https://store.steampowered.com/app/2012510/Stormgate/
From the steam page:
Gather data about your content to take your creations to the next level. Make something fun, share it with the world, and be rewarded for your effort and creativity.
The most recent @MaSmOrRa interview, which is with McCahill and also its comments, talked about monetization in aoe2. 26:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwYQFKO2vI4
The above sentence makes it sound like FG will use some form of marketplace to allow map creators, maybe even skin creators, and in turn the publisher to earn some money or have somewhat of a steadier and a more scalable income stream.
I don't agree with McCahill that only f2p have skins. Live service games use skins. aoe2 is a live service as of now (It has man-hours and dedicated servers), it should have something more scalable than DLCs.
I hope MS will be able to create something before Stormgate drops so they won't be called copycats (technically it's already too late but ). If they do, I hope they won't haste and **** it up. McCahill seems very passionate about aoe2 and obviously very knowledgeable about business related aspects, so maybe no worries there with execution if they enter that territory.
The problem I have with DLCs is, it litters the game a bit. The new civs might fall out of meta and you're probably not upset when there's no use for that recent DLC, but this form of monetization forces the publisher to make DLCs, instead of focusing on the game engine or tweak older civs to tighten the meta.
See Payday 2 and its DLCs for example, where each skill DLC drop needed to inherently justify that DLC by making it stronger than most other skills, therefor changing the meta with often strange outcomes or other game mechanics simply falling behind. pd2 is PvE so it doesn't really matter much, but annoying nonetheless.
It worked out well for aoe2 so far, but we also have a good chunk of that pattern.
- Technically it's better for a company to receive a lump sum upfront (DLCs) that it then can invest.
- With a sub model the community has a little bit more power to show dissatisfaction with the product by unsubscribing but keeps the entry barrier. The subscription model could be a hybrid, with DLCs for offline people + the sub for online with rebates for DLCs. Kind of a Game pass for aoe2. Unfortunately it somewhat keeps that forced DLC problem alive, but maybe making the DLCs more about fun rather than one-upping the meta. Who knew RTS's biggest battle is with itself (offline vs online). We're built different.
- skins allow for a game to go f2p, lowering the entry barrier (more people) and it's monetarily scalable because it creates whales. Problem with f2p is it creates cheaters because you don't have to own skins so a banned account doesn't faze you. Enter: pay for a (sub) account.
- if you go skins, you have to have a marketplace too, so people can buy skins from the lootboxes other people open and put up for sale. That's how Valve solved it with CS:GO in the Netherlands and Belgium. CS:GO has weekly drops for skins/lootboxes. Skins happen less often so they probably haven't changed anything for NL/BE.
Thoughts on aoe2 monetization not being based on DLCs?
One $10 DLC a year is $0.83 per month.
two: $1.6