Micro transaction for bannerlord. hope it's not true.

[Klausolus]

Well yeah, that is the point. Its a known business secret to sell microtransactions to people that mainly play multiplayer based games. This was proven using analytizal data statistics from movile games. Those kind of people are called "whales" in the industry and they are proven to be more willing to pay for ingame cosmetics, lootcrates, and other virtual goods. If the devs want to maximize profits they need to target the multiplayer audience which is more likely to contain whales, or people with plenty of disposiable income.

The devs already stated that they are collecting data from players in the beta. It won't hurt to have them install simple microtransactions in multiplayer, and gauge the response of the community, sales and profit.

The mobile gaming industry is ruled by predatory microtransaction models. Maximizing profit by sacrificing the quality of your product isn't an exemplar practice.

it's not that I support the decision so much as I support their right to make their own choices, that we may not fully understand because we arent fully disclosed to the nature of their internal business structure.  I say this after having arguing red in the face against these changes made in games through out the years, only to see them become the status quo. being that it is the status quo probably has more to do with the decision to do this, than anything... but I am only speculating... unless someone can disclose how their business actually gets funding, that's all I can really do... giving them the benefit of the doubt, I would assume they are doing this apart of some requirement, to get funding they need to continue development . this is one way an investor can earn control of the revenue stream, but sectioning off a piece of the development for private development with a clear profit incentive. if that were the case, what would you have them do instead? release the game as is and hope to earn enough from steam early access to fund more development? or something else?

The EA release should suffice to overcome any funding problems, there's no need to compromise the MP experience. Bannerlord is one of the most anticipated games in the genre, it won't have any trouble in regards to sales.

 

[DreadZep]

They lived off warband and other titles for more then 7 years. Last time i checked the studio is still there

Again, making assumptions about internal business structures you don't actually have any information about. How do you know if anyone in the current development team even has access to those profits? That's not how businesses operate. You start with a project, you give it a budget and a time line and you hire the people to do it. If you don't feel like taking the risk with your finances, that's what investors are for... and these are the kinds of conditions that come with those. you can only be grateful if someone decided to risk their fortune so you shouldnt have to spend as much... to be spiteful because they dont really is too far

????

I don't know if you realize but EA is around the corner. With all the hype around it i'm pretty confident the initial sales will be very profitable.

You sound like you're saying TW won't have enough time to make DLC after release. Like honestly what are you talking about?

Like i said, stop talking finance. This is MTX conversation not economics and how a business works 101.
TW already stated they have plans for DLC

I'm saying that the reason we are sitting here now in beta was a compromise that might have already been made, so they can continue to develop the game into March. You want to have a discussion about business practices from a consumer point of view alone, which as I have already stated, will continue to give you sleepless nights. if maybe you tried to understand the thing that actually creates these videogames, you would be able to relax and take the information at face value

 

[DreadZep]

The EA release should suffice to overcome any funding problems, there's no need to compromise the MP experience. Bannerlord is one of the most anticipated games in the genre, it won't have any trouble in regards to sales.

You're right about that, and the only reason we're sitting here in beta is because someone thought the same thing. But how do we actually get from there to now and into March? did a group buy the rights to make the game, internal to the company, or was there a restructuring within the company and a asset reallocation?  Did this happen once.. or multiple times? Were some bankruptcies involved.... re-licensing, sale of intellectual property? seriously it's been 10 years I'm sure it's an interesting story

 

[Younes]

They lived off warband and other titles for more then 7 years. Last time i checked the studio is still there

Again, making assumptions about internal business structures you don't actually have any information about. How do you know if anyone in the current development team even has access to those profits? That's not how businesses operate. You start with a project, you give it a budget and a time line and you hire the people to do it. If you don't feel like taking the risk with your finances, that's what investors are for... and these are the kinds of conditions that come with those. you can only be grateful if someone decided to risk their fortune so you shouldnt have to spend as much... to be spiteful because they dont really is too far

????

I don't know if you realize but EA is around the corner. With all the hype around it i'm pretty confident the initial sales will be very profitable.

