Close
Are you sure? Are you sure you want to report this comment? I understand, report it. Cancel

Could GTA Online work as a F2P title?

Could GTA Online work as a F2P title?

Mon 02 Dec 2013 8:00am GMT / 3:00am EST / 12:00am PST
OnlineFree-to-Play

The GamesAnalytics staff look at the structure of Rockstar's multiplayer

With the release of Grand Theft Auto Online, Rockstar has taken its blockbuster franchise in an ambitious new direction. The multiplayer world, complete with in-game economy, certainly has many of the hallmarks of a Free-2-Play title, but could GTA Online actually make it as a standalone F2P game?

Given the seismic shift the games industry has already made towards F2P, no one would be surprised if Rockstar made this next step. However, there is a lot a stake and creating a successful F2P isn't simply a case of throwing in some in-app purchases and giving a 40 game away for free.

F2P is already established as the dominant business model for mobile and PC games. Reasons for this include the prevalence of micro-transactions and because these platforms make it relatively easy for publishers and developers to integrate analytics and use that data to make informed real-time game design changes to keep players engaged and increase retention. The transition onto console has been a slower burn - designing successful F2P games requires an understanding and skill set which isn't necessarily native to publishers with a long heritage in designing games to ship in a box.

"Many F2P console games have come up short, offering a poor tutorial and on boarding process, plus a monetisation structure that is much closer to a used car sales man than an enjoyable experience that puts the control in the users' hands"

As a result, many F2P console games have come up short, offering a poor tutorial and on boarding process, plus a monetisation structure that is much closer to a used car sales man than an enjoyable experience that puts the control in the users' hands. However, the data capabilities of the Xbox One and PS4 means that F2P on console finally looks set to take off, with an impressive list of F2P titles already set for release including Little Big Planet, Planetside 2 and War Thunder.

To better understand the potential of console transition we thought we'd take a theoretical look at GTA Online as a standalone F2P title.

Our in-house design team applied GamesAnalytics' proprietary evidenced based research methodology to benchmark key aspects of its game design against best practice F2P game design from over 80 titles.

Focusing on six main categories including Monetisation, Retention, Engagement and Virality and analysing 50 key criteria the team found unsurprisingly that GTA Online surpassed the best in genre score for Retention, Game Mechanics, Engagement and Game Overview, clearly reflecting the high quality of the game. However, if GTA Online was going F2P it would need to look at mechanics around Monetisation and Virality.

1

Based on these data findings, here are five recommendations to improve the F2P potential of GTA Online:

1. Improve the currency structure

Currently GTA Online has a single currency, this is fine when the game is not relying on this currency as a part of the monetisation, but for a true F2P game you would want to extend this to provide greater flexibility. Adding in a premium currency is generally the way of giving games more flexibility in delivering the F2P mechanic. Making the currency a part of the world so it feels natural is vital in making sure the monetisation doesn't jar with the game surrounding.

There are a number of ways that people are encouraged to spend money both in the real and the virtual world. Especially for a game like GTA, it is vital that it feels natural and intuitive. Discounts and bundles are obvious incentives for getting people to invest in in-game economies, but rental and test drives are also a good way of letting players get a taste for the high life and incentivising them to keep grinding or splash the cash.

These 'try before you buy' mechanics are good ways of easing players onto the paying path while keeping the barrier low and the incentive high.

Giving players the ability to buy luxury vanity items using a premium currency is exactly the way you would expect Rockstar to monetise its players. The game has always been about getting rich quick and showing off the proceeds of your crimes. This is not about honest hard slog, so it's fitting that players should be given a quick route to the high life through whatever means at their disposal. A successfully free-to-play GTA Online should also include consumables: things that the player will spend money on that give them a short term advantage or simply let them show off.

2. Introduce a VIP structure to fast track progress and reward members

"This is not about honest hard slog, so it's fitting that players should be given a quick route to the high life through whatever means at their disposal"

There is no game that is more about being king of the hill than GTA, so a full VIP structure is essential. Imagine the retention value of being the only player that can drive around the hills of Los Santos in a purple Ferrari with gold trim.

