#Untradeables Proposal

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

glad vault
#

This is a proposal Draft that is being submitted here in #1020759212172775464 to see how the community feels about it before we put it forward as an IIP

Me & @edgy token have been working on this proposal for a few weeks and seeing @native anvil's recent idea here: https://discordapp.com/channels/760344898200666112/1092074406118957177/1092074406118957177 has lead us to release this a little earlier than we were planning...

We look forward to any feedback that the community has for this idea

The Proposal: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1WXW9u7oKl-Oa8HnMsw6xj2DjBWgc9H3m9gUFRbOsiVU/edit?usp=sharing

ilvf.png
Google Docs
1. Untradeables Proposal

Untradeables Proposal by Zeptyle & Vetemor

vague relic
#

I am certain we can find some balanced way to make this scale for F2P players without taking away fuel importance and some of the other areas

Maybe a weekly challenge section that you need to complete like a free battlepass tier that gives some level of fuel for travel,so you technically can access the areas free if you grind. I think as presently put in the document we would at face value reduce the requirement for fuel and thefore reduce the need for land.

queen sparrow
#

Illluvium needs to stand out as a game to a major audience, and the proposal do just that! Limiting f2p content is not the way to go to the market. Skins are a major factor when having a huge player base of f2p players. Gameplay content paywalls are not.

vague relic
#

I AGREE COMPLETELY we need to think F2P out differently for mass adoption but in a way that does not take away from other areas.

marsh surge
#

I do think that F2P needs a way to be able to collect them all without paying, unsure what the best method to accomplish that would be. I do like the idea of allowing players to collect them all without touching the blockchain. This is a good first step in opening a dialogue, thanks for taking the time to produce a thought provoking discussion around this topic.

queen sparrow
#

Fuel do not loses value with this proposal, to me is the opposite, the game being popular there will be much more cash flow into fuel

reef aspen
#

I will likely write a longer response to this later, but I think the idea is a bad one, it goes against the entire concept that was intended, calling games like Genshin and League "f2p" is wrong imo, they are pay 2 progress, in Genshin you won´t have the same things someone spending money has, making a new league account will leave you with couple out of 150+ chars, getting them all for free is possible but will take lots of time.
Games like WoW were never free and at times considered to be hyper successful, I don´t think f2p is required, you need a good game though.
The avg spending of millenials and younger in digital things, especially video games is around a high 2 digit a month, and they relate to kids wanting digital items more than their parents did, so that number will likely go up.
Introducing this kind of f2p would reduce the value of every item in the game, encourage botting accounts and selling those or outsourcing playing to 3rd world country farms. I don´t think it would make the product better, it would make it go in the same directions everything else it taking, if everything is the same, why would anyone choose the new web3 game over existing titles in web2, that they are already invested with time our money in (sunken cost fallacy)?
I think the current economy is offering something different, with distinct advantages over many other games and it is the first to reporduce the in TCG successful model online in a almost 1 to 1 fashion.

glad vault
queen sparrow
# reef aspen I will likely write a longer response to this later, but I think the idea is a b...

Maybe the problem with this mindset is that TCG models were not made to online audiences, so what you are saying is that if something worked on the physical world it will work online, even though the market is not the same, online is much more competitive. If your product has a worse experience, because it's limited content, sorry but you are saying you prefer illuvium to be exclusive to people paying instead of playing, which for me is a big mistake and goes against the gaming market, illuvium need to appeal to casual gamers as well

reef aspen
#

I think ILV isn´t set up to be f2p, not every game is made or set up for that model of monetization.
The f2p exmaple games people make are mobas or BR FPS and single player story games, not market economy, trading oriented ones.

#

If people want the game to be f2p then you should make it a different genre or make an iip for use ILV IP for a moba or BR FPS and monetize cosmetics in those, make the illuvials you catch now become cosmetics in those e.g.

marsh surge
#

What about Magic the Gathering Online and Magic the Gathering Arena? MTGO is pay2play with trading and MTGA is f2p/p2w without trading. MTGO is far less popular than MTGA, and now I'm curious if MTGO would even still exist if there was trading available in MTGA.

