Status Update April 22th 2016

[jpm1]

new avalanche engine would mean new start , would mean probably loss of everything old customers own. So i think it won't happen anytime soon. and yes i think that a totally free game would bring lot of people in. TH has 18 000 reviews on Steam that means lot of people know the game. but most important we don't need a totally free game, we need a standalone product, that we own once for all. i really don't see why some people should be scared about that

[APAblackmamba]

New game engine would bring in new people, and I would pay more for a membership if we had new game engine. There are only two games I've played for 7 years and both have memberships Iracing being the other one.

[Hawkeye]

so it doesn't matter if 50 percent on steam hate the game or 60 or 70 percent. if you realized how little the percentage was you would be quite shocked.

if you interested in the f2p market should read up on it.very eye opening.

What gave you the impression that I don't understand these things?

[caledonianblues]

we just need to leave the business to the men behind it and hope it doesnt effect the game we like.

Sure, but there are successful businessmen here on the forum too. Some retired, who've already made their fortunes. Couple that experience with intimate knowledge of theHunter, and I would say the advice here might just be worth listening to.

I've studied the F2P model in detail and it's my opinion that it would not make financial sense for theHunter, at least not in its current state. In F2P games there are a number of ways to generate revenue, ads being the most obvious one. Micro-transactions it the next option, where the game itself is completely free but players can buy in-game content for relatively small amounts of money. Maybe the player opts to buy an item to unlock it straight away instead of grinding for it, or perhaps there is content which can only be purchased with real money. Sometimes there are premium accounts for a small monthly fee, that give players an edge, e.g. they might gain experience points or unlock items at a faster rate than others. In any case, buying such items is usually optional and studies have shown that in the majority of cases in the F2P arena, less than 10% of players do so. This strategy also gets looked upon as "pay to win" which is often not popular amongst gaming communities.

For developers, the main attraction of the F2P model is to increase the number of active players. Maybe to sell the customer data at a later stage, perhaps to cash in on ads. In games with a strong multiplayer component, numbers are also extremely important as they can make the game more attractive to prospective players. If a player stumbles across a multiplayer game and discovers that there are only 50 or 60 people online, they may think the game isn't worth bothering with, and move on. If there are 50,000 people online, it gives the impression that the game might be worth playing.

With theHunter being such a niche game with a limited target audience, headquartered in such an expensive capital city with high overheads, I doubt very much that a true F2P business model would be sustainable. For a start, if we work on the basis that less than 10% of the players will put their hands in their wallets, how many active players would there have to be for Expansive Worlds to generate the same revenue as they do today? Assuming they scrapped the membership model tomorrow. Bearing in mind the fact that a lot of players already have all content. The answer is active members today times 10. I have no idea what the ratio of members to guests is (out of the active players) but I would be very surprised if it's anywhere near as low as one in ten.

With every new player that starts playing theHunter, whether guest or member, the infrastructure costs go up. At the moment every player who plays theHunter without paying represents nothing more than a cost to Expansive Worlds. There is absolutely no way to generate revenue from that player. So it's my opinion that unless the game winds down (no more development costs, just sustain the existing game) it would be the wrong decision to abolish memberships and hope that enough players will dip into their wallets to buy content.

Let's hope we don't have to find out the hard way though.

[ronMctube]

there is indeed but is it going to be listened to.

the team have always said no pay to win will ever be introduced.so thats out the way.

one issue which i cant see how they would get round it is people who have years yet on their licenses.if for eg like me i have 3 years left on license.game went no license needed then what ? there is many tricky paths.

it is interesting and it looks like some is being considered by the latest survey.


there is many other questions and possibilities some would love to ask or know about but i know how that would probably end

[cajunman45]

new avalanche engine would mean new start , would mean probably loss of everything old customers own. So i think it won't happen anytime soon. and yes i think that a totally free game would bring lot of people in. TH has 18 000 reviews on Steam that means lot of people know the game. but most important we don't need a totally free game, we need a standalone product, that we own once for all. i really don't see why some people should be scared about that

Is your membership out right now??

[DHRifleman]

we just need to leave the business to the men behind it and hope it doesnt effect the game we like.

Sure, but there are successful businessmen here on the forum too. Some retired, who've already made their fortunes. Couple that experience with intimate knowledge of theHunter, and I would say the advice here might just be worth listening to.