VIP membership could offer:

  • Rank Point/Job Point boosts
  • Monthly $/Gold allowance
  • Special apartment
  • Access to premium clothes, vehicle paint jobs and vanity items
  • Special members store accessible through the iFruit with daily/weekly member offers

3. Utilise no lose gambling

We've already touched on the repetition which exists within GTA Online - completing mission after mission to build up your cash and accessory stockpiles. One alternative to a life of hard graft and long hours is gambling, an easy to implement F2P mechanic which fits with Rockstar's vision and GTA's 'feel'. Mechanics such as magic boxes offer players a no lose gamble: spending some money guarantees something cool. There can be no better way of taking the easy route than making sure the odds are stacked.

4. Introduce a trading mechanism to help increase community aspects

If gambling isn't your thing then a bit of business on the side can help you make it to the top. Trading in F2P games inevitably encourages a black market, but unlike other F2P games where there is a clear split between grind currency and premium currency, GTA Online F2P should allow this secondary market to exist.

Letting players trade whatever they want will encourage a free-form economy that will favour the adventurous, the ruthless and the downright corrupt. The mechanic will drive the economy and build player loyalty.

Players will buy and sell from each other, and using rare items it is also possible to use data analytics to monitor the price elasticity of items as players bid for certain items. Items can trade for 100x their original value in F2P games and can be useful to define pricing as well as delivering value and incentivising players.

5. Build in reward mechanics for better social sharing

GTA is such a well-known franchise, it pretty much sells itself. However, giving players rewards for inviting other players to join is a well-structured mechanism and can help to double your player base for little or no cost.

Giving players an incentive to invite is key, there would be nothing better than being able to pimp your friends by taking a cut of the money they spend as their due deserves for getting them in to the game in the first place.

These recommendations are part of a free special Benchmark report published today from predictive analytics specialist GamesAnalytics, which can be downloaded here.

19 Comments

Alfonso Sexto
Lead Tester

713 491 0.7
Can't think of a F2P shooter that worked so far. Ghost Recon Online is not doing its best and there you have cases like "Bullet Run" taking Acony years to finish and, in the end, meaning their bankruptcy. And I don't see it being different for the newcoming F.E.A.R Tittle (More like "F2P.E.A.R")

There is a lot of people (Me included) that loves the game PRECISELY because it's not a F2P, and because everything is available to you from the beginning and free. You don't jump into a deathwatch to be slaughtered by paying users with 20 times more firepower than you.

So no. I say "Don't fix what ain't broken" in this case. We already have too many greedy F2P projects out there :)

"Imagine the retention value of being the only player that can drive around the hills of Los Santos in a purple Ferrari with gold trim"
The ONLY one, right? that is the problem with F2P; the very mo ment you speak about VIP and "The only one" you enter into putting people over others and not giving a complete full product.. Good luck having one "Whale" paying enough money for the entire game servers to be working...

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Alfonso Sexto on 2nd December 2013 8:52am

Posted:4 months ago

#1

Tosin Balogun
Studying International Business

23 21 0.9
There is a reason why Core gamers have not fully embraced F2P models while Casual gamers have. When you look deep enough, you see that those two consumer sets have different perceptions of what a video game product is and should be. Casuals would always love F2P games but Core gamers would toss it out of the window, trust me once a core gamer see F2P, they automatically think Pay2Win

Posted:4 months ago

#2

Martin Echenique
Manager, Online Engineering - Sony WWS Online Technology Group

5 4 0.8
@Alfonso: PlanetSide2 is the one shooter example I always come up with to illustrate "hardcore" F2P done pretty damn well.

Posted:4 months ago

#3

Rick Lopez
Illustrator, Graphic Designer

1,203 816 0.7
Popular Comment
Sorry, but the F2P model, at least in my opinion doesnt work. And while Im open for people to convince me otherwise, I still havent heard one single argument of how this is good for games. And while it may be a good cash run for developers, and suits may go bonkers over it. Its not good for games and it doesnt have long term appeal. These features require 24/7 online servers and online credit transactions which cost money and maintenance. Its not all peaches and cream. Your also dealing with people private information, which needs to be managed properly.

The other thing is you buy these virtual items online and once the servers go down, its all gone. You spent money over nothing, your achivements and everything is gone.

Simply put, I have spent over 150 hours with Dragon dogma, I finished the game and now Im struggling to pass the dark Arisen DLC. I say struggling but in a good way. I love the game so much and combat is so varied, because there are no quicktime events and you have to do everything yourself. But part of the fun of the game is the looting system and how you can upgrade, customize and level up your character.

