Monetization needs to be restructured to entice more players

[JimTM]

21 hours ago, SAG said:

 

Thanks for that. or was it opening ports that was necessary for hosting CoOP? I remember there being an obstacle of that sort when I tried doing it.

 

Port forwarding worked fine for some people but for others, it was miserable.

Edited October 6, 2021 by JimTM

[Mac_Messer]

If monetization was the real/biggest problem then GB would already be that. It is a whole slew of problems of different scale, most already mentioned.

 

No matter what you change, this will never get close to WSAD point`n click games of today. Maybe just copy Warthunder but I can`t even fathom where to start with this.

[[F.Circus]FrangibleCover]

10 hours ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I've often thought a starter kit with a unique aircraft might not be a bad idea as an entry point into the series that was free or extremely low cost. That said, it's really hard to compete with the frequently 85% off Battle of Stalingrad. I convinced a friend to buy it for $6.99 and he hasn't even played it yet

I like the idea of a 'free' starter using LaGG-3 s.20ish and Bf 109F-3. LaGG would just be taking some top end boost off the engine, 109F-3 differs from F-4 by the MG FF/M only but I'd make it a tickable 151/20 and derate the engine to 1941 standard so it can be an F-3 or F-4. Both old models, both fairly small changes, both worse than the Stalingrad options in such a way that they don't discourage buying Stalingrad and both useful for Moscow. However, this is mostly a selfish wish and I'll explain why.

 

To have fun in this game, personally, I found that I needed a decent but cheap stick (T.Flight HOTAS X at the moment, £60), something that let me look around independently (Delanclip, £60 again), and a Yak-1 (£40, very regularly £6). 1C changing that £6, which is what I paid for it, into £0, makes absolutely no difference to the functional cost of entry to the game. Even the £40 is a relatively small proportion of the cost of getting set up to play the game, and I'm not spending anywhere near the amounts that others do to improve their game experience, never mind the difficult to quantify cost of the necessary hardware to run it.

 

For what it's worth the most regularly popular server we have is the Finnish Virtual Pilots one, which is set up with the intent that you will get to play some of the time regardless of what module you have, and also ensures that if you only have Battle of Stalingrad you can always fly one of the bombers no matter what plane set is being used.

[[CPT]milopugdog]

I think the 'trial' version of RoF kinda bit the devs in the butt. It was supposed to come off more as a try before you buy, similar to what you're saying, but people viewed it more like... here's 3 free planes, now give us money if you want to keep going.

 

So I think a 'trial' version is a little out of the question, and I also remember (without reference) it being brought up by the devs as something they weren't particularly interested in.

[Talon_]

The reason BoS can go free is that 90% of the players that will ever buy it have already bought it so the loss to 1C is negligible. Use it as a loss leader to get people "in" so they buy the other more expensive modules - the same way supermarkets sell fuel, bread and milk at cost. It gets shoppers in the door who walk down the other aisles and buy the high-margin products. This is a sales tactic as old as time.

 

War Thunder is a very different game but proves that the market is out there for semi-casual WW2-interested flight/tank sim enjoyers.

[THERION]

1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

the same way supermarkets sell fuel, bread and milk at cost

 

Except if you're living in good old Great Britain - price tags are ready in place, but no lorry drivers to deliver the merchandise. 

[357th_KW]

3 hours ago, Talon_ said:

The reason BoS can go free is that 90% of the players that will ever buy it have already bought it so the loss to 1C is negligible. Use it as a loss leader to get people "in" so they buy the other more expensive modules - the same way supermarkets sell fuel, bread and milk at cost. It gets shoppers in the door who walk down the other aisles and buy the high-margin products. This is a sales tactic as old as time.

 

War Thunder is a very different game but proves that the market is out there for semi-casual WW2-interested flight/tank sim enjoyers.

This precisely.  The competitors in the segment offer free to play or trial options to get people started playing the game, and both enjoy much larger user bases.  Getting people in the door here to see what it’s all about will only help to grow the player base.

