Monetization plans?

[Elegant Caveman]

I know this may be a bit early to ask, but it's gotta be asked...

How much can you tell us about your monetization plans?

From the Early Access info box:

Will the game be priced differently during and after Early Access?
“BitCraft Online currently sits at a paid access pricepoint on Early Access, but it is our intent for the final release of BitCraft to be Free to play. We don't expect to change the price during Early Access.”

I assume purchasing it during Early Access will give early adopters something once it goes free to play? Something like ingame currencies or whatever?

Would love to hear more about your plans regarding this.

And what sort of monetization are you aiming for, once it goes free to play?

Just cosmetics? "Pay for convenience" P2W (boosters, consumables, etc.)? Full P2W (actual equipment/outright buying levels)?

Will you be relying purely on microtransactions, or will you have a premium subscription in addition to/instead of them?

[Fraqment]

That's a good question....
It will probably only become clear on release.
I find the game that I've been watching for years interesting.
But item store endangering game fun.....

[Titris Thrawn]

Not a Dev, but I follow information coming from them in the game's Discord server and participated in two closed alphas (2 & 3).

Current Dev Monetization Philosophy is to not have any Classic 'Pay to win' (No boosters, consumables, levels/equipment, etc.). Cosmetics seem likely, as there is a wardrobe mechanic, but there is a big focus on cosmetics available through game play. There is a form of 'pay to win/cosmetic' monetization in the way Empires are being designed. The Empire layer prototype (as of the last Closed Alpha 3) allowed players to use hexite (premium currency, prototype, probably) to fuel an empire's efforts to expand territory by creating watchtowers in the world.

The cosmetic portion of empires: The creator of an empire would obtain a nifty floating crown over their head and be able to customize their title, thus everyone need not be titled emperor. As the empire territory expands, the emperor is able to assign more custom empire titles to empire members. The emperor's crown would be upgraded once enough territory was obtained; last I saw, there were three crowns total. Based on the most recent teaser video, empire emblems will be implemented and be able to be stamped on cloaks. There are two fancy looking empire only buildings that can be constructed; one needed to found the empire and another to produce to empire layer resource to construct watchtowers (a third fancy building). The last cosmetic I'm aware of is how empire territory is displayed on the map. Every empire has a color, and as territory expands that color fills into those borders.

The 'Pay-to-Win' component: Watchtowers can be sieged by other empires. Since the 'premium' currency is needed to create the resources needed to create and siege watchtowers, this is where the wallet versus wallet occurs. Territory/towers will be lost to the deeper pocket, but there is a complication. The 'resource' that powers watchtowers and sieges are cargo items that are created in fancy empire building #2. This means it isn't as simple as 'buy X premium bucks, immediately gain watchtowers'. A player, or players, will need to wait for the cargo resource to complete constructing and then transport however many needed to the target destination.

Why it isn't P2W in the 'classic' sense There is no game mechanical benefit for joining an empire as a player or a settlement, just social & cosmetic. Thus while empires 'war' over their territory, everyone else can go about their business, unless they wish to be caught up in the RP shenanigans. This maintains the 'cozy-ish PvE' that many players seek, but offers a monetization option for flexing.

That all being said, that was from the closed alphas. Many discussions are occurring in discord and that is read/fed back to the devs for evaluation. So changes may occur to the empire layer, but I assume the philosophy of keeping P2W out of the core game play loops will remain.

[Elegant Caveman]

Originally posted by Titris Thrawn:

Not a Dev, but I follow information coming from them in the game's Discord server and participated in two closed alphas (2 & 3).

Current Dev Monetization Philosophy is to not have any Classic 'Pay to win' (No boosters, consumables, levels/equipment, etc.). Cosmetics seem likely, as there is a wardrobe mechanic, but there is a big focus on cosmetics available through game play. There is a form of 'pay to win/cosmetic' monetization in the way Empires are being designed. The Empire layer prototype (as of the last Closed Alpha 3) allowed players to use hexite (premium currency, prototype, probably) to fuel an empire's efforts to expand territory by creating watchtowers in the world.

