Open Discussion Pertaining to Monetization Model of Supremacy 1914

Okay, let's understand the reality from a Corporate point of view. The ultimate goal of a corporation is to increase profits which means doing ANYTHING that will decrease profit is "Verboten". Bottom line is we have non-GM users which are little more than cannon fodder for GM whales. We have GM whales that think nothing of spending hundreds and some even thousands of dollars on a single round. If you find yourself in a game with one of them, pray that all they know is how to buy the toys because you can increase your stats by outplaying them. You will NOT win the game but you may win the battles.

IF we are lucky, Bytro will bring in advertisers and that may offset the amount of money spent by GM users to the point where you have a chance to win the game against a whale. Otherwise, the only thing Bytro will want regarding GM is for the users to buy MORE. Simple really, anything that we bring up that would LIMIT people spending money is immediately discarded.

Furry1

you can outplay every whale 1 vs 1

it only depends on how much time you want to sacrifice

they do pay because they have no time to sit in a game

while the poor sit because they have no money to spend ( HNR)

somewhere between are skills with some min activity that beats both, as the only thing you have to do is to increase your activity from 1-2 hours to more, sometimes 10 * , depending how much problems opponent is causing

generally - if you crush his offensive armies he is mostly dead and from what I saw on 500 it could be done in 1-2 days.

so I would say - spending GMs would not make any difference if you had known how to fight without HNR.

Most detached and ignorant company/devs I've ever seen. If you got ideas how to earn them more money, and fast, yes, they might listen, otherwise, forget about it.

What those devs don't seem to understand is... better the game >> happier the players>> bigger the community >> more money in the bank.

Allowing map editor with workshop for units and skins would make me want to buy HC.

i really liked the steam workshop of crusader kings 2 i payed a lot of money on that..

goldmarks for hp during battle is kind of buzzkill, i overcame by engaging enemy ships with submarines though

Gold Mark is not a problem, Gold Mark doesn't make the game any less enjoyable for a free2play player. The few times you encounter a hard golder in a public match you can bite a bullet, often times even overwhelm him with teamwork. Sometimes its even an interesting challenge, adding a form of variety to public matches. Tournaments, internal games, private matches, challenges are all good no-gold choices for true competitiveness. The existence of gold mark doesn't reduce the fun in this game, its a good business model.

However, an ad covering 20% of my screen does reduce the fun to 0. I have absolutely zero interest in playing a game when 20% is covered in ad that doesn't even fit with the rest. The map / supremacy is designed in dull colours, ads on the other hand are bright, constantly trying to take away the attention from the game being a super big nuisance. What I used to enjoy in supremacy is just looking at the screen(map) and being proud in what I achieved ("look at my empire, I'm so good, I am proud of myself"), obviously no longer works with the ad ruining the view. You surely have played other grand strategy games like Hoi4, EUIV, Anno, AoE. Reducing the screen for these games by 20% isn't a huge deal, but adding a bright google advert (or giant black stripe) takes away a lot of the fun if the game isn't nice to look at. I didn't play supre so I can order my troops to attack, I used to play supre because I can look at the conquest of my armies.

Are these adverts even worth economically? Do you gain enough revenue to offset all the active players you lost / deter from coming back?

For those who aren't aware what I am talking about:

Click on the image to see the full image. It is cropped by the forum.

Try to look at the game without getting distracted by the ad and its bright shining colours

(What do I suggest? Remove the adverts)

i joined a tutorial map as a level 8 country and was immediately attacked by a new player who had more resources, money, double the army and absolutely smashed me to pieces with goldmark spending.

It was a great challenge. All 3 provinces he was attacking ended up getting a level 2, then 1 fort damaged & destroyed. I used flower defense to eventually cost him 200,000+ of his infantry, i seized open land after he used add target to his whole stack, then matched half to his capital. I traded grain for our mutual north neighbour share map and sent a stack to one of his x2 provinces, i also weakened his capital morale to 30% with espionage.

Of course when someone with double of everything + 50k goldmark comes after you with everything they have, you should expect to lose regardless of how good you are. But i enjoyed fighting him as it taught me a lot about how & when to attempt different methods, where to look for weaknesses, and how to weaken the enemy in multiple ways.

It is unfair to go against them when you have nothing, but I understand it's a company and investors should be rewarded and do deserve a higher chance of winning.

Btw, i lost in the end but the fight against such odds improved my skills tenfold.

Next time I'm offered a deal, I'll buy goldmark because you guys do an awesome job using your money earned to better the game.