[Thorne]

18 hours ago, [F.Circus]FrangibleCover said:

I like the idea of a 'free' starter using LaGG-3 s.20ish and Bf 109F-3. LaGG would just be taking some top end boost off the engine, 109F-3 differs from F-4 by the MG FF/M only but I'd make it a tickable 151/20 and derate the engine to 1941 standard so it can be an F-3 or F-4. Both old models, both fairly small changes, both worse than the Stalingrad options in such a way that they don't discourage buying Stalingrad and both useful for Moscow.

Right, something along these lines. You'd get a bottom tier fighter for each side so you could hop in pretty much any server. You'd get one instant action/tutorial so you could practice basic flight and gunnery offline--and that's it. It would get people in the door and after a bit of flying some users might want to purchase a traditional DLC with all of the aircraft, the ability to fly a fully the customizable instant action on that map, and fly the campaigns (as are available currently).

[Xanatos]

I do want to get into the game as well, but the high price for BoS on Steam does keep me away until there is a sale.

 

I think it's hard for new players to test this out if the price for the "first" module is that high even if there a multiple big discounts over the year.

 

After testing it out I'm pretty sure that if I like it I will start to buy dlc's because there is so much interesting content. But first of all a new user wants to know if the game is suitable for him/her. If he ia getting used to the controls and mechanic of the game.

Edited October 6, 2021 by Xanatos
Information missing

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

The hardware entry, some very competitive players online use gamepads to play this game  with good success also.  I was shocked that this is possible at first.

[BCI-Nazgul]

If lower prices for entry is needed (and I'm not saying it is) then it seems that selling the maps and planes individually would be the best way.   DCS does this, but their stuff is expensive.    Obviously, 1C could probably beat their prices since their prices are much lower for what you get in a module (multiple planes.)  You'll not find any DCS planes for $10 or $20 unless they're on a massive sale.  A new plane can cost as much as a whole 1C module (a map and multiple planes.)  The other problem is that you really need at least a joystick to play the game.   Most gamers don't own one of those and they can be expensive if you want a decent one not to mention a throttle and pedals.

Edited October 6, 2021 by BCI-Nazgul

[Rjel]

3 hours ago, VBF-12_KW said:

This precisely.  The competitors in the segment offer free to play or trial options to get people started playing the game, and both enjoy much larger user bases.  Getting people in the door here to see what it’s all about will only help to grow the player base.

Except BoS isn’t a trial version but a full fledge game. One that is infinitely better than when released in many more ways than need to be mentioned. Nearly everyone in this thread has mentioned how good the game is and it is that. But it’s been brought up to this level with a tremendous amount of work and the foresight to make this sim one that allows each module to merge with the others. All of that costs money which has in part been financed by buying the next expansion/theater at full price or early access. 
 

Several folks  mentioned waiting until the next sale before buying whichever BoX they’re lacking. While I understand saving a buck, buying cheap really isn’t lining the pockets of the developers for future products. To each his own but if you’re that gung ho about simming, quality simming, pay the price of admission and look at it as a very good investment with plenty of play value in return. 

[SAG]

I think a well scripted, voiced and understandable step-by-step tutorial campaign with some flashy cinematics would do wonders to not scare the newcomers and get them to stay.
We could call it a demo.

Edited October 6, 2021 by SAG

[Gambit21]

22 minutes ago, SAG said:

I think a well scripted, voiced and understandable step-by-step tutorial campaign with some flashy cinematics would do wonders to not scare the newcomers and get them to stay.
We could call it a demo.

 

Who would make it?

As Alex already said, attempting to create such a thing is “deadly boring”

[LukeFF]

Whenever one of these topics comes up, I wonder how many of those making these suggestions have ever had any sort of real-world business management experience. 

[PatrickAWlson]

On 10/6/2021 at 1:40 PM, Rjel said:

Several folks  mentioned waiting until the next sale before buying whichever BoX they’re lacking. While I understand saving a buck, buying cheap really isn’t lining the pockets of the developers for future products. To each his own but if you’re that gung ho about simming, quality simming, pay the price of admission and look at it as a very good investment with plenty of play value in return. 