The cosmetic portion of empires: The creator of an empire would obtain a nifty floating crown over their head and be able to customize their title, thus everyone need not be titled emperor. As the empire territory expands, the emperor is able to assign more custom empire titles to empire members. The emperor's crown would be upgraded once enough territory was obtained; last I saw, there were three crowns total. Based on the most recent teaser video, empire emblems will be implemented and be able to be stamped on cloaks. There are two fancy looking empire only buildings that can be constructed; one needed to found the empire and another to produce to empire layer resource to construct watchtowers (a third fancy building). The last cosmetic I'm aware of is how empire territory is displayed on the map. Every empire has a color, and as territory expands that color fills into those borders.

The 'Pay-to-Win' component: Watchtowers can be sieged by other empires. Since the 'premium' currency is needed to create the resources needed to create and siege watchtowers, this is where the wallet versus wallet occurs. Territory/towers will be lost to the deeper pocket, but there is a complication. The 'resource' that powers watchtowers and sieges are cargo items that are created in fancy empire building #2. This means it isn't as simple as 'buy X premium bucks, immediately gain watchtowers'. A player, or players, will need to wait for the cargo resource to complete constructing and then transport however many needed to the target destination.

Why it isn't P2W in the 'classic' sense There is no game mechanical benefit for joining an empire as a player or a settlement, just social & cosmetic. Thus while empires 'war' over their territory, everyone else can go about their business, unless they wish to be caught up in the RP shenanigans. This maintains the 'cozy-ish PvE' that many players seek, but offers a monetization option for flexing.

That all being said, that was from the closed alphas. Many discussions are occurring in discord and that is read/fed back to the devs for evaluation. So changes may occur to the empire layer, but I assume the philosophy of keeping P2W out of the core game play loops will remain.

Thank you! Honestly, that's more of an answer than I was expecting at this stage.

Interesting approach.

As you say, even if things change, it speaks to where their minds are at and general approach to the issue. Sounds promising.

[Fraqment]

There are some MMOs that have learned how to invisibly introduce P2W bad for players who can't accomplish much for various reasons.
There are even very well known MMOs where you have to invest real money to win and it's not even about selling items.
The item stores have often been abused and I don't trust a single item store.

[Elegant Caveman]

Originally posted by Fraqment:

There are some MMOs that have learned how to invisibly introduce P2W bad for players who can't accomplish much for various reasons.
There are even very well known MMOs where you have to invest real money to win and it's not even about selling items.
The item stores have often been abused and I don't trust a single item store.

Yeah, it's certainly a concern, which is why I asked.

Anything F2P is always a red flag, as far as I'm concerned, because "ethical" monetization is very rare/hard to do.

The things Titris Thrawn mentioned don't sound too bad, so at least that gives me a bit of hope, but of course that's no guarantee about how things will end up.

Another issue is that even if they mean well and actually try to make their monetization "fair", then the question becomes "will it be enough to fund the game?".

Assuming the devs just want to make a good game and fund development, without necessarily trying to "get all the money", it's still a tricky balancing act, finding a way to get enough money while not being predatory.

[Titris Thrawn]

Originally posted by Elegant Caveman:

Originally posted by Fraqment:

There are some MMOs that have learned how to invisibly introduce P2W bad for players who can't accomplish much for various reasons.
There are even very well known MMOs where you have to invest real money to win and it's not even about selling items.
The item stores have often been abused and I don't trust a single item store.

Yeah, it's certainly a concern, which is why I asked.

Anything F2P is always a red flag, as far as I'm concerned, because "ethical" monetization is very rare/hard to do.

The things Titris Thrawn mentioned don't sound too bad, so at least that gives me a bit of hope, but of course that's no guarantee about how things will end up.

Another issue is that even if they mean well and actually try to make their monetization "fair", then the question becomes "will it be enough to fund the game?".

Assuming the devs just want to make a good game and fund development, without necessarily trying to "get all the money", it's still a tricky balancing act, finding a way to get enough money while not being predatory.

I agree with both of you. I struggle to think of good free to play games I've stuck with once the 'paywall' hits. I'm also interested if BitCraft can earn enough to fund itself with empires as many already deride the system as a mere 'map painter'. If it can harness half as much pull as what I assume some people throw at mobile war games/gachas, then there may be hope.