Frost

i joined a tutorial map as a level 8 country and was immediately attacked by a new player who had more resources, money, double the army and absolutely smashed me to pieces with goldmark spending.

It was a great challenge. All 3 provinces he was attacking ended up getting a level 2, then 1 fort damaged & destroyed. I used flower defense to eventually cost him 200,000+ of his infantry, i seized open land after he used add target to his whole stack, then matched half to his capital. I traded grain for our mutual north neighbour share map and sent a stack to one of his x2 provinces, i also weakened his capital morale to 30% with espionage.

Of course when someone with double of everything + 50k goldmark comes after you with everything they have, you should expect to lose regardless of how good you are. But i enjoyed fighting him as it taught me a lot about how & when to attempt different methods, where to look for weaknesses, and how to weaken the enemy in multiple ways.

It is unfair to go against them when you have nothing, but I understand it's a company and investors should be rewarded and do deserve a higher chance of winning.

Btw, i lost in the end but the fight against such odds improved my skills tenfold.

Next time I'm offered a deal, I'll buy goldmark because you guys do an awesome job using your money earned to better the game.

thats what a tutorial is supposed to be goddangit

perhaps gold marks could be aimed at a more 'self-defence' oriented use in the future,

gold marks are also obtained at victory screen,frost .

Perhaps gold marks to enter a game is not a bad idea.
I think it would indirectly lead to more consistently populated games.

bunnyfood

What about making it so buying a certain amount of GM is required in order to play the game, but only a certain amount of GM is allowed per match? This would make it a lot more fair and assure that there's at least some strategy behind GM use. It wouldn't be "person who spends the most money wins" anymore as everyone would have the same amount.

...but i don't think limiting gold marks will happen realistically, maybe in player hosted games

LordCommande

Perhaps gold marks to enter a game is not a bad idea.
I think it would indirectly lead to more consistently populated games.

...but i don't think limiting gold marks will happen realistically, maybe in player hosted games

The discussion that has been waging basically as long as I can recall.realism is that most paying users still pay to get the advantage not to get the fair playing ground. And most of the free users would still not buy GM's to join GM free rounds. SO for bytro from a sales perspective it just isn't that valuable especially if you look at how much GM passes through some maps. THe best we have is still since day 1 the Gentlemens agreement

NarmerTheLion

The discussion that has been waging basically as long as I can recall.realism is that most paying users still pay to get the advantage not to get the fair playing ground. And most of the free users would still not buy GM's to join GM free rounds. SO for bytro from a sales perspective it just isn't that valuable especially if you look at how much GM passes through some maps. THe best we have is still since day 1 the Gentlemens agreement

Agree with the Gentlemens agreement, and this is what Alliance Battle Maps used to be about...until I ran into an Alliance leader telling me that Gold Use is allowed in such a battle map... and there went the 'Gentlemens agreement' out the window... Tactics based solely on morality can only succeed when you are dealing with people who are moral or a system that is moral, so we need be aware of who is and who is not a gentleman....

Hastings TNTAgree with the Gentlemens agreement, and this is what Alliance Battle Maps used to be about...until I ran into an Alliance leader telling me that Gold Use is allowed in such a battle map... and there went the 'Gentlemens agreement' out the window... Tactics based solely on morality can only succeed when you are dealing with people who are moral or a system that is moral, so we need be aware of who is and who is not a gentleman....

I agree anda lot of players who start to lose accidently slip in some GM too at times.you're only certain with your friends

NarmerTheLion

I agree anda lot of players who start to lose accidently slip in some GM too at times.you're only certain with your friends

Yeah, have to love those "accidental" slips where units are suddenly 100 morale again. LOL

I personally have no problem with the monetization of the game. It allows those of us who are not whales to play what I consider one of the best online games out there.

But, as someone that has played on and off for over a decade, I can say that the quick pay to play option has changed the dynamic over the years. In the past I advocated a maximum GM spend per game, or even per in game day per game, as a way to balance it. The paying players still get an advantage but the others have a bit more of a level playing field.

I have beaten whales in games but it does take a lot more effort and a lot more micromanagement to do so. For the casual player who may spend a total of $5 to $50 per month/year on the game the level of in game interaction needed for this might seem a bit overwhelming, especially in the speed rounds.

This may have been stated earlier in the thread and I missed it, but what would be the harm in a 100k GM limit spend per game or 15k GM limit spend per game day?

Moldavi

I personally have no problem with the monetization of the game. It allows those of us who are not whales to play what I consider one of the best online games out there.

But, as someone that has played on and off for over a decade, I can say that the quick pay to play option has changed the dynamic over the years. In the past I advocated a maximum GM spend per game, or even per in game day per game, as a way to balance it. The paying players still get an advantage but the others have a bit more of a level playing field.