Two counter points:
1. The people that we are talking about are not necessarily gung ho for simming, at least not yet.  The idea is to entice them into trying it.  Most will walk away when they realize that this is a bit more complicated than WASD.  Hopefully, some catch the bug and stick.

 

2. Some people really don't have much money, so asking them to spend full price to keep development going might be akin to asking them if they want a new plane or do they want to eat.  For those of us that can afford it, I am all for putting funds into 1C's coffers.  We all understand that if that does not happen often enough then this sim dies.  For those that can't, better $15 than nothing.

 

On 10/6/2021 at 3:16 PM, LukeFF said:

Whenever one of these topics comes up, I wonder how many of those making these suggestions have ever had any sort of real-world business management experience. 

 

As long as a thought is offered respectfully and not phrased as a demand then IMHO no experience is necessary.  It's an idea.  It can be acted on or not.  Many of the features in my app are suggestions from others.  They may not be software developers, but they had good ideas.

 

People who are obviously ignorant and pound their fists on the table are a different matter, but I don't see that happening here.

[Xanatos]

I think I'm a good example I do want to try the game but I know that 2 hours are not enough to get a good picture of it (Steam refund policy). So either I need to buy 46€ and hope that I like it with the fear of throwing a lot of money out of the window or I wait for a sale maybe loosing interesst while waiting for this.

I do not ask for all the modules to be cheaper but for a single cheap entry module which I can buy to test it out. Right now this is BoS for me since I need this to use Steam as a application to update the game but I think a Module which only includes 2 - 3 Planes and only a small map with the ability for short mission would be enough to allow new players to test out the game.

All those things are already there in my opinion it just need to be refitted in a module. I think the big problem here is that you cannot change the entry game on Steam anymore which is a big problem for such a approach.

[Enceladus828]

@Thorne You could suggest to your friends to get Cliffs of Dover Blitz + Desert Wings-Tobruk, you get a lot more content -- aircraft, ships, campaigns -- at a much cheaper price than in a single IL-2 GBs installment, and several planes that are already in IL-2 GBs such as the P-40E, Bf-109E-7 and Bf-109F, He-111H-6 (where you can carry torpedoes), Macchi MC.202, Hurricane Mk.II, Spitfire Mk.Vb; and planes which have never been (officially) flyable in a flight sim before.

[Rjel]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Two counter points:
1. The people that we are talking about are not necessarily gung ho for simming, at least not yet.  The idea is to entice them into trying it.  Most will walk away when they realize that this is a bit more complicated than WASD.  Hopefully, some catch the bug and stick.

 

2. Some people really don't have much money, so asking them to spend full price to keep development going might be akin to asking them if they want a new plane or do they want to eat.  For those of us that can afford it, I am all for putting funds into 1C's coffers.  We all understand that if that does not happen often enough then this sim dies.  For those that can't, better $15 than nothing.

 

 

As long as a thought is offered respectfully and not phrased as a demand then IMHO no experience is necessary.  It's an idea.  It can be acted on or not.  Many of the features in my app are suggestions from others.  They may not be software developers, but they had good ideas.

 

People who are obviously ignorant and pound their fists on the table are a different matter, but I don't see that happening here.

This type of thread has been discussed here more than once. I seriously doubt anyone who’s struggling financially is worried in the least about flight simming. I have every sympathy for any and all who are in such desperate circumstances. To me, that’s not what this or previous threads like it are truly about. 
 

We all know simming is an expensive hobby. As has been said several times previously, anyone who has the funds to have even a mediocre computer that’s  good enough and the internet access to run a flight sim like BoS, likely isn’t struggling to eat or feed their families. If they’re in that situation, their priorities are not aligned with reality. Life is full of choices and we’ve likely all had a point in life where we’ve had to make some that forced us to choose how and where to spend our hard earned cash. I know I have.
 