You sound like you're saying TW won't have enough time to make DLC after release. Like honestly what are you talking about?

Like i said, stop talking finance. This is MTX conversation not economics and how a business works 101.
TW already stated they have plans for DLC

I'm saying that the reason we are sitting here now in beta was a compromise that might have already been made, so they can continue to develop the game into March. You want to have a discussion about business practices from a consumer point of view alone, which as I have already stated, will continue to give you sleepless nights. if maybe you tried to understand the thing that actually creates these videogames, you would be able to relax and take the information at face value

You don't have to lecture me on business and how a company works its not of my concern.
I want to buy and play a game that is fun and does not have MTX.

You say i should watch it from a perspective that we clearly don't have. I said DLC over cosmetics but you keep rambling about investors and business like we know about what is going on in taleworlds. Like just stop honestly


Since you clearly don't seem to know what you're talking about, i will drop it.

 

[TheMonWom]

Well yeah, that is the point. Its a known business secret to sell microtransactions to people that mainly play multiplayer based games. This was proven using analytizal data statistics from movile games. Those kind of people are called "whales" in the industry and they are proven to be more willing to pay for ingame cosmetics, lootcrates, and other virtual goods. If the devs want to maximize profits they need to target the multiplayer audience which is more likely to contain whales, or people with plenty of disposiable income.

The devs already stated that they are collecting data from players in the beta. It won't hurt to have them install simple microtransactions in multiplayer, and gauge the response of the community, sales and profit.

The mobile gaming industry is ruled by predatory microtransaction models. Maximizing profit by sacrificing the quality of your product isn't an exemplar practice.

it's not that I support the decision so much as I support their right to make their own choices, that we may not fully understand because we arent fully disclosed to the nature of their internal business structure.  I say this after having arguing red in the face against these changes made in games through out the years, only to see them become the status quo. being that it is the status quo probably has more to do with the decision to do this, than anything... but I am only speculating... unless someone can disclose how their business actually gets funding, that's all I can really do... giving them the benefit of the doubt, I would assume they are doing this apart of some requirement, to get funding they need to continue development . this is one way an investor can earn control of the revenue stream, but sectioning off a piece of the development for private development with a clear profit incentive. if that were the case, what would you have them do instead? release the game as is and hope to earn enough from steam early access to fund more development? or something else?

The EA release should suffice to overcome any funding problems, there's no need to compromise the MP experience. Bannerlord is one of the most anticipated games in the genre, it won't have any trouble in regards to sales.

Where did I mention that the game quality will be sacrificed? Are you under the impression that if adding a purchase button for a skin will somehow reduce the graphics quality, or magically unbalance the game by increasing weapon damage? Its only skins, something cosmetic and only affects how the game will look.

 

[DreadZep]

You don't have to lecture me on business and how a company works its not of my concern.
I want to buy and play a game that is fun and does not have MTX.

You say i should watch it from a perspective that we clearly don't have. I said DLC over cosmetics but you keep rambling about investors and business like we know about what is going on in taleworlds. Like just stop honestly


Since you clearly don't seem to know what you're talking about, i will drop it.

no I think it's more than that. I think maybe, just maybe, you feel a tiny bit entitled to tell them how to run their business, while simultaneously admitting that you have no interest in seeing it from their perspective

 

[LeChat]

I seen a video online which support that Bannerlord Dev is actualy working on micro transaction system for Bannerlord. Please tell me that is not true.
...

Source ?

 

[Younes]

Well yeah, that is the point. Its a known business secret to sell microtransactions to people that mainly play multiplayer based games. This was proven using analytizal data statistics from movile games. Those kind of people are called "whales" in the industry and they are proven to be more willing to pay for ingame cosmetics, lootcrates, and other virtual goods. If the devs want to maximize profits they need to target the multiplayer audience which is more likely to contain whales, or people with plenty of disposiable income.

The devs already stated that they are collecting data from players in the beta. It won't hurt to have them install simple microtransactions in multiplayer, and gauge the response of the community, sales and profit.