My trip in bitter black isle, has been very fullfilling, making each new piece of armor or rare item I get all that more enjoyable. You have a strong sense of achivement by simply getting out alive from that place. And the items you aquire mean something, they work as a badge of merit, telling other people who see you have the item of your accomplishments.

However take this game and add F2P model to it. It would DESTROY the expirience. Simply put a game like Warframe, that makes money from customizable items weapons and armor, If I have to pay for each individual item, even if its a cosmetic change i wont find reason to pay extra money, and if its a stat or skill upgrade that would hindure my characters ability to beat bad guys in the game, I simply wont play it.

I cant see how F2P model would work in a game like Dragon Dogma, simply because the looting, skill, upgrade, crafting and upgrading systems for your character are important. Every new piece of armor or weapon I aquire really changes things. Gamplay is very well balanced and when you cant fight you can run. The difficulty was great in a non frustrating way, because it made you think about what gear to carry and how you should set up your party.

But lets add F2P to Dragon dogma. All the special items found on bitter black isle "which are CURSED" need to be purified in order to be used. Sort of like appraising an item to know what it is. Imagine if you had to pay extra for this? These items add alot to gameplay, not only do they look cool, but they have special properties. However each piece of gear can be upgraded as well. You have to gather all the items necessary for crafting and combining items. Imagine if you had to pay seperatly for this. In Dragon Dogma, you also level up each class individually. And each class has seperate skills, with augaments that can be equipped between classes. Imagine if a player with money had the ability to fully level up these individual classes by paying real money, instead of through gameplay? And also imagine some special "cool" skills being aquired the same way.

To put it bluntly, Im completely against implimenting F2P on most games.

So were does F2P work? first I dont see the F2P model working in games period. As a business model and a way of making some extra cash it can be implimented in a variety of ways. But it can work in games that people play as a NOVELTY, to pass time and not to actually play a game. They can work in games for "non-gamers". The people at work for instance. Where I work most people are older than me, in there 40's or 50's, but alot of them seem to be playing Candy Crush. They dont play games. They lack the coordination or interest to play games. However they play Candy Crush. And are willing to pay a buck or 2 for more lives or chances. But then again, the Candy crush craze has died off and I dont see these people spending more than a few dollars in the game, but thats it. They will do it a few times and then put the game down.

Just because some people play candy crush doesnt mean they are gamers.

The notion of "Free 2 Play" is false. Its Pay2play, or Pay2win. The nature of a F2P game is to somehow cripple the gameplay and handicap the gamer in order to make the person pay more money to have that feature or ability to do something in the game. And some people may spend a few bucks, but once they catch on, they are quick to put the game down, in favor of another Free2Play game, but this time simply playing the free portion of the game with no intention of spending a single dime on extra content.

Finally the nature of F2P and why it doesnt work in "REAL" games is because it finds ways to handicap gamers in order to make them spend extra money. Which sucks, because the very reason you play games is to win things. It goes against the very nature of playing games. Its like running a marathon and being the first one there, only having your position valid if you pay up. It doesnt make sense for a game.

I played the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer alot. Sure, you can earn everything through playing the game. But it takes rediculously long. And it has a system were items are given to you randomly. So if you play a game and earn credits 10 times over to be able to get those specter packs, chances are that you still wont get the weapon or upgrade you want, because its random. And weapons can be upgraded 10 levels, meaning that rare weapons are extremely hard to upgrade to level 10. However a paying gamer can pay his way through, getting more powerful weapons that would in turn allow him to rack bigger points to earn those specter packs and upgrade those rare items to level 10. So since I refused to pay, I offten found myself at a disadvantage.

I dont talk about GTAV, because I havent play it. But I can imagine that it will affect the game the same way as I mentioned above. It will handy cap gamers or deprive them of the "COOL" stuff unless they pay up... or even if these things can be aquired through gameplay, alot of times the requirments and time needed to spend is so rediculouse its not worth it, so you put the game down. Not because its hard, but because its not fair. But in a game like Dragon Dogma, sure aquiring stuff or defeating certain enemies is hard, but every play is on EQUAL grounds

But in Dragon Dogma, there is much excitment on aquiring a rare item and when you see another persons pawn equipped with something cool, there is a sense of excitment, Its a holy fuck moment, but in a good way, cause then you play more to aquire it simply because aquiring that item, MEANS something and says alot about you as a gamer. Aquiring certain items, like a Dragon Forged weapon, means you had to kill a huge powerful dragon to aquire it. So having that item makies you look bad ass. And when people see your character with that item its like a badge or merit, telling people what you have been through and had to do.