I'm all for bringing in more people and their cash to further development. Expecting to get something for next nothing that truly isn’t close to what anyone here would consider an old game or abandon ware is a fool’s errand. To my mind, that’s what this thread is advocating. Again, as has been said over and over, when on sale, BoS is dirt cheap. Some newer theaters go for as little as $29 USD I believe. Play the game 10 hours and walk away for $2.99 an hour is pretty damned cheap entertainment as anyone would be hard pressed to go anywhere or do anything as inexpensively. 

[PatrickAWlson]

@Rjel Simming is expensive if you take it to the limit as many of us do.  I agree that it is absurd to buy over $1000 worth of equipment and then moan about $80 for ten planes and a map. 

 

But what about the guy with a $30 joystick?  The guy who will never turn on full real and doesn't care.  Maybe he can afford to drop $50 on games on occasion but he has to be particular, because he can't do it over and over.   Giving him two planes and a map for $10 might be the price point where he will try it.  Then offer a full upgrade to the rest of Stalingrad for a few bucks more.

 

Back to @LukeFF point - I am not a business professional.  Maybe that is a terrible idea for reasons that I do not understand.  But it does not seem so absurd that it is not even worth considering.

[Eisenfaustus]

On 10/6/2021 at 9:16 PM, LukeFF said:

Whenever one of these topics comes up, I wonder how many of those making these suggestions have ever had any sort of real-world business management experience. 

The free trial version of DCS got me to buy flaming cliffs 3 - the free version of rise of flight got me to get the channel front expansion on steam and later BoS. These were the titles that got me into flight simming - together with war thunder. So from my customer point of view the idea of a trial has merit. 
Take Veliky Luki with and the ‘42 Sturmovik as free content - then potential customers can learn to fly the name giving warbird, groundpound and shoot down slow non-fighter planes in qm. Some will do that be happy and never buy anything - but those are quite unlikely to buy anything in the first place so you lose nothing by giving them a small map and one plane for free. Other will get fixed and want to fly a fast fighter or a large bomber and will start buying stuff. Those you might not have reached without a free trial. You can dish out laughing faces at will but I’m actually interested in how such an approach might hurt 1cgs - I can’t see it. 
 

On 10/6/2021 at 8:09 PM, Gambit21 said:

Who would make it?

As Alex already said, attempting to create such a thing is “deadly boring”

Maybe creating that is boring- but it was the well done tutorial of rise of flight that taught me the basics of combat flight simming. I doubt if without that I would have gotten so involved with this hobby. DCS free trial also has a good su25 tutorial. 
If you don’t have a well done tutorial you limit yourself to those customers who either already know what they are doing from other games or who are willing to completely research everything on the internet…

And well done would mean with inflight instructions(like RoF) - not only preflight instructions. 

[BraveSirRobin]

8 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

 the free version of rise of flight

This is the same developer.  Do you think maybe that they learned something from giving away RoF for free that they’re now using in the marketing for BoX?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

The il2 could have demo versions of the game,  some few missions from new AQM , it might work well for marketing porous. 

[PatrickAWlson]

59 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

This is the same developer.  Do you think maybe that they learned something from giving away RoF for free that they’re now using in the marketing for BoX?

 

One key thing about the RoF giveaway is that it was enough to fly practically the last year of the war.  SPAD XIII was THE American plane for most of the war.  American audiences didn't have to buy anything to play an American career.   Albatros D5 formed the core of the German air service for a year before being supplanted by the D.VII.  All game features, including career, were usable.

 

Example: If you make the free planes a LaGG-3 and a Me109-F2 (I would not give away the F4) and make them playable on the Lupino map you are not giving away the farm.  No career mode, no campaigns, no multiplayer.  Just two flyables and the QMB.  Let the experience of flying, dogfighting, taking off and landing, along with the knowledge of what is available for a few bucks more, sell the product.  

 

Still admit that I have no idea if this would be an effective marketing device, but it is not absurd.

Edited October 8, 2021 by PatrickAWlson

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

On 10/6/2021 at 2:40 PM, Rjel said:

Except BoS isn’t a trial version but a full fledge game. One that is infinitely better than when released in many more ways than need to be mentioned. Nearly everyone in this thread has mentioned how good the game is and it is that. But it’s been brought up to this level with a tremendous amount of work and the foresight to make this sim one that allows each module to merge with the others. All of that costs money which has in part been financed by buying the next expansion/theater at full price or early access.