A possible secondary hope beacon: BitCraft is being made, in part, to promote the platform it is built upon (SpacetimeDB). So depending on how successful that side is, monetization may be different in BitCraft than the usual free to play fare. Or big Corpo buys it all and transforms it into the usual ick *shrugs*. For the moment, I'm hopeful. Will be interesting to see where time takes us.

[Elegant Caveman]

Originally posted by Titris Thrawn:

I agree with both of you. I struggle to think of good free to play games I've stuck with once the 'paywall' hits. I'm also interested if BitCraft can earn enough to fund itself with empires as many already deride the system as a mere 'map painter'. If it can harness half as much pull as what I assume some people throw at mobile war games/gachas, then there may be hope.

Pretty much, yeah.

I have nothing against F2P as a general concept, but I can't think of a single instance where I can confidently say it was implemented well, and I'd be hard pressed to tell you what I think a "good" implementation would look like.

I guess ultimately, I find F2P most useful as a form of extended demo, leading potential customers to a fairly-priced premium experience. A bit like shareware of old.

One big issue I have with F2P models is that they usually involve some degree of potentially-infinite purchases/payments. Out of principle, I'm offended by the mere existence of such systems.

In a related vein, as much as we can hope for a few whales to get hooked and nearly single-handedly fund development, that still feels unethical to me at the end of the day, even if it's "convenient" for the rest of us.

The one thing I'm finding interesting here about hexite/empire growth is that the "economic burden" becomes a communal one.

I could maybe see some kind of middle-ground, where being part of an empire gives a small-but-not-insignificant benefit to members, but also give people a means of acquiring hexite ingame. Somehow tie things to the economy? I don't know.

That's a different tightrope to walk, though, and comes with a slew of other issues.

I like the idea of people each helping fund the kingdom together, though, whether through real money, or play time. The tricky thing there is balance (as in all things, I guess).

Originally posted by Titris Thrawn:

A possible secondary hope beacon: BitCraft is being made, in part, to promote the platform it is built upon (SpacetimeDB). So depending on how successful that side is, monetization may be different in BitCraft than the usual free to play fare. Or big Corpo buys it all and transforms it into the usual ick *shrugs*. For the moment, I'm hopeful. Will be interesting to see where time takes us.

Oh, that's interesting. Thanks for the information.

And yes, I'm looking forward to seeing where this all goes.

[Fraqment]

Originally posted by Elegant Caveman:

Originally posted by Fraqment:

There are some MMOs that have learned how to invisibly introduce P2W bad for players who can't accomplish much for various reasons.
There are even very well known MMOs where you have to invest real money to win and it's not even about selling items.
The item stores have often been abused and I don't trust a single item store.

Yeah, it's certainly a concern, which is why I asked.

Anything F2P is always a red flag, as far as I'm concerned, because "ethical" monetization is very rare/hard to do.

The things Titris Thrawn mentioned don't sound too bad, so at least that gives me a bit of hope, but of course that's no guarantee about how things will end up.

Another issue is that even if they mean well and actually try to make their monetization "fair", then the question becomes "will it be enough to fund the game?".

Assuming the devs just want to make a good game and fund development, without necessarily trying to "get all the money", it's still a tricky balancing act, finding a way to get enough money while not being predatory.

yes, even if they only try to collect positive capital for game development, I have already had 10 years of negative experiences as a player.
In many of today's games/MMOs you pay for success and I would feel like a loser if I paid to be successful.

[Fraqment]

Originally posted by Elegant Caveman:

Originally posted by Titris Thrawn:

I agree with both of you. I struggle to think of good free to play games I've stuck with once the 'paywall' hits. I'm also interested if BitCraft can earn enough to fund itself with empires as many already deride the system as a mere 'map painter'. If it can harness half as much pull as what I assume some people throw at mobile war games/gachas, then there may be hope.

Pretty much, yeah.

I have nothing against F2P as a general concept, but I can't think of a single instance where I can confidently say it was implemented well, and I'd be hard pressed to tell you what I think a "good" implementation would look like.

I guess ultimately, I find F2P most useful as a form of extended demo, leading potential customers to a fairly-priced premium experience. A bit like shareware of old.