I have beaten whales in games but it does take a lot more effort and a lot more micromanagement to do so. For the casual player who may spend a total of $5 to $50 per month/year on the game the level of in game interaction needed for this might seem a bit overwhelming, especially in the speed rounds.

This may have been stated earlier in the thread and I missed it, but what would be the harm in a 100k GM limit spend per game or 15k GM limit spend per game day?

golden whales will not stand a chance

to win a map solo with low skills and activity you need around 5- 10 mln gms

to survive beginning they need around 100-300 k gms

To be honest, I’m not sure that the Goldmark are the real reasons for Bytro declining revenue. Back in the day when I joined S1914 playing on my browser, browsergames were skyrocketing. Games like Settlers online, Ikariam, CNC Tiberium wars (or something) was out, and then I found S1914. It had the time sink elements of a browser game, but the games had an end. In addition, the games allowed you to apply real strategic thinking, and you had to utilize a combination of military tactic, economic understanding, and diplomatic skills. Even with its flaws, the game suited me very well. I remember sitting at a desktop computer, studying with S1914 running in the background, and I was checking it way too often.

As time goes by, our habits changes. New platforms has come available, and we don’t play games the same way we used to. Unfortunately Bytro are late to the party when it came to entering the mobile market. S1914 and COW delivered a game that was rather unique, atleast to my knowledge. When I quit the game back in 2016, it was because other stuff required my attention, and spending vast amount of time in front of my desktop computer were no longer an option.

What I think Bytro should do, are to make sure that mobile platform gets as good as it possible can be. Invest far more resources into it, and make sure the appeal are so strong that the jungle telegraph will do more work for them then whatever marketing can do. At the moment, the mobile platform are very much inferior to the browser experience, and the mobile platform shouldn’t get the same treatment as the browser experience. The mobile platform has it’s unique abilities, and Bytro should try to utilize it’s strength instead of making it as close as an adoption as possible. In addition, Bytro should make the tablet version a dedicated tablet version, instead of a scaled mobile version.

WIth the ability to reach an extensive playerbase through the mobile market, it’s far more likely they will encounter more players who will open their wallets. From what I’ve heared, about 90% of revenues comes from whales. Thats why S1914 and every other mobile game that has a broad appeal, try to get the whales online and have them feed on the smaller fishes. This naturally upsets the general community.

If you take HC as an example, it’s a brilliant way to add annual revenue into the company. Giving access to fire mode and “the full game experience” are a really neat touch. As previously mentioned in the thread, getting more advanced statistics would be a nice touch aswell. It would add more value to the HC in itself. If you are able to generate a high enough playerbase that wants the HC, because it’s great.. then you’re starting a positive spiral.

Back in 2014 we had a lot more “features” like tournaments, alliance tournaments, and it was a lot of stuff going on, wich was great for the time being. Back then, I felt the abuse came to the “gold” rounds in itself. Removing such great features, instead of expanding on them, indicates to the playerbase that the game are dying. Bytro with it’s mobile commitment should focus on getting their product as good as it possible can be on all platforms, and add old features back and expand upon them. Give the playerbase a “reason” to subscribe, and pay the subscription fees. Bring us some exiting HC features like customization.. Have the East Asians wear East Asian uniforms from that era. Let us have more game rules (that are not only limited to speed), where they can be utilized as an event. Setting up different rules can allow different units to shine. The introduction of cavalry are great!

I saw Mesopotamia has come out, and I’ve yet to play that map, and are really exited. I’ll just wrap up some of my current maps, and I’m ready to rumble.

I’m just starting to realize that this became a wall of text.

Have a nice day

-Hindenes

i would feel like goldmarks is less scarey if one could spend the silver doller to speed up productions also (but very expensive of course)

Moldavi

I personally have no problem with the monetization of the game. It allows those of us who are not whales to play what I consider one of the best online games out there.

But, as someone that has played on and off for over a decade, I can say that the quick pay to play option has changed the dynamic over the years. In the past I advocated a maximum GM spend per game, or even per in game day per game, as a way to balance it. The paying players still get an advantage but the others have a bit more of a level playing field.

I have beaten whales in games but it does take a lot more effort and a lot more micromanagement to do so. For the casual player who may spend a total of $5 to $50 per month/year on the game the level of in game interaction needed for this might seem a bit overwhelming, especially in the speed rounds.

This may have been stated earlier in the thread and I missed it, but what would be the harm in a 100k GM limit spend per game or 15k GM limit spend per game day?

