I partially agree with you, James, (can I call you that?) but the game needs to get its money from somewhere, and I find it funny that someone is willing to spends 100 bucks to try and beat you on an online game.

I spended all my gold the First time when I joined he game...
I didn't knwed that you must buy those... An I don't like the idea of gold too

I agree and would like that option. You have weeks of planning and gathering information only to have it laid to waste because someone realized they messed up and boom, they suddenly have a force twice the size of yours. It becomes a why bother, no matter what I do, I am just padding Bystro Labs pocket and wasting my time.

Well, capitalism does require an educated populous to work properly...

maybe you can spend gold to make a game where you can't use gold?

I wholeheartedly support the idea of either having goldfree games (paying to get in would be an option) or have a finite amount that cannot be increased, to be set by either teams or whatever, I can understand the designers reluctance to limit income (potential income) but having people stop playing the game because of it, would be more damaging imo.

They will damage community as long as Gold Sales increase. Now days all you have to do is create a game where "Person X" finds some association with it. They have massive amounts of time on their hands to spend in the created fantasy world. Since real life is boring or not giving them any satisfaction, Person X can spend its dollars on game in fastasy world cash to purchase "speed ups" or extra resources. This gives it a sense of accomplishment. When person X makes a mistake or is feeling down, repeat process. That's what game developers provide.

Passwords exist, you know?

But you can't create 100 person games with passwords.

Not sure if this is the right place, as I may have seen it elsewhere, but I like the idea of having paratroopers that you can fly & drop into a location.

Not the right place, but they will be added.

The point that these guys need to make money somehow is very valid.

I think this could STILL HAPPEN with gold-free games. Make it like this:

Your first game (or 3 even) have to be gold games , then you can join one gold-free game/week or every 5th one or whatever you decide, having upgraded status would let you make as many gold free games as you want.

This way , you still make cash as people who want to play lots have to take part in gold games, but will also be able to access non gold games as they want.

Really - its not strategy any more where someone can spend some gold , get 2x your army and crush you. Your pretty much excluding almost every f2p player from enjoying your game as it could be : a well balanced strategy game.

This would attract MORE people to your product , and in the end , result in MORE revenue for you if done right.

Myself , Im trying the game new , and honestly , I dont see myself spending $ in the current form. Also , 100$ is NOTHING to a dedicated wallet warrior and some people just seem to exist online to use their buying power against people. I say this as a dedicated gamer whos tried over a score of MMO games now, and Ive seen it with my own eyes. Evony , Ogame , Sparta... ALL OF THEM in fact without exception. Will yours be the first? I doubt it but Im trying to give it a chance lol.

Take my perspective and consider the potential of this. If done properly it can make you MORE money AND be a way for the die hard traditionalist strategists to have something of substance. Ignore it and you have something that looks nice , but ultimately an experienced gamer realizes the limitations imposed by your p2p and most likely loses interest as a result in the present scheme. Try different things , go with what works best.

Finally. Thanks for the F2P chance and good luck !

Bystander

Yes please - back to the topic. Thats a great post but completely sidebar , Liberinsula. It belongs in its own thread.

James. Your completely ignoring the point. Gamers , even F2P ones , look for BALANCED games. That, in my view , is one of the main issues here.

There is more than one way to solve it. You could grant players a fixxed amount of starting gold , or adopt some other schema , but what Im saying is : how about a way to provide a gold-free game that would still allow the company to make money? What if that led to the company generating MORE revenue than before? Would that not be desirable?

If that happened , then gamers seeking balanced games would be attracted along with those who didnt mind gold - games.

This game takes a long time to play. I propose to you a LARGE audience share will be put off to the point of leaving without such measures. Retaining these and later getting some of them as customers should be priority for a company seeking to grow its revenue streams through a product.

****EDIT:

I want to point out here too , that I disagree that gold should be omitted entirely. Thats not the aim. What Im trying to do , is generate discussion on how to mitigate the shortcomings of the introduction of gold. A way that you might make more money from a larger audience with it.

And good luck to the devs !

Just ran into this on my first 100 persson game. Guy had Tac bombers day 4. Over ran 3 countries and drove me back to Madagascar, Day 11 and I am finally cleaning him off the map, if he had been a better player it could have been much worse, nice challenge. Gold does help but it does not make the player good, I think the bigger map will level the field a bit.

WHAT? Tac bombers are like... 5000 rare materials to get!

Yes , I have to agree, that with good strategy , handicaps CAN be overcome. This , however is a negative experience for many. Let me illustrate with an example from chat a short time ago:

" 08:58 Montobon: another game ruined by gold use. I would PAY gold to play a gmae that had no gold use in it.... consider it mods... I wont be buying any more gold in the current state "

Really what would be your product loss if you allowed a non gold game to be started by people that paid gold? Have it cost 1,000 to each player to join said round. If you kept the cost smaller , say at 500 , I would project that you get so many more players , that the small percentage who then come to buy gold would MORE than offset the potential gold sales lost in the non gold games.

Ive taken some time to talk to other players here , and many feel this way.

Take it on as an experiment. Look at your player numbers , subs and sales right now, try this out for 6 months , look again. I think you would be pleasantly rewarded.

@Bystander: that is really a good way to go about it I like the idea of putting in 500-1000 gold for a gold free game for sure.

I have won without paying gold. I have seen non gold users defeat gold users. If you are skilled at fighting and making allies, gold users should be no problem.

I'm not sorry if I insulted you.