Paid features - how to make NA sustainable

[vazco]

Problem

My belief is that NA is not a sustainable product in the long run. Just like ponzi scheme, it needs more people to buy the game to be profitable. New people mean more server costs. This creates a situation where for devs it's most profitable for players to buy the game and stop playing it as soon as possible.

I'm not saying devs are acting according to this incentive. I'm saying incentive is there.

Biggest value for most of the players on the other hand is to have a game that they can play for a longer time, which is maintained.

I think it would be beneficial to join those two worlds in a way that would make everyone content.

Solution

We can't introduce pay-to-win, it would destroy the community. Selling paints on the other hand won't work so well. What I would propose is to create a premium account, which would have some life-quality features that we don't have now. Those could be:

• extra 1-2 outposts
• extra 2 building slots
• extra 1-2 ship slots
• larger labout wallet (but not labour generation)
• extra warehouse extension (which has to be bought)
• small increase of gold/CM you get from missions (eg. 10%)

 

Since you're creating payment system for NAL, it should be simple to extend it to NA. This way those who would want to pay for using the game, could do so (me included). Those who don't, don't get penalized so hard. In the same time it would give funds and incentive to develop the game further.

Without such system, I believe at some point devs will decide it's no longer profitable to develop the game, or support servers.

@admin

Edited December 4, 2017 by vazco

[George Washington]

How about Devs hire a normal team and make Naval Action *perfect. After it's perfect we can have Captain's Club 9.99$ /mo same to eve online. I will pay, but...

*PERFECT - New Engine that is capable of holding more than 10 npcs in 1 zone, and not a game where I can't even drag and drop items into the sea. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by George Washington

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

39 minutes ago, George Washington said:

Naval Action *perfect

A full experience of the age of sail set in the west indies with all the joys and woes and terrifically based upon realism as credible as possible, where failure and success are justly rewarded and refusal to do one's duty might signify the end of a naval career and to spend the rest of the days as a trade captain or a scummy privateer, or even worse, a pirate, living off the land for the rest of yer days, and all of this with the most spectacular age of sail naval combat with absurdly epic cinematic imax quality grandeur along with captain perma death if a cannon ball or malaria strikes down !? And then I have to start a totally new career !?

Is that what you mean ?

* take my money *

If it is not what you mean then NA is already on the good path, imo.

[Corona Lisa]

1 hour ago, George Washington said:

How about Devs hire a normal team and make Naval Action *perfect. After it's perfect we can have Captain's Club 9.99$ /mo same to eve online. I will pay

The game is around 3 years in EA now, most sales are done. On top of that playernumbers are constantly low. Would you increase costs for more devs?

Edited November 30, 2017 by Jon Snow lets go

[vazco]

14 hours ago, Wraith said:

Nope. All of those options you  propose are pay-to-win and not just quality of life improvements

Can you please explain why you think particular options are pay to win? 

 

Consider also that we already have alts. They are bought mostly to access resources in other nations. This is not pay to win, it's pay to survive. 

[Yngvarr]

2 hours ago, vazco said:

Can you please explain why you think particular options are pay to win? 

 

Consider also that we already have alts. They are bought mostly to access resources in other nations. This is not pay to win, it's pay to survive. 

The problem with these options is that they actually impact the current in-game mechanics.

Having extra outposts, building slots or ship slots might give you an edge over other players, while having cosmetic items instead does not have this effect.

You'd have more outposts, and have more ships per outpost...

These options would be on the same level as paying for extra teleports, or having extra durabilities on ships.

• extra 1-2 outposts
• extra 2 building slots
• extra 1-2 ship slots
• larger labout wallet (but not labour generation)
• extra warehouse extension (which has to be bought)
• small increase of gold/CM you get from missions (eg. 10%)

Edited December 1, 2017 by Yngvarr

[Custard]

Agree with Wraith and Yngvarr are pay to win

I also think selling paints will work very well as well as making them PvP rewards instead of the current rewards for PvP

[Yngvarr]

2 minutes ago, Intrepido said:

Cosmetics is the way to go.

Paint schemes, sails, flags, bowsprits...

You can extend it to music played on open sea, like sea shanties.

Or perhaps implement a "wear" slides like in War Thunder, making it possible to choose how faded or new your ship looks.

 

[Yngvarr]

"Microtransactions[edit]

In the eyes of gamers, sometimes microtransactions are done the right way, and sometimes they are done the wrong way. Data shows that most gamers (77%) like microtransactions when they are done “correctly”, mainly supplying cosmetic items and other non-game changing products. The other side of the argument is those who believe games that require microtransactions to be successful are what ruining the gaming industry. Certain companies like Blizzard and EA, and a variety of other smartphone companies have had vast amounts of criticism due to there choices with microtransactions. Games like Hearthstone and EA’s Star Wars Battlefront 2, took on business platforms that either force their player base invest what was considered an unreasonable amount of time, or buy into microtransactions, so they could keep them selves on an even playing field with other players^[22]."

 

"The profit in Microtransactions[edit]

The data from a variety of sources, including SuperData, show that microtransaction can vastly increase a companies’ profits. Free smartphone games like Clash Royal, Clash of Clans and Game of War are all in the top 5 most profitable smartphone games of 2016, despite being entirely free. Microtransactions alone are what make their profits. Grand Theft Auto as another example, was a game that held the price of a standard game (60$ USD) on release, yet they through microtransactions they have made more money than they have on game sales. The data speaks truth, where its clear that microtransaction is a business model that all game companies are conforming to, and for good reason^[23]."

 

@admin https://www.gamesparks.com/blog/micro-transactions/

Here's some do's and dont's ;-)

Edited December 1, 2017 by Yngvarr

[vazco]

Could you maybe suggest other microtransactions that don't influence the game mechanic then?

 

Those already mentioned:

• paints
• ship names (can't be implemented though from what I heard)

[vazco]

Btw, I can't understand how two of those I mentioned influence game mechanic in any way:

1. bigger labour wallet (with the same amount of labour generation)
2. one extra warehouse extension (instead of parking a ship in port and keeping your stuff there)

 

One more that comes to mind:

• a boost to generation of ship knowledge and XP