But F2P... it destroys all that. So developers may love it, as a gamer I HATE IT. Besides I find that the F2P model gets old quick and people stop buying shit once they how rediclouse the whole thing is.

PSN trophies are cool... imagine if they actually let people buy them... does anyone see my point?

I guess i can end this buy saying if a company wants to persue a F2P game, they should build it from the ground up with that objective in mind. If not the result will be a game that has broken and unfair gameplay.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Rick Lopez on 2nd December 2013 4:42pm

Posted:4 months ago

#4

Anthony Gowland
Lead Designer

155 428 2.8
Popular Comment
Can't think of a F2P shooter that worked so far.
Team Fortress 2
Casuals would always love F2P games but Core gamers would toss it out of the window
Team Fortress 2
The notion of "Free 2 Play" is false. Its Pay2play, or Pay2win.
Team Fortress 2

I know, it's nice to write essays with words in bold to say how all F2P is evil and No True Gamer likes it. But you're wrong. Sorry.

Posted:4 months ago

#5

Jakub Mikyska
CEO

177 877 5.0
@ Anthony: Your post proofs that you are right and also that you are wrong. Team Fortress 2 is a great example that F2P can work with hardcore shooters, but there are not many other examples of such success.
The question is - what makes TF2 special? I guess is that it has never been really perceived as anything else. It has been F2P for as long as I remember. But turning GTA into F2P is like turning Assassins Creed into a racing game. It could be good, but people expect something different.

We need a new, major IP, that is built from the ground as F2P. The new console generation is an excellent opportunity to do that, but so far it does not seem like any of the major publishers has the balls to do it. TitanFall could be a great F2P.

Posted:4 months ago

#6

Paul Smith
Dev

195 155 0.8
Team fortress 2 was successful BEFORE it was F2P. So that's a terrible example.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Paul Smith on 2nd December 2013 5:12pm

Posted:4 months ago

#7

Anthony Gowland
Lead Designer

155 428 2.8
It's a hell of a lot more successful now it's F2P. 5x the number of players, 12x the revenue.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-03-08-valve-team-fortress-2-f2p-switch-a-resounding-success

Posted:4 months ago

#8

Tim Carter
Designer - Writer - Producer

533 219 0.4
@anthony:

Team Fortress 2 is a one-of-a-kind.

Posted:4 months ago

#9

Bruce Everiss
Marketing Consultant

1,716 598 0.3
World of Tanks is a successful FTP shooting game.
60 million registered players.

Posted:4 months ago

#10

Keldon Alleyne
Handheld Developer

422 361 0.9
World of Tanks is a successful FTP shooting game.
60 million registered players.
GTA 5 is a successful buy-to-play GTA game that earned a straight $billion.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Keldon Alleyne on 2nd December 2013 7:23pm

Posted:4 months ago

#11

Keldon Alleyne
Handheld Developer

422 361 0.9
Having said that its format could suit F2P really well. I don't really do much in that game than run around causing trouble, so a gamer like me would be perfect for it as I'm only playing for the sake of playing rather than to complete the game.

The mechanic of GTA has got the be the most flexible of all. You can throw all sorts of additional bits of gameplay at it that aren't essential but might be fun and worth paying a small amount of money for. The Crazy Taxi mini games in GTA 3 are a perfect example of this.

Is F2P absolutely wrong and evil? Certainly not. In fact some games are better suited for that mechanic. Who in their right mind would spend 30 on angry birds? That being said there are a multitude of gaming experiences that are just much better suited as arcade games, and some that should be F2P.

Some games work best as buy-to-play, and some work best as shareware.

Of course to a hammer everything is a nail.

Posted:4 months ago

#12

Spencer Franklin
Concept Artist

90 120 1.3
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in using the TF2 example of being a successful F2P... there are some very real reasons to this success, one major contributor being that the items you purchase are items created by the community, and the profit sharing those creators receive. Every other version of FTP i have seen so far simply comes down to handicapping the game in some way in order to push players into spending real money to get around those hindrances. Or of the "cool" items being stacked behind a pay-wall, or behind an inflated and ridiculous in game grind. Ricks got it right far as I'm concerned.

