Why Not An Option to Pay Gold For Gold-Free Games?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Why Not An Option to Pay Gold For Gold-Free Games?

      I'd pay 50,000 gold for a public WW III map where gold is disabled. Have the game begin when full. If it takes a couple weeks, so be it. Imagine 32 players playing without gold, and they all paid to get into the game. What would that game be like? I'd like to find out.

      Such a game would bring in 1.6 Million gold!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Blitzkrieger64 ().

    • Blitzkrieger64 wrote:

      I'd pay 50,000 gold for a public WW III map where gold is disabled. Have the game begin when full. If it takes a couple weeks, so be it. Imagine 32 players playing without gold, and they all paid to get into the game. What would that game be like? I'd like to find out.

      Such a game would bring in 1.6 Million gold!
      You could try doing a Elite Challenge with an alliance
    • Elite Challenges are great fun...12 times per year...if real life doesn't cause you to miss one...and you get to play in every Elite your alliance arranges. However, I've played in a few outstanding WW III public games, which are quite a different experience than elite challenges. Also, I'd like to be able to jump into a gold-free public game just as easily as I can jump into any public game now. Elite Challenges are far less accessible.

      What's the average income from a public WW III game? Whatever it is, that figure divided by 32, plus a little more could be the price of entrance into a gold-free game. I think that, if this option were available, it would be popular among CoN hobbyists. As a hobby, CoN would still be inexpensive compared to other hobbies.

      Let's have an option to pay to play, alongside our option to pay to win.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Blitzkrieger64 ().

    • Teburu wrote:

      Probably cuz they would make less money. Or in general just deemed not that profitable.
      Do you think a normal WW3 game gets 1.6 mil gold as OP estimates; which would actually be 50k x 64 = 3.2 mill in gold? Thats like $20 x 64 = $1,280 per game. I would bet they make far less than that per game.

      And not like had to make them all this way; spin up 1 and see how it goes.

      Would probably take 2 lines of code. 1. Entry Fee = $20 to activate [Select Country] Button 2. Gold Allowed = False

      Now $20 probably a little steep but think most would pay $5 for a competitive / fun game against other skilled competitors. Kind of diff of playing online poker for free or if an actual buy in. This would net guaranteed $320 per game. Currently site risks $0 return on games (I went back and played flashpoint for first time in few years and would estimate zero gold spent based on game play.)

      $10 Entry fee = $640 profit per game.

      Many a Business has bypassed vast profits because they didn't think idea would be profitable. Like 10 yrs ago would you think people would pay $5 for delivery of a $8 McDonalds meal?
    • Maps with gold entry are a reoccurring suggestion, suggested many times and never peeked interest of the devs.

      Most players do not pay a dime and would not even pay for such a map.

      Not sure how many would pay $5 for a map, that might end for him in less then 24 hours.


      Your survival chances are pretty low, if you do not join with a team of friends from the start.

      The amount of players that seek a real challenge is much lower then most people might asssume.


      1-2 years ago Dorado tried a huge tourney for single players with 12 people per map or something like that.

      It had a upfront cost and was quite a disaster, I believe not even half of the applications in the end really showed up.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Maps with gold entry are a reoccurring suggestion, suggested many times and never peeked interest of the devs.

      Most players do not pay a dime and would not even pay for such a map.

      Not sure how many would pay $5 for a map, that might end for him in less then 24 hours.


      Your survival chances are pretty low, if you do not join with a team of friends from the start.

      The amount of players that seek a real challenge is much lower then most people might asssume.


      1-2 years ago Dorado tried a huge tourney for single players with 12 people per map or something like that.

      It had a upfront cost and was quite a disaster, I believe not even half of the applications in the end really showed up.
      Not sure, but didnt previous bytro titles try that buy in model to some extent?
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Teburu wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      Maps with gold entry are a reoccurring suggestion, suggested many times and never peeked interest of the devs.

      Most players do not pay a dime and would not even pay for such a map.

      Not sure how many would pay $5 for a map, that might end for him in less then 24 hours.


      Your survival chances are pretty low, if you do not join with a team of friends from the start.

      The amount of players that seek a real challenge is much lower then most people might asssume.


      1-2 years ago Dorado tried a huge tourney for single players with 12 people per map or something like that.

      It had a upfront cost and was quite a disaster, I believe not even half of the applications in the end really showed up.
      Not sure, but didnt previous bytro titles try that buy in model to some extent?
      Supremacy1914 has such maps, it cost 5k gold or having premium account and offers certain gold features
      But it was still not gold free.

      Supremacy still offers the ability create custom games, so you can limit gold usage by gentleman agreement, similar to alliance challenges.

      It is one of the things where CoN still did not manage to catch up with its 'grandmother'
      Supremacy1914.jpg

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Kalrakh ().

    • Teburu wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Do you think a normal WW3 game gets 1.6 mil gold as OP estimates; which would actually be 50k x 64 = 3.2 mill in gold? Thats like $20 x 64 = $1,280 per game
      Gonna stop you right there. Do you honestly think any of these numbers are even close to realistic? Also what Kalrakh already said
      well you said they couldn't make profit on 50k gold games; which you were obviously wrong based on OP premise; now if you would say no one would pay $20 then that's fair; but you didn't. So default to witty comeback ;)
    • How many would be interested in paying $10 to get into a gold-free game with 63 other like-minded players? I don't know; but how much would it cost them to find out? I do know that over 21,000 accounts are ahead of me on the Seasons leaderboard. Thats a lot of active accounts. If everyone has three active accounts, there are 7,000 people more active than I. If 1/10th of those would be interested in what we're discussing, we would have 700 players for this pay to play market.