The mobile gaming industry is ruled by predatory microtransaction models. Maximizing profit by sacrificing the quality of your product isn't an exemplar practice.

it's not that I support the decision so much as I support their right to make their own choices, that we may not fully understand because we arent fully disclosed to the nature of their internal business structure.  I say this after having arguing red in the face against these changes made in games through out the years, only to see them become the status quo. being that it is the status quo probably has more to do with the decision to do this, than anything... but I am only speculating... unless someone can disclose how their business actually gets funding, that's all I can really do... giving them the benefit of the doubt, I would assume they are doing this apart of some requirement, to get funding they need to continue development . this is one way an investor can earn control of the revenue stream, but sectioning off a piece of the development for private development with a clear profit incentive. if that were the case, what would you have them do instead? release the game as is and hope to earn enough from steam early access to fund more development? or something else?

The EA release should suffice to overcome any funding problems, there's no need to compromise the MP experience. Bannerlord is one of the most anticipated games in the genre, it won't have any trouble in regards to sales.

Where did I mention that the game quality will be sacrificed? Are you under the impression that if adding a purchase button for a skin will somehow reduce the graphics quality, or magically unbalance the game by increasing weapon damage? Its only skins, something cosmetic and only affects how the game will look.

The base game have 100's of more models and weapons. In multiplayer we are touching a small fraction from those. It seems like if they centered it around skins they will use those Singleplayer assets and use them as skins for multiplayer which is to me sacrificing quality.

The placeholders used in the files were all singleplayer assets. It would just mean they downgraded the multiplayer for the sake of introducing skins

 

[Klausolus]

You're right about that, and the only reason we're sitting here in beta is because someone thought the same thing. But how do we actually get from there to now and into March? did a group buy the rights to make the game, internal to the company, or was there a restructuring within the company and a asset reallocation?  Did this happen once.. or multiple times? Were some bankruptcies involved.... re-licensing, sale of intellectual property? seriously it's been 10 years I'm sure it's an interesting story

What are you even talking about? Just because we don't know how their funds are doing you assume the worst and are completely open to paying additional money for no real reason?

Where did I mention that the game quality will be sacrificed? Are you under the impression that if adding a purchase button for a skin will somehow reduce the graphics quality, or magically unbalance the game by increasing weapon damage? Its only skins, something cosmetic and only affects how the game will look.

You didn't mention it. Even if cosmetic only, customization is part of the experience, after paying for a full priced game one would expect a full-fledged experience. If the final product we get isn't complete (as in having to pay additional money to access the cosmetic customization) the quality of said product is obviously affected, negatively.

 

[TheMonWom]

You're right about that, and the only reason we're sitting here in beta is because someone thought the same thing. But how do we actually get from there to now and into March? did a group buy the rights to make the game, internal to the company, or was there a restructuring within the company and a asset reallocation?  Did this happen once.. or multiple times? Were some bankruptcies involved.... re-licensing, sale of intellectual property? seriously it's been 10 years I'm sure it's an interesting story

What are you even talking about? Just because we don't know how their funds are doing you assume the worst and are completely open to paying additional money for no real reason?

Where did I mention that the game quality will be sacrificed? Are you under the impression that if adding a purchase button for a skin will somehow reduce the graphics quality, or magically unbalance the game by increasing weapon damage? Its only skins, something cosmetic and only affects how the game will look.

You didn't mention it. Even if cosmetic only, customization is part of the experience, after paying for a full priced game one would expect a full-fledged experience. If the final product we get isn't complete (as in having to pay additional money to access the cosmetic customization) the quality of said product is obviously affected, negatively.

This exact attitude is why companies have started using microtransactions and dlc in the first place to fund games. Because the Western audience are so feverent on making sure games are 60 dollars, conpanies are losing money as they develop games. Even with Taleworld's government funding, I doubt that the stipend is enough to feed 100 people's families for a decade.

What do you do when you have customers that demand more and more features each year while still demanding that their full games cost 60 dollars? Simple. Companies responded by introducing microtransactions, OPTIONAL DLC THAT DO NOT EFFECT GAMEPLAY, so that people who want it can pay for it and people that don't will still be able to enjoy 60 dollar games.

