Why theHunter simply will not last.

[drgloom]

At some point, a couple developers are going to look at this game and see the size of the community and realize they can offer something better at a much better price. This is why the game won't sustain its current model.

"theHunter" has the luxury of currently cornering this market. Much like FarmingSimulator and it has resulted in lack luster game development that people think is good only because they have no other options which then allows the game to exploit the paying customer and offer the bare minimum in return. It's not anywhere it should be and sure as hell not worth $500+.

$500. That's what it would cost JUST to buy the various guns and sights. Just that. I didn't take the time to add up the rest of the categories in the shop but I'm assuming it comes out to about $1000 or more. Now I don't know about you guys but I can't think of any game, ever, that I'd pay $1000 for upfront to fully experience. Or where I needed to drop $5 here and $5 there all the time to get the full experience while also paying a monthly subscription.

How can this game succeed and become what we want it to become? Let's look at games like World of Tanks or Knights of the Old Republic. What these games have done is built long term investment from its fans while ALSO making itself as accessible to as many people as it can. Sure this game has some long term investment from die hard fans who've dropped several hundred dollars into it and almost feel an obligation to play it. But that's not the average person. And that's not the type of dedication you want.

A model for success

I'm going to map out a couple very simple pay structure implements that would change this game completely and immediately increase the amount of players and its long term viability. It's kind of based on World of Tanks which has very reasonable pay wall.

Reserves
- All common reserves are accessible to everyone, whether they're a subscriber or not. (Giving the player "freedom to explore" at all times)
- Special reserves (opportunity to hunt rare game, like the real life lottery system, the opportunity to hunt these reserves solo or with other hunters comes from accumulated experience points)

Experience System (I remember my grandpa starting me of with a .20 gauge and shooting rabbits/pheasant/squirrel - Not a .44 magnum and bear hunting. My point is...)
- Equipment(all shop items) availability is tied to experience and purchased with in game currency. This makes players want to play more. Better equipment is tied to play time.
- Some special equipment still exists like rare guns and other equipment that can only be purchased with $$$ giving players the edge during competitions.
- Experience is gained at a much higher rate if the player has a monthly subscription. (THIS IS KEY) Most people are willing to drop $15/month on a game they like and this feeds back into equipment being tied to experience and play time. Now you're starting to build a long term following and not relying on these instant $5 purchases.
- Having the subscription numbers gives you the ability to raise more capital and improve the development of the game.
- Options to use experience points on player abilities. (Tracking, endurance, steadiness, etc) Players can use a certain amount of experience points to increase the global skill of their hunter OR like I said above use experience to unlock new equipment. The player needing to decide what's more important.
- Game permits/tags granted at certain experience levels

Game Currency
- Having its own in game currency like it already has is a good idea but it should be expanded...
- Small amount of currency rewarded for each legal kill, the more points the more coin, the more rare the game, the more coin.
- Currency rewarded for time spent hunting on a single map in multiplayer.(improving multiplayer play)
- Currency deducted for hunting illegally.
- Currency can still be purchased with $$$ to immediately buy the rare weapons or buy something that's been unlocked through experience but the player lacks funds to buy the unlock.

Now these are just a few examples but what I've described is a system that increases the player base. Has an experience system so the rare game, the rare reserves, high level equipment can ONLY be achieved through play time, which creates dedication, goals and just fun working towards unlocks through missions and general hunting. A system that gives a good argument as to why someone should pay $15/month because experience/currency will be gained faster. A system that allows people to still buy things instantly with $$$ if they so choose. A system similar to this is what most successful F2P games have been doing.

I'm not going to get into design and interface and game choices and vehicles and mechanics and all of that that but it obviously could be much much much better. Just the map designs alone could be created by most hobbyists in 1-2 weeks with better immersion, detail and ambiance.

I get that I'm just some random guy on your forum and what do I know. You're addicted to the quick sales, I get it. But you're only making money because people have no other options. I'm telling you, once some developers figure out there is an opportunity here they'll make a more immersive world with better functionality and a pay structure done correct, "theHunter" and its community will go down the toilet overnight.

[L3M182]

hey drgloom an welcome to the forum. straight out the cage with a first post thats very well though out and fair.makes adifference from "i want free stuff first posts".
i must admit i agree with allot of this post but i also dissagree with allot of it.

i personally dont agree with the experience to advance system. this promotes grind hunting and meat harvest. this game is a trophy hunting game that already isnt doing enough to promote this and turning into a kill everything you see game.(achievements for quantity and not quality.) Also ive played WoT and for me it was a great game made frustrating by pay to win elements such as better trained crews and premium ammo. these had a distinct impact on the game and my enjoyment playing it.

as for thehunter having a monopoly on the market. its true it cant be denied, and you are right we do have to just accept content that from time to time we may find is sub standard and over priced. i even stated in the past (about 2 years ago) that if another company made a serious attempt at a non arcade hunting game the hunter would be in trouble. but now at this moment in time i dont think the hunter would be dead in the water. at one time i though the hunter was stagnant and was just churning out content and ust riding the game until the wheels fell off. But since pim left/ got promoted (no offence to the guy) i think the hunter has moved and moved in the right direction.
granted weve had some serious issues at points but to me its plain to see, you can tell whats new content now and whats old. the last 3 reserves have surpassed the last in quality and set a new standard in the game. this also goes with firearms, animations and animal models and quality. lok at the grizzly and rock elk compared to the Roosevelt and brown bear. EW have also stated they have plans to go back and fix the old content most in need.

so to wrap up ive played the hunter a while and have been posting in discussion on the forum almost as long and im atm the most optimistic ive ever been for the future and prosperity of this game.

[Fletchette]

Well, this game has been around since 2008, and 8 years is a pretty good run for a video game. It's still going strong, and development continues, so there must be something "right" in the business model.