One big issue I have with F2P models is that they usually involve some degree of potentially-infinite purchases/payments. Out of principle, I'm offended by the mere existence of such systems.

In a related vein, as much as we can hope for a few whales to get hooked and nearly single-handedly fund development, that still feels unethical to me at the end of the day, even if it's "convenient" for the rest of us.

The one thing I'm finding interesting here about hexite/empire growth is that the "economic burden" becomes a communal one.

I could maybe see some kind of middle-ground, where being part of an empire gives a small-but-not-insignificant benefit to members, but also give people a means of acquiring hexite ingame. Somehow tie things to the economy? I don't know.

That's a different tightrope to walk, though, and comes with a slew of other issues.

I like the idea of people each helping fund the kingdom together, though, whether through real money, or play time. The tricky thing there is balance (as in all things, I guess).

Originally posted by Titris Thrawn:

A possible secondary hope beacon: BitCraft is being made, in part, to promote the platform it is built upon (SpacetimeDB). So depending on how successful that side is, monetization may be different in BitCraft than the usual free to play fare. Or big Corpo buys it all and transforms it into the usual ick *shrugs*. For the moment, I'm hopeful. Will be interesting to see where time takes us.

Oh, that's interesting. Thanks for the information.

And yes, I'm looking forward to seeing where this all goes.

I would rather pay more than you pay for MMOs/games today than play a F2P.
Today's times are very bad for game developers, it's enough to take a look at SteamDB

[Kalnan]

How they can call this a social mmo and put this abysmal pay-to-Empire-system in place is beyond me. So, the map is the whale playground - way to f* things up.

[Hammer]

'It’s possible that in the future we decide it’s better to monetize the game with a subscription, albeit with a smaller but more dedicated community.'

They are 100% going to make it a subscription. Would of been fine with a subscription but now they have a premium currency to participate in the Empire system. The premium currency is needed to defend and capture.

Somehow that is a cosmetic.

[Fraqment]

Originally posted by Little Bill:

'It’s possible that in the future we decide it’s better to monetize the game with a subscription, albeit with a smaller but more dedicated community.'

They are 100% going to make it a subscription. Would of been fine with a subscription but now they have a premium currency to participate in the Empire system. The premium currency is needed to defend and capture.

Somehow that is a cosmetic.

Yes, many only sell cosmetic items that often have a background in game mechanics.
Many players are prepared to spend money to be successful - you should bear that in mind.
I can only guess how that works in this game.......

[Titris Thrawn]

A Dev update on Monetization[clockwork-labs.medium.com]

Looks like more fancy stuff will be added to empires than what I saw in the alphas.

[Elegant Caveman]

Originally posted by Titris Thrawn:

A Dev update on Monetization[clockwork-labs.medium.com]

Looks like more fancy stuff will be added to empires than what I saw in the alphas.

Very interesting article/blog post, thank you.

As were the ones linked from there (Our Thoughts on Game Monetization[clockwork-labs.medium.com] and Free-Trade & Real-Money Trading[clockwork-labs.medium.com]).

The things said sound good, and they sound genuine, which gives hope (though it's no guarantee).

On their philosophy of monetization:

Our philosophy is this: We should avoid selling anything in game that is understood to be earned and we should always sell things that are understood to be bought. That sounds almost like circular reasoning, but we feel it’s actually an immensely important distinction. Since it’s pretty abstract I think it’s helpful to use an analogy: we should never be in the business of selling Medals of Honor and we should always be in the business of selling Lamborghinis.

My concern there is how expensive are the lamborghinis?

I can't help but think of League of Legends or Fortnite, with their insanely expensive skins. Sure, they're "only cosmetics", but the simple fact that so much money can be spent on that makes me sick, out of principle, if nothing else.

One of my biggest issue with F2P in general is that it often allows for "infinite spending", and no game has infinite value (or if not "infinite", simply "far too much").

I get that they're set on a F2P model for the sake of ease-of-entry and having a large/vibrant community, and I even agree with the ideal they're chasing, in that respect, but I still have concerns about what the reality will look like.

That's all for tomorrow, though.

For the time being, it's good enough for me. We'll see how things go.

[Majere]

No Turkish Gameplay Sad :(