#

there are lots of ways to get cards for free in MTGO, but good luck building a competitive deck

glad vault
#

also right now if ur a mainstream gamer and you want to spend money in illuvium you can onboard with moonpay from debit/credit card
but most banks dont allow people to buy crypto, so many people will be turned away at the door without even a F2P experience to fall back on
imagine playing a normal video game and wanting to buy something in-game and seeing this warning when you are typing in your card details:

image.png
queen sparrow
#

If illuvium is in fact a spiritual successor to pokemon, an so on, I do think it would suit a good f2p game. Even so because of limited illuvium sets, so the tradeable ones will still be the only source of value, and people will want it, not bot accounts.

edgy token
#

I think the real question anyone should ask themselves is are we willing to sell 10$ to 1Million players (with all the network effects benefits) or 1000$ to 1000 crypto people.

glad vault
#

Did you know?

F2P games generate the majority of gaming revenue globally (78%)
With Asian markets accounting for 59% of F2P earnings.

proud vortex
#

We don't know any prices for fuel right now.
If you can travel to stage 1-3 for around 5-10$ i would pay that.
People paying much more for battlepasses or cosmetics.
Why not for fuel to catch illuvials that you can sell?

reef aspen
#

it depends on how you define f2p, if genshin makes the cut for f2p, I spend about 25k in that game, gl getting my stuff without paying money (impossible) you will never have the same characters as f2p compared to someone paying

fallen frost
#

i like the idea of making the game as accessible for everybody as possible, in my opinion making everything open for f2p players is theoretically a good idea but it should happen very slowly so that it ends up being the same as it's intended with the difference that the web2 space wont be offended by paywall.

basically giving people the option of ignoring the paywall but the time it takes to get to the paid status is very long so that dedicated players end up buying in anyway.

this could offend f2p players tho if they feel like the f2p option is more a bait then actually enjoyable.

i like the idea but i am not sure if the original plan is not the better way of being upfront with the costumers.

and switching to a 100% f2p model with only costemtics being sold, would be bad for a lot of the core ideas of illuvium i think.

  • even tho it could be a success for mass adoption it also seems risky
reef aspen
#

I think it is just a utopian idea trying to include this into how the game currently is planned, you´d need to change everything and would prob piss of many of the crypto web 3 playerbase which obv will be the first adopters, making the next game with illuvials become cosmetics and things are immediatly unlocked or getable via spending time etc. would be the more reasonable approach, if the initial idea seemed to not do well.

queen sparrow
#

No one is changing the payable aspects with this proposal, it's not to make skins only. It's to welcome a much larger player base, I think if you are a web 3 player you will still have the benefits of owning it.

fallen frost
edgy token
# proud vortex We don't know any prices for fuel right now. If you can travel to stage 1-3 for...

let's think about ALL the people with limited budget, with like idk let's say 200$/month (which is already a very small portion of privileged people on earth). what do they do once they spent their entire budget? they stop playing? isn't that super lame?

And to @reef aspen you were a Pro on Hearthstone so how did Blizzard make that much money out of HS? They made it Free to play, you can buy packs to speed up your progress, but in the meanwhile it was totally doable for a F2P player to reach legend with a Free Agro Deck, get the rewards and start rolling from there until they eventually get enough of these rewards to build the control decks. Without that Free possibility to reach the top level out of nothing, HS would've have 10 thousands times less players, made about 5 thousand times less money and Esports on it wouldn't even have been a thing.

So i assumed you'd understand why Illuvium needs to be F2P friendly in order to reach mass adoption.

reef aspen
#

bro, there were literally 0 rewards for reaching legend

frail silo
deep comet
#

since the opening of the first beta of the OW I had wondered about how a f2p player could implement his experience and I evaluated the thing:

->the fact that the best boots and jetpacks are obtained in S0 but since you need 700 and 700 of the two minerals to craft them, they are suitable for "resale" on the secondary market.

which consequently could give a start to the journey of those who start from 0.

because even if you don't spend anything to get them, they are still NFTs and linked to the blockchain.

in this proposal instead it seems to me there is a wall, the player experience would be off chain, so the capture of the ramphy would not be recorded. However, if that player decided to switch from F2P to blockchain all his hard-earned objects would not be transported but would have to disappear, otherwise the absurd conundrum of a ramphy minted years later from the conclusion of set 1 would arise when a free to play user switches to blockchain.

->Secondly, even visiting the S1 unless you have a team of illuvial T0 it is unlikely to be able to defeat the battle with only the ranger. So there should be some secondary market for T0s, so I don't see why a free to play player should be denied that sale.