I only ever see those with a vested interest in F2P defending it's viability. I'd love to see actual gamers weighing in on this topic, instead of all the "Ho Chi Minh" metrics that get tossed around by devs and/or publishers.

Posted:4 months ago

#13

Anthony Gowland
Lead Designer

155 428 2.8
We're talking about GTA Online, not V. You'll notice R* went to lengths to separate them out as different products. How many GTA V purchases were based purely on the value proposition of Online I wonder.

Posted:4 months ago

#14

Brook Davidson
Artist / 3D design

57 88 1.5
To many people focus on what F2P is and not what F2P can be.

Just because there are companies out there, that make F2P look bad by making P2W games, doesn't really define all of the F2P model. We have some pretty good examples of F2P actually working really well on some pretty good games.

Team Fortress 2 is just one of the best examples of that.

It pretty much tells us, that there isn't anything wrong with the F2P model. All the things we point at F2P can easily be pointed at the companies instead. So instead of blaming the whole F2P model .. blame the companies that do it wrong.

Posted:4 months ago

#15

Adam Jordan
Community Management/Moderation

94 47 0.5
Any title can work as a F2P title...if done correctly. The question is...how do you choose which games get a F2P model?

Warning: Incoming Essay

Free to Play isn't evil, the one good reason for F2P in my opinion is that I can choose whether I spend money on the game or not. Another reason is I can download the FULL CORE game for free, I get to play with friends without hassle and without them needing to pay to play alongside or against me. Essentially treat F2P games like you would demos. You download/install a demo...you play it for abit and if you feel the game isn't for you, without spending money...you turn it off and play something else.

F2P currently is in a tug of war contest, there are sides that have already defined the genre and cast it aside to forever go stale, rather than sitting down and refining it. F2P is still in its infancy, it needs nurture, just like the age of smartphones has been nurtured, just like the age of consoles and just like the age of PC.

I am not saying that F2P is the way of the future, it isn't but it should have the chance to co-exist with other genres and methods out there, again it needs nurturing.

I bet each and every one of you would crap your pants if Battlefield 5 or CoD 64 went F2P, the same AAA quality free to download. (I'm putting bugs, glitches, launch issues, server issues and weapon balancing aside for the moment and just looking at the core layout) No $60 entry price tag...you download, you play the Singleplayer campain and multiplayer for free, you unlock items either in SP or slowly like you do by playing the game but if someone wanted to unlock things quickly, they could just buy a single item instantly rather than sitting there playing to unlock it.

Now whether that's the axe you have to grind, that personally is more personal preference to the player than an evil company or marketing strategy. I have played F2P games for several years and the most important part is that I choose whether I buy something or not.

The one thing I can certainly say about Free to Play games, if you have a community behind you and I mean truly have them at your side, your game will outlast the biggest AAA titles but that community will only stand beside you if you do right beside them. I'm not talking about giving them everything but I am talking about communicating, talking and interacting with them. Find out what they would love to see in the game, find out where they want to see the game in 5 years time and you try your damn best to make that happen because funnily enough, when you spend $60 on a game, you complete it...or if it's a MP title, you eventually get bored of it or annoyed with it. A F2P title done right...you will keep people coming back, they will invite friends and the word spreads.

P.S Team Fortress 2, as much as I dislike the game myself...isn't a true F2P title. It was a retail game that moved to F2P a couple of years after BFHeroes showed how well F2P could work within the western market. The difference is, TF2 had a massive following already, it had the foundations of a competitive shooter and the accessibility of Steam and then later Steam workshop paved the way for TF2's F2P version. That's not saying that Valve have done bad or insulting them but I will never class TF2 as a proper F2P title since it didn't start off as one. However it has shown success in the F2P sector and prolonged the life of TF2 even further

@Tosin - Generalising gamers into two groups as Casual and Core doesn't define or give enough depth to the situation You are right that casual gamers and core gamers see F2P differently but Battlefield Heroes is a title that blows your statement out the water since for 5 years (Since 2008) it has had a mixture of both casual and core gamers; where the core gamers have in fact embraced the F2P scene, the only obstacles for core gamers was a) EA's reputation b) the lack of clan orientated features and c) no serious choices for the competitive scene.

