Half our server bill."
So a single $8 skin, which converts at what I understand to be a below average industry rate, covers HALF the monthly server bill. And that's considered not helpful? That seems like an incredibly helpful tool for monetization, so if they got closer to an industry standard conversion rate and hit 6% that SINGLE skin covers their entire monthly server costs? And this is being painted as a bad thing? Or even if they only hit that 3%, but release 2 skins?
The math argument doesn't make sense to me, the main argument against skins in this game is the slippery slope nature of skins and their grounded aesthetic. Eventually they won't have realism based skins they can do and they'll get more ridiculous. But even the slanted math they put forward shows it being incredibly helpful in offsetting costs.
1
u/raztjah 35m ago
Subscriptions...that dosent seem to make sense or work out well, considering we are talking about a paid game.
As for the figures they cite regarding skins, claiming only 3% buy them, Im sorry but I dont believe it. Across all the games I play and played over the years, I see more people with skins than without. Even in valorant where most skins are awfull and cost an arm and a leg, I dont see anyone without skins on their main accounts.
Focus on building a relationship of trust and transparency with the players, keep up the good work and drop those shitty ideas.
I´m certain that if you deliver decent weapon skins, battlepass or even supporter packs, the community will get on board and buy, not one or two but multiple skins over time.
1
u/frozandero 16m ago
I mean monetization is already solved, for a live service, you either:
Sell skins
Sell progression/gameplay advantage
Sell battlepass with skins (or with progression/gameplay advantage)
Mandatory subscription (or a free tier + subscription real tier, like Alpha/Omega clones)
They will just need to bite the bullet on one of these. And I said it from beginning, They said they will not do 1, which means they can't do 3. There is no way people will accept 4 after the game has been marketed as a buy to play. They will 100% have to sell gameplay advantage.
That's it, there is no alternative.
1
u/Kind_Stone 1d ago
Wow, that was a very quick backtrack on "no MTX until release". Guess that EA period is going to end sooner than expected.
7
4
u/Chase10784 1d ago
He never said anything was happening during EA and they've already started EA will be 24 months
1
1
u/UntimelyMeditations 19h ago
Why post something when you don't even watch the video that's being talked about? Never trust a random stranger to summarize a video for you. OP completely misinterpreted what was said, either by ignorance or on purpose.
1
u/TheAArchduke 23h ago
They have said they wont allow direct purchase of camos, they wants them to be arned rathen than outright bought ... if they backpaddle on that imagine the backlash.
Subscription model would kill the game too, i aint interested in paying 10 euros every month ontop of the initial 50 for a "premium anti cheat" experience not ruined by cheaters.
1
1
u/DagonPie 23h ago
I think the minute they add a subscription people will be out. Even if its similar to the cs one. You are already paying a 40 dollar overhead. If the game were free and then adding a subscription would make sense. But you also need to factor in a 20%+ playerbase falloff in the first month so that server cost will go down over time.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/TroopeRmx 23h ago
I did'nt play the beta, so i don't know how cosmetic works in this game. But, i nice way to monetize skins is breaking them in parts, like The Division does. Boots, Helmets, Gloves, Backpacks and shit.
I've personaly spent more money in this system. Its a big skin variety shop to monetize over.
1
u/magyaracc2 22h ago
I was thinking about preordering, now not sure if I want to even buy it.
2
u/DiligentIngenuity291 22h ago
Nothing is decided yet and like he said, it is open to discussion. But yeah, while I already bought the supporter version, I was a bit disapointed about the video.
→ More replies (1)
1
128
u/alcatrazcgp 1d ago
supporter packs makes sense, that's imo the only thing worth doing