nemuritor98It is true that F2P style is the fastest growing business model in gaming, however there's a catch here, all F2P games that arised from nothing and that now are beasts are not only F2P but they actively avoided P2W, which is the reason this whole thread was created, F2P is not a problem, P2W is.
I was not talking only about the big mainstream titles. There is also alot of success and growth in the f2p market for companies and games where you can buy power, as the top mobile charts of the last years have shown. But not only there, also in the middle of the charts (top100) and below for example, which would be totally enough for our company size. You don't need to be at the top to have a sustainable business. It would be unrealistic for us to gun for the top spot immediately.
We are also not a PC only game, in fact the current playbase of S1914 has a majority playing on mobile, and mobile was what gave S1914 its second wind.
And another thing you have to realize, for most of the games you mentioned the stars basically aligned. They dropped at the right time. You have to have some luck to achieve that, success is not guaranteed. For those ~10 very successful games you listed probably 100 other games tried to do the same but failed. Quite the risk honestly.
You are right that the top mobile games where you can buy power (like Clash of Clans, Clash Royale) it is not as apparent since it is combined with a metagame. You basically spend in between matches to boost your account, but due to matchmaking you are soon matched again against equal players, so it appears fair. But that works well there because they have short 1on1 matches. We don't have a metagame yet and it would probably be the natural evolution of the business model. But it is harder to introduce here because game rounds last for weeks and months (=less opportunity to monetize between game rounds), rounds that can be played in parallel so you could level up after round A while you are still playing round B (matchmaking issue) and the rounds can be chosen freely and are filled with lots of players of different skill levels (matchmaking issue).
If you want to monetize with content & vanity instead of power, like league of legends does it, then you need big game teams constantly pushing out new content (e.g. new heroes or skins each week etc.). Our current offices wouldn't even support such team sizes. On the contrary a game which monetizes with power basically runs by itself and can be supported with small teams. So it is much better suited for smaller companies like us. If you monetize with content you need also need a much bigger community to buy that content, as the average revenue per user is much lower in such games. WW1 grand strategy is a niche however so it would be hard to attract the needed player base for that. Most of your example games are tailored to mainstream audiences with mainstream setting and mainstream gameplay, and work because of that scale. Our historic grand strategy genre can never ever be scaled to such a mainstream level, I hope you can agree on that.
You gave good examples of what would happen when a game that monetized with content now changes its monetization to monetize with power. It would indeed not make sense for them. But you did not give any example what would happen with games that currently monetize with power (--> a few pay big amounts) if they now suddenly changed to monetize with content (--> many pay small amounts). Players always assume that games would suddenly make more money if they get rid or pay for power mechanics and monetized via subscriptions or content. But that is super unrealistic. Their heavy spenders would suddenly spend a lot less, but they would not suddenly get enough additional spenders that did not spend yet. Their current playerbase, their current pay users, their current game team structure and their current marketing would still be tailored towards the old business model, so in reality they would suddenly lower their revenue and efficiency by alot. No business in the right mind would do that. They would have to change the gameplay, their team structures, their marketing and rebuild their community and attract the right users, basically making a new game out of it. If you are realistic you would see that there is a slim chance for it to work out with a mature game, and that it is better done with a fresh start (new game).
I would say with our current company structure and game portfolio we don't fulfill the criteria necessary to go into that direction right now. Probably even the current whole grand strategy genre of our games isnt the best fit for it. Of course that doesn't mean that we could not do it in the future, but it takes a lot of effort and also a lot of luck (a hit game cannot be planned, you have to land it at exactly the right time) to grow into such a state. And it is more likely to be done with a product that is designed for that, which S1914 was not. So if we ever go that route I think it is more likely to be done with a new product.
nemuritor98I'll repeat what I said in the beggining, the problem is not about being FREE TO PLAY, is about being PAY TO WIN.
From an ethics and player perspective sure, from a business perspective its no problem. As I said the current model is successful and we are in a healthy spot as company. We do not struggle. We are currently growing our games more than we ever did in the past. Since we are not a company of 500 employees we also don't need to be at the top of the charts to sustain ourselves.
Currently there is no problem -> currently there is no need for a solution.
There could be a problem in the future if markets shift a lot, and it would certainly be wise to explore options in order to be prepared. But there are probably less risky ways of exploring such options than to change a working business model of a mature game.
nemuritor98Your actual business model drains the players, and let me tell you, that is not good, in the long run, this business model will kill itself meanwhile League of Legends, Fortnite and all big and successful F2P MMO's won't get killed by their own business model but rather by their competition which sadly you don't have.
I don't see the risk in changing the business model if you are straight up running towards your own death.
That has to be super long run though, because as I said, currently S1914 has its most successful year since the launch 10 years ago (most active players, most revenue). Not many games live for 10 years, and even games like Fortnite still have to prove that they will live that long. Your doom and gloom simply does not match with our data and is all based on speculation.
Probably it is right that League of Legends and some others will outlast our games and still be played in 10 years from now. But that is ok honestly. Not many games can claim to be played for 20 years, probably only 0.0001% of games can claim that. Are all the other 99.9999% automatically doomed? I would say not. There is success to be found also below the top of the charts. And until a game hits the end of its lifecycle new games will be brought out.
Even with no direct competitor in the genre there is still a lot of competition in marketing, many companies bidding for the same placement spots, driving the marketing prices up over time. It is probably the biggest risk that we face as it means we have to stay lucrative enough.
Why there is in fact a big risk in changing the business model for an existing product, I have now explained in multiple posts. I hope you will understand it.
We will see what happens and the saying "never say never" applies. We don't claim to know everything or have the perfect solutions. But I think we can be agile enough to shift our focus if the need for that arises.
--------------
I don't have time anymore to discuss this topic with you all every week, but I hope I could give you some insights. In the end I just wanted to give you some honest takes and foster some realistic expectations of why it is unlikely that the current model of S1914 is changing in the near future. I hope you understand.