It may be that I'm not rich but I can think of at least these 2 ways to "finance" my travels in S1 and from there if I'm not a sucker between illuvial captures and resource collection I should be able to maintain a game at no cost through grinding, with your proposal you would bring the player back to the web 2 situation where so many hours of play are used to be masters in a game but nothing can be obtained from it.

native anvil
#

I really like the idea of going more free to play friendly. The biggest hurdle to overcome is accessibility to mass market. On this proposal specifically, I like the Idea of differentiating free2play further is that these cards can only be played in their true form. When you have paid, a rhampy can be played as a rhampyre in pvp. This shouldn’t be possible with free to play Illuvials

glad vault
edgy token
reef aspen
queen cedar
#

Im of the opinion that this is a shit idea.

reef aspen
glad vault
#

boys lets chill

deep comet
fallen frost
glad vault
glad vault
edgy token
deep comet
# glad vault untradeable is essentially soulbound, yes

if I can only capture a ramphyre with a fragment shard, I'd play f2p for the glory of doing that XD, i would be legendary! if the same result can be obtained by selling resources in the secondary market, I don't understand why killing Illuvium's revenue like this.

reef aspen
# edgy token thank you for your very not constructive intervention then. Laters mate 🙂

you keep repeating the same thesis with the same argument, when faced with why it doesn´t work you just go ahead and repeat thesis and argument again, do you have any counter thesis or arguments to my first post pointing out the problems with bots, 3rd world country farming, accounts selling, using comparisons with games only from different genres, undermining the entire concepts web 3 games are build upon and likely going against your initial customers?

fallen frost
glad vault
queen sparrow
#

I don't get the botting argument as the illuviums sets will be gone once they change to a new set.

reef aspen
queen sparrow
glad vault
reef aspen
edgy token
#

yeah on the bot issue side i'm more concerned about the potential flood of paid ramphyres compared to account selling

reef aspen
#

team never said avg payed overworld run will be a net positive, so nothing to bot there

#

or rather atm it is set up as free market, so bots would drive the time-> money conversion to 0, make the game "cheaper" for arena

potent junco
#

Havn't read everything here, but I strongly feel that we should keep all assets on Illuvium tradeable and valuable (market value). Illuvium is supposed to be an open economy, I don't like the idea of putting restrictions.

fickle leaf
edgy token
vague relic
#

I still think the only way this works without taking away from other areas heavily is a monthly challenge section that you need to complete like a free battlepass tier that gives some level of fuel for travel,so you technically can access the areas free if you grind. Like yes you can have a full deck of Illuvials over time if you play long enough (years) but certainly not straight away. Give them some rope not all of it.

edgy token
queen cedar
fickle leaf
# edgy token If people can setup bots to farm Overworld, why wouldn't they just set them to m...

Thats like asking: why doesnt everyone just buy infinite packs of illuvitars and drop the value of rhamphyres to 0?

And illuvitars dont have a bonding curve while the overworld does, and opening packs would be a much larger hassle because instead of being able to open 4 packs in 20 seconds, youd need 30~ minutes for a single run!

On top of that: Stage 3 runs may have Illuvials of lvl 30, which requires you to have a team of at least max lvl tier 2 Illuvials to comfortably win if you arent pro for your 100 scholars. Then youd need all those illuvials ready (100x8). But wait, those illuvials lose HP in battle and faint just like pokemon only to become battle-ready after X time. so youd need either an insane amount of strong Illuvials or a bunch of healing items that you'd buy in the store.

Then there is the skill-based system that rewards you with more core-items if you speedrun the overworld. So there goes 90% of those shitty bot-level-players.

And when they finally find the third rhamphy, the odds of catching have gone down so far due to the bonding curve, that you fail it again, and again.

Im not afraid of "botting paid trips".

The issue does arise if you bot the F2p without bonding curve and allow people to migrate those over to become paid assets for a fixed amount of fuel.

edgy token
#

Migrating "non-paid" illuvials into NFTs has never been an option tho. They're just in-game assets like any Item in any other game. basically what PB1 of Overworld already does

crisp valve
delicate raptor
#

Well done with the information thought it out a lot.
I don't totally agree tho I don't think the whole game needs to be f2p like this. Having a certain amount of "free feul" a day like overworld is now. Or weekly/ monthly T0 challenges that you can win feul with I think would work better. Drives f2p player to grind more so they can go for runs and also lower spenders to grind for the rewards

fickle leaf
# edgy token Migrating "non-paid" illuvials into NFTs has never been an option tho. They're j...

Right, i just saw this being mentioned in the conversation above (or the thread you shared in the original message) so thought id just add that it wouldnt work or have to be done very carefully.

For F2p opportunity:
Wouldnt you say that being able to trade up from selling jetpacks, levelling T0s and healing consumables would allow you to make enough revenue for the paid tiers?