I've studied the F2P model in detail and it's my opinion that it would not make financial sense for theHunter, at least not in its current state. In F2P games there are a number of ways to generate revenue, ads being the most obvious one. Micro-transactions it the next option, where the game itself is completely free but players can buy in-game content for relatively small amounts of money. Maybe the player opts to buy an item to unlock it straight away instead of grinding for it, or perhaps there is content which can only be purchased with real money. Sometimes there are premium accounts for a small monthly fee, that give players an edge, e.g. they might gain experience points or unlock items at a faster rate than others. In any case, buying such items is usually optional and studies have shown that in the majority of cases in the F2P arena, less than 10% of players do so. This strategy also gets looked upon as "pay to win" which is often not popular amongst gaming communities.

For developers, the main attraction of the F2P model is to increase the number of active players. Maybe to sell the customer data at a later stage, perhaps to cash in on ads. In games with a strong multiplayer component, numbers are also extremely important as they can make the game more attractive to prospective players. If a player stumbles across a multiplayer game and discovers that there are only 50 or 60 people online, they may think the game isn't worth bothering with, and move on. If there are 50,000 people online, it gives the impression that the game might be worth playing.

With theHunter being such a niche game with a limited target audience, headquartered in such an expensive capital city with high overheads, I doubt very much that a true F2P business model would be sustainable. For a start, if we work on the basis that less than 10% of the players will put their hands in their wallets, how many active players would there have to be for Expansive Worlds to generate the same revenue as they do today? Assuming they scrapped the membership model tomorrow. Bearing in mind the fact that a lot of players already have all content. The answer is active members today times 10. I have no idea what the ratio of members to guests is (out of the active players) but I would be very surprised if it's anywhere near as low as one in ten.

With every new player that starts playing theHunter, whether guest or member, the infrastructure costs go up. At the moment every player who plays theHunter without paying represents nothing more than a cost to Expansive Worlds. There is absolutely no way to generate revenue from that player. So it's my opinion that unless the game winds down (no more development costs, just sustain the existing game) it would be the wrong decision to abolish memberships and hope that enough players will dip into their wallets to buy content.

Let's hope we don't have to find out the hard way though.

I agree with your opinion on this CB
And Ron we know how well that worked for Emote don,t we. They didn't listen either

[stancomputerhunter]

Sure, but there are successful businessmen here on the forum too. Some retired, who've already made their fortunes. Couple that experience with intimate knowledge of theHunter, and I would say the advice here might just be worth listening to.

I've studied the F2P model in detail and it's my opinion that it would not make financial sense for theHunter, at least not in its current state. In F2P games there are a number of ways to generate revenue, ads being the most obvious one. Micro-transactions it the next option, where the game itself is completely free but players can buy in-game content for relatively small amounts of money. Maybe the player opts to buy an item to unlock it straight away instead of grinding for it, or perhaps there is content which can only be purchased with real money. Sometimes there are premium accounts for a small monthly fee, that give players an edge, e.g. they might gain experience points or unlock items at a faster rate than others. In any case, buying such items is usually optional and studies have shown that in the majority of cases in the F2P arena, less than 10% of players do so. This strategy also gets looked upon as "pay to win" which is often not popular amongst gaming communities.

For developers, the main attraction of the F2P model is to increase the number of active players. Maybe to sell the customer data at a later stage, perhaps to cash in on ads. In games with a strong multiplayer component, numbers are also extremely important as they can make the game more attractive to prospective players. If a player stumbles across a multiplayer game and discovers that there are only 50 or 60 people online, they may think the game isn't worth bothering with, and move on. If there are 50,000 people online, it gives the impression that the game might be worth playing.

With theHunter being such a niche game with a limited target audience, headquartered in such an expensive capital city with high overheads, I doubt very much that a true F2P business model would be sustainable. For a start, if we work on the basis that less than 10% of the players will put their hands in their wallets, how many active players would there have to be for Expansive Worlds to generate the same revenue as they do today? Assuming they scrapped the membership model tomorrow. Bearing in mind the fact that a lot of players already have all content. The answer is active members today times 10. I have no idea what the ratio of members to guests is (out of the active players) but I would be very surprised if it's anywhere near as low as one in ten.

With every new player that starts playing theHunter, whether guest or member, the infrastructure costs go up. At the moment every player who plays theHunter without paying represents nothing more than a cost to Expansive Worlds. There is absolutely no way to generate revenue from that player. So it's my opinion that unless the game winds down (no more development costs, just sustain the existing game) it would be the wrong decision to abolish memberships and hope that enough players will dip into their wallets to buy content.