Same thing applies to the other platforms though, and they have their trial programs. For example the 2 week free trial for any DCS module that refreshes each 6 months is a very clever system imo. If you switch from one module to another each 2 weeks you can play essentially the game for free and not run out of things to do before the 6 month period ends, so the module you first trialed refreshes and can repeat the cycle.

And give hesitant buyers the ability try something to see if they like it that otherwise were on the fence before dumping whole 60-70-80 USD on a particular product they weren't too confident about.

[Rjel]

2 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Same thing applies to the other platforms though, and they have their trial programs. For example the 2 week free trial for any DCS module that refreshes each 6 months is a very clever system imo. If you switch from one module to another each 2 weeks you can play essentially the game for free and not run out of things to do before the 6 month period ends, so the module you first trialed refreshes and can repeat the cycle.

And give hesitant buyers the ability try something to see if they like it that otherwise were on the fence before dumping whole 60-70-80 USD on a particular product they weren't too confident about.

How exactly, is playing for free months at a time going to be a long term benefit to any developer? We might as well just let pirates exploit the game as happened so many times in the past? Playing for free endlessly looks like a great way to kill the golden goose. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Just now, Rjel said:

How exactly, is playing for free months at a time going to be a long term benefit to any developer? We might as well just let pirates exploit the game as happened so many times in the past? Playing for free endlessly looks like a great way to kill the golden goose. 

I'm not saying to implement the exact same mechanism. It works for DCS given they have a big portfolio of individual modules, rather than them being bundled in expansions like IL-2 does. But you have to consider they have evaluated it with their business/economic analysts and got to the conclusion it wouldn't hurt them.

A BoS standard edition only free trial for a couple weeks that refreshes each 6 months could work as an analogue strategy, don't need to have the whole portfolio in the program, and in this particular case having it restricted to the first release that most people have already and gets dirt cheap during sales would bring minimum monetary loss.

[BraveSirRobin]

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Still admit that I have no idea if this would be an effective marketing device, but it is not absurd.

 

I'm relatively certain that they've done market research on this. If they had data that showed the free planes made them more money, then they would give away free planes.

[BraveSirRobin]

5 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

The il2 could have demo versions of the game,  some few missions from new AQM , it might work well for marketing porous. 

What if the developer has sales data that shows that a demo version not only does not increase revenue, but actually decreases it.  Is that still a good idea?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

9 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

What if the developer has sales data that shows that a demo version not only does not increase revenue, but actually decreases it.  Is that still a good idea?

This is the true ? If yes wise developer should think why can his product do harm and do something to change that,  or not. 

[Pict]

On 10/6/2021 at 1:18 PM, THERION said:

 

Except if you're living in good old Great Britain - price tags are ready in place, but no lorry drivers to deliver the merchandise. 

 

For sure the UK's race to the bottom™ way of ruining* things for the people, is no benchmark for success at anything.

 

 

*not a typo

Edited October 9, 2021 by Pict

[Zinovy_Kolobanov]

@Thorne

Ready to call your friends? 

 

[Jaws2002]

18 hours ago, Zinovy_Kolobanov said:

@Thorne

Ready to call your friends? 

 

 You beat me to it. BOS for 11 bucks and BOK for 20 bucks is a steal.

[DBFlyguy]

The "about" and "media" pages for this game hasn't been updated in years and doesn't even mention the 3 most recent big releases (BoBP, FC I, TC) or any of the collector aircraft/vehicles released in the last few years....and folks are actually wondering why more new people aren't coming to the game ?

https://il2sturmovik.com/about/

https://il2sturmovik.com/media/

 

That'd probably be a good start.

 

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by DBFlyguy

[Thorne]

Heck yeah fellas, I just got a buddy to buy all the DLC and enticed some dude on Reddit to take the plunge. MOAR PLAYERS

 

@Zinovy_Kolobanov

Edited October 27, 2021 by Thorne