After all, everyone will require consumables all the time to heal the fainted Illuvials. That market will unlikely run dry. Cant you grind that, then grind Stage 1 runs and up if you dont have the money?

(Also just want to mention that 200$ per month is quite a bit :D)

vague relic
grim geode
#

I played league of legends for few years. Not a ton but often enough. I never got all the characters. Recently, years later, when I tried to log in and play I found that my account had apparently been hacked (due to my own historically poor password management I’d guess) and disabled. Now I have zero and no recourse. This is a problem that blockchain is able to address.

I suspect there are a number of potential ways to make a fuller game experience accessible to players that do not pay. I think that falling back on a web2 parallel solution will not be the best choice.

I’d much prefer to see additional mechanics or tools to be added that enable more paid experience without paying. My first guess would be in-game GUILDS. Free players join a guild. A guild could have its paying members build a deck and make it available for players to use when they supply X amount of tier 0 assets.

fickle leaf
vague relic
edgy token
edgy token
# grim geode I played league of legends for few years. Not a ton but often enough. I never go...

But then we're still forcing everyone to enter and participate in the economy, and Web 2 is not ready for ownership, most of them either don't care or don't understand it yet. This solution tho, offers them the possibility to stay within our eco-system for longer, experience the game, meeting other people from the space, and if they WANT to they can still start paying at that moment. Either to speed up their progress (because free is harder) or because they want ownership.

Basically we're transforming people that wouldn't spend a single cent or hour in our eco-system into potential buyers.

fickle leaf
vague relic
fickle leaf
vague relic
edgy token
daring grove
#

I think most of you know this about me, but for those who don’t, I came to Illuvium as an investor, not as a gamer. When I invested in buying a mega city and other plots I did so with the knowledge that everything in the game would require fuel, which I would get a percentage of, and that there would be blueprints that only landowners would get so we could make skins to sell. It’s all well and good to say, “yeah, but it’s a DAO so if the majority want something different that is what will happen” but if we start doing that, people (especially those with big bags) will stop investing. Investors don’t like the rules to change after dropping their money into the game.

Kudos to both of you for sitting down and brainstorming to come up with something you think would make Illuvium better. However, you are proposing to fundamentally change the economy of the game that I invested in. This is not a small thing. You are asking me as a landowner to vote to give up my revenue from fuel but you have provided me with no in-depth market research analysis showing actual numbers to convince me to do so. In fact, you wrote the proposal without even mentioning how this will affect landowners.

What I liked about Illuvium and what I invested in was a game with a functioning economy and deflationary assets. It’s supposed to be a different concept, a new idea, not just another F2P game. Don’t get me wrong, I think F2P aspects to draw people in are good but I am not convinced this is the way to go about it.

I'm now going to scroll up and read what others are saying.

fickle leaf
delicate raptor
vague relic
fickle leaf
#

But hey, this proposal is about stating that it's such a big hurdle to put your money into Illuvium, and that Free to play would never do that. However, Aaron, Ben and their economists have been very vocal about reducing the price, so that the arena is accessible to almost everyone. You only need the Stage 1 versions to use 1/3 in the arena and the runs will be close to micro-transactions.

Additionally it's not like you lose all of your money if you put it into Illuvium. These are web3 assets that can be sold again, with in-built burning and increasing scarcity over a period of time.

What if the value of your assets doesn't decrease in any way, would it still matter if you put your money into the game? Isn't that the same as being F2P? You after all retain a net-0. If you are done, you may just be able to sell it for the same amount you put in. (it's like a risky investment sector)

Do we need everyone to be able to access everything F2P or should we just demand everyone to pay a bit and help the rest of the community retain the investment value that they put in? It's like a pyramid scheme then, based on the popularity of the game. As long as people enjoy the game, they hold the Illuvials and you have net-0 or even positive if burning comes in.

edgy token
# daring grove I think most of you know this about me, but for those who don’t, I came to Illuv...

Thank you for your constructive feedback! Yes economy would change, but we think for the best, including for land-owners. if you want numbers here is one: 78% of all the money made in the gaming industry comes from F2P games, that are entirely free to experience with only cosmetics or speed ups to pay for.

We could if taking some more time and if requested find more relevant stats if that helps more people to see the scope. Don't get us wrong, I also own land and hope to make money out of fuel so when we say it is for the best within the project we include everyone and we should in fact make that more clear in the proposal.

So here's how we think this will affect land owners is that even tho it might seem counter-intuitive, giving more access to free to play, raises the demand for fuel.