[DHRifleman]

This game is nothing like world of tanks, and that model would not work. Increasing the player base does nothing except increase cost unless the players are paying.
As it is now, the model allows the players to spend what they want on equipment. Other than the membership fee which gives free ammo for everything you own, and a license to kill all animals, you really need very little to experience the entire game. You don't need to buy every weapon, or item to be successful in the game.

What you are suggesting is to increase the membership cost to $180 a year, and then you need to earn what costs you now $35 plus what ever extra you want.
Your suggestion would have cost me $1440 over the past 8 years and I would have no choice in that cost if I wanted to play. As it is now I don't think I have spent that, and it was always my choice to spend above the $35 a year to play.

You are saying the game isn't worth $500, yet you want people that play to pay way over that for the game.

Also in most F2P games that offer your type of system of payment, the free players serve as cannon fodder for those that pay, so they do serve a purpose in the gameplay.
With this game the free player does not serve a purpose in the gameplay at all.
They only add word of mouth advertising, which does have it's advantage, but with any advertising there is a set limit that is spent on it.

There was one other enterprise that tried to compete with the concept the hunter has, and they didn't make it. That was early on in the games history, and since then, no one else has tried to do the same.

Before the hunter, ATARI tried with the deer hunter franchise with Deer Hunter Tournament, unfortunately it was a stand alone value game sold for $20, and it could not support a server for data very long on the single payment system. They gave up on it quite quickly and still have not tried again.

This system works, and will keep working as long as the game can keep growing. Changing that system now would certainly kill the game in short order.

[Cartoon Head]

Nice argument but ultimately a flawed one that will not get much traction here where a lot of people have already shelled out that $500.

I never really understand the argument that EW have cornered the market and there are no competitiors, there are thousands of video games out there, each and everyone competes with theHunter for our time and money.

[caledonianblues]

It's always good to read different opinions on the commercial model, and extremely refreshing to read a post that offers ideas and suggestions instead of just an opposing opinion about the existing model. I particularly like a couple of ideas put forward about player skill progression. This would require an overhaul of the existing skills system (which I think is long overdue) and would allow players to hone whichever skills were applicable to their style of play.

However, I agree with DHRifleman that in general, the business model Wargaming adopts would not work for theHunter. The target audience is different in my opinion. I too have spent a lot of time analysing the current business model, trying to apply other theoretical commercial designs in an attempt to weigh up the pros and cons, and I think a change as radical as what's being proposed would end in disaster. I think it would be very damaging to the future sustainability of the game.

I never really understand the argument that EW have cornered the market and there are no competitiors, there are thousands of video games out there, each and everyone competes with theHunter for our time and money.

But there are no other hunting games out there that avoid the "arcade" visuals and approach and cater to those who prefer a "simulator" approach. I know theHunter isn't a simulator but by comparison to the likes of any Cabela's game, it could be classed as one. So I think the meaning behind this comment is that there are no other games that compete directly with theHunter and offer such a great hunting experience.

[oPacheco]

Very good post

[Cartoon Head]

I never really understand the argument that EW have cornered the market and there are no competitiors, there are thousands of video games out there, each and everyone competes with theHunter for our time and money.

But there are no other hunting games out there that avoid the "arcade" visuals and approach and cater to those who prefer a "simulator" approach. I know theHunter isn't a simulator but by comparison to the likes of any Cabela's game, it could be classed as one. So I think the meaning behind this comment is that there are no other games that compete directly with theHunter and offer such a great hunting experience.

But surely all games are competing with each other for our pound/dollar, that was my point, I've been playing BF1, FIFA17 and The Division loads lately, hardly touched this game, I guess I wasn't comparing apples with apples, more of a total overview, I'd concede that I am maybe looking at this wrong.

[BCKidd]

Well, this game has been around since 2008, and 8 years is a pretty good run for a video game. It's still going strong, and development continues, so there must be something "right" in the business model.

Totally agree, with that Fletchette. But, the future will bring whatever the future brings, I guess. I like how theHunter is now, and other than a few issues- that some experience daily, the game rocks as it is now. No need imo to change anything. I'll keep buying what I think I need, whether in my lifetime it is thousands of dollars or less. Changing theHunter from what it is now, to what a lot of ppl want will not guarantee a better game, or for that matter more income for EW. If a new hunting game comes out that has what the first poster posted, have at her, I'll stick with theHunter. Peace.

BCKidd.

[knott]

It's always good to read different opinions on the commercial model, and extremely refreshing to read a post that offers ideas and suggestions instead of just an opposing opinion about the existing model. I particularly like a couple of ideas put forward about player skill progression. This would require an overhaul of the existing skills system (which I think is long overdue) and would allow players to hone whichever skills were applicable to their style of play.

However, I agree with DHRifleman that in general, the business model Wargaming adopts would not work for theHunter. The target audience is different in my opinion. I too have spent a lot of time analysing the current business model, trying to apply other theoretical commercial designs in an attempt to weigh up the pros and cons, and I think a change as radical as what's being proposed would end in disaster. I think it would be very damaging to the future sustainability of the game.

I never really understand the argument that EW have cornered the market and there are no competitiors, there are thousands of video games out there, each and everyone competes with theHunter for our time and money.

But there are no other hunting games out there that avoid the "arcade" visuals and approach and cater to those who prefer a "simulator" approach. I know theHunter isn't a simulator but by comparison to the likes of any Cabela's game, it could be classed as one. So I think the meaning behind this comment is that there are no other games that compete directly with theHunter and offer such a great hunting experience.

But play Cabelas Pro Hunter 2013 and it´s more of a sim then the Hunter. We need to use other then Cabelas name to suggest an arcade shooter. Far Cry Primal would work