"Customization is part of the experience". Please keep saying that you brought a medieval battle simulator to play dressup with medieval soldiers lol.

 

[DreadZep]

What are you even talking about? Just because we don't know how their funds are doing you assume the worst and are completely open to paying additional money for no real reason?

I don't assume this is the worst, or the best. The best I can do is judge it for what it is and accept it, try to understand. Because what I have learned by now is that this kind of stuff is preordained, if it happens at all, and no amount of rabble will stop it

 

[Younes]

Seems like you never played mount and blade warband if you believe customization is stupid.

You contradict your own point by saying:
"Customization is part of the experience". Please keep saying that you brought a medieval battle simulator to play dressup with medieval soldiers lol.
While at the same time not caring if cosmetic customization is added?!?

 

[TheMonWom]

Hence why it is being packaged as dlc, because it is completely optional. Personally I would not pay for it, but market data shows that plenty of people with disposable income will, just look at Fortnite.

Frankly If I were a multiplayer player with a focus on trying to keep the game competitive and balance, I would probably focus more on the combat issues you guys post so much about in the combat thread first before complaining about microtransactions that have no effect on gameplay whatsoever.

 

[Younes]

Hence why it is being packaged as dlc, because it is completely optional. Personally I would not pay for it, but market data shows that plenty of people with disposable income will, just look at Fortnite.

Frankly If I were a multiplayer player with a focus on trying to keep the game competitive and balance, I would probably focus more on the combat issues you guys post so much about in the combat thread first before complaining about microtransactions that have no effect on gameplay whatsoever.

As i said before, the problem is that it gives the feeling the game has been downgraded in multiplayer to be able to introduce skins

 

[Klausolus]

"Customization is part of the experience". Please keep saying that you brought a medieval battle simulator to play dressup with medieval soldiers lol.

If customization didn't matter at all then it'd be a really stupid move to direct time, effort and money into developing a system that literally revolves around profiting from cosmetic purchases.

Hence why it is being packaged as dlc, because it is completely optional. Personally I would not pay for it, but market data shows that plenty of people with disposable income will, just look at Fortnite.

Fortnite is a free to play game.

Frankly If I were a multiplayer player with a focus on trying to keep the game competitive and balance, I would probably focus more on the combat issues you guys post so much about in the combat thread first before complaining about microtransactions that have no effect on gameplay whatsoever.

Why not do both?

 

[TheMonWom]

So basically, you are just saying that because you feel like its a downgrade? Instead of looking at the hard facts and analytical data collected by experts in the gaming industry you rely on your own feels? Putting emotion over logic is one of the stupidest ways of thinking that school should have stamped out of your head, but seems like that failed to have any effect on you.

 

[Younes]

So basically, you are just saying that because you feel like its a downgrade? Instead of looking at the hard facts and analytical data collected by experts in the gaming industry you rely on your own feels? Putting emotion over logic is one of the stupidest ways of thinking that school should have stamped out of your head, but seems like that failed to have any effect on you.

I don't feel it, its a fact. The customization is a clear downgrade. I said feel but meant it as a fact. But since some people will deny it.


Honestly you talk a lot but when you talking with things like this

I would prefer that dlc is free and cosmetics are paid, and I think the dves are going this model. I think its a good tradeoff, you get new maps, gamemodes and new singleplayer features and dlc and only cost for that is dlc skins paid for by multiplayer players

It sounds like you failed

 

[TimotheusTheReal]

I'm simple man! I see a game. I pay full price, I no no pay for skins. I pay for DLC. Not skins.

Be simple, be like me, be like timotheusthereal!

 

[Younes]

I'm simple man! I see a game. I pay full price, I no no pay for skins. I pay for DLC. Not skins.

Be simple, be like me, be like timotheusthereal!

Exactly how it should be. Pay for actual content, not skins

 

[DreadZep]

I'm simple man! I see a game. I pay full price, I no no pay for skins. I pay for DLC. Not skins.

Be simple, be like me, be like timotheusthereal!

Exactly how it should be. Pay for actual content, not skins

lol