Let's hope we don't have to find out the hard way though.

Good post. I would just add that every new player who starts playing theHunter as a member should not cause costs go up on EW's end. They should have that cost, and more, covered by the membership fee.

[jpm1]

Sure, but there are successful businessmen here on the forum too. Some retired, who've already made their fortunes. Couple that experience with intimate knowledge of theHunter, and I would say the advice here might just be worth listening to.

I've studied the F2P model in detail and it's my opinion that it would not make financial sense for theHunter, at least not in its current state. In F2P games there are a number of ways to generate revenue, ads being the most obvious one. Micro-transactions it the next option, where the game itself is completely free but players can buy in-game content for relatively small amounts of money. Maybe the player opts to buy an item to unlock it straight away instead of grinding for it, or perhaps there is content which can only be purchased with real money. Sometimes there are premium accounts for a small monthly fee, that give players an edge, e.g. they might gain experience points or unlock items at a faster rate than others. In any case, buying such items is usually optional and studies have shown that in the majority of cases in the F2P arena, less than 10% of players do so. This strategy also gets looked upon as "pay to win" which is often not popular amongst gaming communities.

For developers, the main attraction of the F2P model is to increase the number of active players. Maybe to sell the customer data at a later stage, perhaps to cash in on ads. In games with a strong multiplayer component, numbers are also extremely important as they can make the game more attractive to prospective players. If a player stumbles across a multiplayer game and discovers that there are only 50 or 60 people online, they may think the game isn't worth bothering with, and move on. If there are 50,000 people online, it gives the impression that the game might be worth playing.

With theHunter being such a niche game with a limited target audience, headquartered in such an expensive capital city with high overheads, I doubt very much that a true F2P business model would be sustainable. For a start, if we work on the basis that less than 10% of the players will put their hands in their wallets, how many active players would there have to be for Expansive Worlds to generate the same revenue as they do today? Assuming they scrapped the membership model tomorrow. Bearing in mind the fact that a lot of players already have all content. The answer is active members today times 10. I have no idea what the ratio of members to guests is (out of the active players) but I would be very surprised if it's anywhere near as low as one in ten.

With every new player that starts playing theHunter, whether guest or member, the infrastructure costs go up. At the moment every player who plays theHunter without paying represents nothing more than a cost to Expansive Worlds. There is absolutely no way to generate revenue from that player. So it's my opinion that unless the game winds down (no more development costs, just sustain the existing game) it would be the wrong decision to abolish memberships and hope that enough players will dip into their wallets to buy content.

Let's hope we don't have to find out the hard way though.

18 000 reviews on Steam this is not a niche game. thinking TH is a game made for IRL hunters would be a major commercial error. i do think membership is not the commercial graal. there is absolutely no reason that the membership model would generate more incomes than any other model

Oh, and i almost forgot. i just discovered a game called WoG:disassembly. the game is free to play, you buy what you want. The development seems serene so far, i didn't see any sign of bad economical shape. and it's a great game

[caledonianblues]

18 000 reviews on Steam this is not a niche game. thinking TH is a game made for IRL hunters would be a major commercial error. i do think membership is not the commercial graal.

With all due respect, I disagree, and maintain that this is a niche game. You could publish anything on Steam, put a F2P label on it and 18k people would download it and give it a try. As for the game being for real life hunters, I never suggested anything of the sort. I don't hunt in real life, and I suspect a lot of others players don't either.

there is absolutely no reason that the membership model would generate more incomes than any other model

Well no, not if you exclude all the valid reasons I gave in my previous post.

Oh, and i almost forgot. i just discovered a game called WoG:disassembly. the game is free to play, you buy what you want. The development seems serene so far, i didn't see any sign of bad economical shape. and it's a great game

OK. There are lots of successful F2P games. Nobody can dispute that. That doesn't change my opinion as to whether or not I think theHunter would strive as a true F2P title, without memberships. I think it would be a disaster. A decision to abolish memberships without reimbursing those who have signed up for years in advance (which would cost Expansive Worlds a lot of money) would result in a number of disgruntled customers, significantly increasing the demand and urgent need for new customers, approximately 10% of which (at best) would generate revenue for the company. I have no idea what the overheads are for Expansive Worlds, but I would be confident enough to bet that the company would be running at a loss on day one. A loss which I suspect would continue for a long time.