To understand what I mean about BFHeroes, you have to understand the concept behind it first. In 2008, it was decided that Heroes would be a casual third person cartoon shooter that allows hardcore gamers and casual gamers to mix, that in fact happened with first time gamers and veteran gamers of previous Battlefield and CoD games colliding, I, myself am from the good old days of Quake III and Unreal Tournament '99. The features of BFHeroes were basic and I mean so basic that there wasn't even a server browser.

Instead you were asked to hit the "Play Now" button or join a friend then favourite servers, several years on and high demands from the community, there is a game finder and community made server browsers. The clan scene (Which is mostly made of core gamers) hasn't been up to much, they fight on unranked servers but the developers are currently working on a clan type game mode. My point is, core gamers are indeed shaping the world of a F2P game, one that 5 years ago was meant to just be played in a lunch break, allowing a drop in and out system

Again, coming back to my first sentence, when done right, any title can be made F2P, it all depends on the reputation/image of the company doing it and how much the company can resist the temptation of hitting the Pay 2 Win button. The thing is, there will always be a small group within the community that will cry "Pay 2 Win", it's just something that will happen.

If we move away from shooters and look towards Riot. They have made a F2P game that isn't pay to win. Their freeloaders and payers are equally balanced, it's all about skill and decision making. The only things you pay for just with Riot Points are Skins, Ward Skins, Bundles, Boosts and things like name changes and country transfers. The core part of the game which are the champions you can buy with both Influence Points (In-game currency) and Riot Points. On top of that, you earn a decent amount of IP when you play.

That is the kind of stuff that needs to be used in other F2P models, the core part of the game is accessible to all, the rest being a choice by the company as the optional extras are just that.

Posted:4 months ago

#16

Klaus Preisinger
Freelance Writing

953 804 0.8
A f2p multiplayer spinoff somewhat undermines the idea of having multiplayer as a means to prevent players from selling their game to the next guy. Considering the revenue of single player GTA and the current average of what f2p games make, the outlook for a f2p game is not that good, especially since the audience of the IP is not your typical "give us f2p" audience.

Business models have always affected game design. Starting from limited lives in arcade games, crossing over to the rise of infinite lives on games sold once, continuing on to games withholding a feeling of completion when they give away themselves for free, selling small units of satisfaction. Each time games crossed a threshold, there was a shitstorm. Oddworld Studios received quite an angry shouting from the press when Abe's Odyssey featured infinite lives and was deemed too casual. Reviews featured interviews with the studio trying to explain their decision. Today we accepted that infinite lives are a result of the business model and limitations only arise in the context of intentionally increased challenge.

As customers we have to realize that the experience of a game and the way the game treats our psyche are more important than any "it's free" sticker on the box. Games are your hobby, games should relax you. maybe it works for some if they are stressed out to the point of giving in and doing the microtransaction, but no f2p company is stupid enough to think this type of stress can be used to monetize everybody. In the same way, some players just want to sit down and enjoy without getting the feeling of having invited a pickpocket con artist into their home.

Posted:4 months ago

#17

Alfonso Sexto
Lead Tester

713 491 0.7
@Tosin
So far only Path to Exile, LOL and DOTA2 kinda attracted them...

Posted:4 months ago

#18

Alfonso Sexto
Lead Tester

713 491 0.7
@Martin:
Oh, you are right there! Although that makes it an exception so far the presence of "boosters" still gives an edge to payers. (at least you don't get a super weapon for paying, but still...

@Anthony:
There are ways and ways of saying things, and yours was not exactly the most respectful one, specially when you could only give an example that originally started as "freemium".
So our "essay with words" is our opinion that may not be right, but we don't have to take a prepotent disrespect for it. ok? Most of the F2P games are for casual gamers and played by casual gamers. That is starting to change but, right now, it's a fact with little exceptions.
Sidenote: I'm working in a F2P browser game company now, just saying what I see.
So yes. I'm a true gamer, I dislike F2P, convince me I'm wrong; I'm open minded to it.

@Bruce
World of Tanks is a tactical game at its core, not a shooter (And one I really loved to work into) and again: Certainly WoT is a great success but remember: "registered users" IS NOT "actually paying active players" Too many marketing guys ruined their companies recently for not keeping that in mind.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Alfonso Sexto on 3rd December 2013 9:40am

Posted:4 months ago

#19

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now