      Note: At 20% deal, it's 3,000 gold per dollar (the 10.00 purchase). That would be $16.67 for 50,000 gold. 3.2 Million gold spent on each game! I'd do it.

      There is a price point at which pay to play would be profitable. I submit that there would be buyers at that price point.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Blitzkrieger64 ().

    • Kalrakh wrote:

      Maps with gold entry are a reoccurring suggestion, suggested many times and never peeked interest of the devs.
      There is literally no downside; Maybe 1 hr of code/testing and since mideast maps already have no gold thats already coded; just need to disable select country button till entry fee paid. Spin up 1 game and see what happens; start with mideast map as think was only 20 players so if that wouldn't fill up, then yeah no market. If that fills up in reasonable time then spin up 2...etc.

      But it seems Devs leaving $$ on table over stubbornness.

      I know Id pay $5 for a good/fun/competitive game without having to join alliance and wait for game; then wait to build for a week (biggest hurdle for me) and few Ive tried have some semi successful player ordering everyone. Not fun.

      Heck Id pay $10 ($5 to house / $5 buy in for winner prize pool in a wager match). Site gets $100 / winners $100 worth of Gold. That would be a hell of a game. 20 guys with skin in the game and no advantages.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Buckeyechamp ().

    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Teburu wrote:

      Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Do you think a normal WW3 game gets 1.6 mil gold as OP estimates; which would actually be 50k x 64 = 3.2 mill in gold? Thats like $20 x 64 = $1,280 per game
      Gonna stop you right there. Do you honestly think any of these numbers are even close to realistic? Also what Kalrakh already said
      well you said they couldn't make profit on 50k gold games; which you were obviously wrong based on OP premise; now if you would say no one would pay $20 then that's fair; but you didn't. So default to witty comeback ;)
      Okay then let me explain it more clearly to you: Dorado is a Company. Companies like making more money. The Idea of buy-in games is hardly original (because it has already been proposed multiple times as well as bytro already having done it in the past). If such a model would make them more money than their currently existing one then the chances are pretty solid that they would've already implemented it.
      > They probably would make less money/profit off of it.
      I am The Baseline for opinions
    • Buckeyechamp wrote:

      Kalrakh wrote:

      Maps with gold entry are a reoccurring suggestion, suggested many times and never peeked interest of the devs.
      There is literally no downside; Maybe 1 hr of code/testing and since mideast maps already have no gold thats already coded; just need to disable select country button till entry fee paid. Spin up 1 game and see what happens; start with mideast map as think was only 20 players so if that wouldn't fill up, then yeah no market. If that fills up in reasonable time then spin up 2...etc.
      But it seems Devs leaving $$ on table over stubbornness.

      I know Id pay $5 for a good/fun/competitive game without having to join alliance and wait for game; then wait to build for a week (biggest hurdle for me) and few Ive tried have some semi successful player ordering everyone. Not fun.

      Heck Id pay $10 ($5 to house / $5 buy in for winner prize pool in a wager match). Site gets $100 / winners $100 worth of Gold. That would be a hell of a game. 20 guys with skin in the game and no advantages.
      There is, the same why they took away custom maps:
      Splitting the player base
      Display Spoiler
      (Less people playing public maps and therefore less people to make golders use their gold to beat.)



      In regards of alliance challenges:
      Most alliance still play on Kindergarten level, play challenges more like publics then for what they are supposed to be.
      So your experience with it depends a lot on the alliance you have joined.


      There will never be a CoN game, where nobody has advantages, even more if it is about money. Betrayal is already a thing in publics, so it will be even worse in such a match, apart from obvious country/geographical advantages and disadvantages.
    • Kalrakh wrote:

      There is, the same why they took away custom maps:
      Splitting the player base
      Splitting User base would be a good thing.

      If Experienced / "good" players played in higher level games and not with newbs then the newbs wouldnt get the brakes knocked off them first few games and may stick around to be future experienced players. As is now; would imagine 90 pct new players spin up a few games; get crushed/ frustrated and no longer play.

      And companies need to evolve and try new things. Heck I am sure the guy who first suggested streaming content over mailing DVDs at Netflix was told it couldnt work.
    • Kalrakh wrote: "Not sure how many would pay $5 for a map, that might end for him in less then 24 hours. Your survival chances are pretty low, if you do not join with a team of friends from the start. "

      This is a good point. There is some risk involved here. This will cause many to shy away. However, I think there would be enough who don't mind a little gamble for the chance at an excellent 45 day game.

      Think of how this risk would affect the diplomatic aspect of the game! It would be great fun!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Blitzkrieger64 ().

    • Oooo I like the idea of a game where you must pay to start the game.

      My biggest complaint with the game is people starting a game and quitting. Many games feel like only a handful of players are playing while I'm expecting 50+.

      I'd love to see games where you have to pay to start just so people wouldn't want to simply give up because the game means nothing.

      I'm fine if gold is not allowed in the game as well but I'd love to see a game where most of the people who started a game had a reason to play it to the end. If gold wasn't allowed in game then what if all the gold spend to start the game was split in half and the top 5 or 10 players got a bigger reward? (Like those raffles where half the money goes back to the winner)