Those limits are bad for Bytro economically. In reality in this kind of game a huge portion of the money almost surely comes from isolated spending sprees not a steady stream of trickling revenue from a high number of sources. The money comes from a few torrential downpours that cause flooding not a daily light sprinkling. The limits you're suggesting would make the flood smaller while not increasing the small sources in any manner and put a big dent in the revenue. When two whales get into an ego war and start spending at an accelerated rate Bytro gets a pay day. The cap you're suggesting would not only lower the need for both players to spend more but would give them time to think things over and decided if $200 on GM was really going to give a good ROI for their entertainment dollar. Even when a single player is trying to buy a win, they typically spend more GM than the rest of the map combined. Bytro needs these bursts of spending to keep the lights on, this model would not survive if it tries to rely on smaller contributions from a much wider set of clients. That model only works for games with a much broader appeal and typically a much higher production value. People pay to play games like eve and WoW on a subscription basis because there's many millions of dollars poured into creating a much richer world and a nearly infinite number of things to do. This game can not hope to approximate that kin of immersive experience, nor should it. It's hard to create a good game with a f2p option but a premium model where the f2p players still have a chance. They've done a fairly decent job here and if occasionally you get steam rolled by a fat wallet remember that expenditure keeps the game available to everyone.

I don't personally understand the joy in winning by spending more money but never lose sight of the fact that the game could not be f2p if that option was not available.

The topic is "Monetization of 1914" and any discussion that includes suggestions on how to LOWER that will be completely ignored. (In other words, don't expect to be able to get similar "rewards" for free by using silver)

1914 is not the only FREE online game where a user can choose to spend money to improve their game, and it won't be the last.

What we need to focus on here is coming up with alternative ways for Bytro to make money from the game. If someone comes up with a brilliant idea Bytro may consider reducing the impact GM has on the game because it's not their primary source of income.

I basically look at this topic as a venting session for guys want to play game for FREE, however what guys should be doing is testing each time BYTRO issues a new "update / patch note' to see how they can take advantage of the latest FIX for the system... it is described as a fix to help / protect the community but I believe all updates are geared toward bringing in new players which can be milked for more profit.

With this being said...testing should no longer be about the maps, now testing should be focused only on how to take advantage of the patch notes and "fixes' BYTRO does each month or 2, we can all help BYTRO fleece the new players they draw to the game by Shearing them like sheep and taking their wool... BYTRO draws new players to the game so the company makes more money and each new update is new opportunity to learn new exploits, I hope Bytro continues this progressive business style.

psychlops

Those limits are bad for Bytro economically. In reality in this kind of game a huge portion of the money almost surely comes from isolated spending sprees not a steady stream of trickling revenue from a high number of sources. The money comes from a few torrential downpours that cause flooding not a daily light sprinkling. The limits you're suggesting would make the flood smaller while not increasing the small sources in any manner and put a big dent in the revenue. When two whales get into an ego war and start spending at an accelerated rate Bytro gets a pay day. The cap you're suggesting would not only lower the need for both players to spend more but would give them time to think things over and decided if $200 on GM was really going to give a good ROI for their entertainment dollar. Even when a single player is trying to buy a win, they typically spend more GM than the rest of the map combined. Bytro needs these bursts of spending to keep the lights on, this model would not survive if it tries to rely on smaller contributions from a much wider set of clients. That model only works for games with a much broader appeal and typically a much higher production value. People pay to play games like eve and WoW on a subscription basis because there's many millions of dollars poured into creating a much richer world and a nearly infinite number of things to do. This game can not hope to approximate that kin of immersive experience, nor should it. It's hard to create a good game with a f2p option but a premium model where the f2p players still have a chance. They've done a fairly decent job here and if occasionally you get steam rolled by a fat wallet remember that expenditure keeps the game available to everyone.

I don't personally understand the joy in winning by spending more money but never lose sight of the fact that the game could not be f2p if that option was not available.

Thanks for this post, because this sums it up quite nicely and explains why we are hesitant to make any change to the current business model. It is just a very risky endeavor for a matured game that is deep in its product cycle. We might experiment with different monetization methods in future games that garner a new player base, but it is unlikely that we will change the model for existing games.

By the way, Supremacy 1914 currently has the highest amount of active players and the highest amount of revenues in its whole decade long lifetime. So we are not in any decline yet.

You can of course continue to discuss alrernatives in this thread, but please don't expect us to change the current model of this game as long as it is working and as long as alternatives have a significant risk attached to them. That is just the economically sensible thing to do (and most other businesses would (or should) act in the same way.