A few reasons behind this:

  1. only 3% of the entire world's population is into crypto so 97% don't care or understand ownership, making the actual economic model not suitable for mass adoption.
  2. By improving the Overworld F2P experience, we make the game more attractive to a wider audience, therefore attracting more players (out of those 97%) and increasing the demand on fuel.

The game as it is right now would only attract crypto people that care/understand ownership, meaning it's not even close to compete with any TripleA web2 game despite what the team keeps saying. We're offering a way to enlarge that scope and turn people that would never spend a single cent within our eco-system into potential buyers with the constant temptation of buying fuel for better odds in overworld and speed up their progress.

vague relic
fickle leaf
vague relic
grim geode
#

I just had a cruel troll worthy idea. What if the seasonal web2 assets were only usable during their launch season? F2P players don’t really own them anyways. So not being able to use them once their season ends would make them comfortable in their web2 environment. Or even allowing them to be used for X number of seasons until the assets are “retired”

sick pine
# edgy token Thank you for your constructive feedback! Yes economy would change, but we think...

Thank you for your response . While I appreciate your point about the profitability of F2P games, I would like to raise some concerns about the validity of the statistic you provided. While it is true that many F2P games generate significant revenue, not all games are successful using this model. Additionally, the revenue generated from F2P games often comes from a small percentage of users who make in-game purchases, which could limit the potential for revenue growth.

edgy token
sick pine
# sick pine Thank you for your response . While I appreciate your point about the profitabil...

while I understand your point about the game's appeal to a wider audience, I am not convinced that the proposed change would actually increase the game's popularity. While a more accessible F2P experience could attract new players, it is also possible that the game's unique selling point as a blockchain-based game with deflationary assets could be lost in the process. Additionally, it is unclear whether the increased demand for fuel would result in increased revenue for landowners, as your proposal has not provided concrete data to support this claim.

grim geode
edgy token
# sick pine Thank you for your response . While I appreciate your point about the profitabil...

Yes like any game or model, or even business. Not everyone will succeed that's a fact but we're here because we all believe Illuvium will be part of the ones succeeding that's why we invested in the first place. And you are right again, about 45% of players never buy anything from a F2P game, 55% will spend less than 20$ a month (usually just buy a season pass or some very occasional purchase) and only 3% are actually spending money in F2P games regularly and more than 20/month.

Now from my point of view the 3% are the ones we would've get into the game anyway, 52% of new potential buyers (even just for a one time purchase) and 45% of people enjoying the game and making us free marketing through the network effect.

edgy token
low plinth
# glad vault **This is a proposal Draft that is being submitted here in <#1020759212172775464...

I do appreciate the thought that you and @edgy token are trying to find creative ways to better include f2p gamers. However, my first thought was how this would dilute the non-T0 illuvials. I personally think the current f2p ramp is a solid start. There are at least 30 hours to grind(and eventually level up) T0 illuvials and Movement gear. All of which will be Tradable. They can also play survival mode.

I think that is plenty to hook a player into this game and become an active member of the economy.

@daring grove also brought up a key point about land owners and investors in general. This is a greatly different economy, and I personally feel it brings more negative than positive. And is not what investors initially bought in.

sick pine
# edgy token Yes like any game or model, or even business. Not everyone will succeed that's a...

Thank you for your response and for providing more insight into your proposal. I appreciate your perspective on the potential benefits of making the game more accessible to a wider audience. However, I still have concerns about the proposed change and believe that any major shift in the game's economic model could be risky. While it is important to attract new players, we must also ensure that the game's unique features and selling points are not lost in the process. Therefore, I suggest that we carefully consider the potential risks and benefits of any changes to the game's economic model before making any major decisions.

elder needle
#

Sorry not 100% for this. I can understand the concept but

  1. why change the chances of capture for this if it's never owned.
  2. If they do f2p get a mega squad then start paying they could have an advantage in their deck
  3. A more effective way to gain adoption would be to move away from ILV and ETH to USD or if still a token USDC. (Then in the back end ILV is purchased).
  4. Not everyone who might be able to pay have an incentive to earn, those less advantaged. Once they can trade their way in, you have built someone up while not destroying the ecosystem.
cedar wigeon
# glad vault **This is a proposal Draft that is being submitted here in <#1020759212172775464...

Yeah no...

Firstly the assumption this would take little dev time is kind of outrageous. There is a lot of work that would need to be done to the backend/blockchain systems to make this possible. Also all the ui treatments because

This is wayyyyy too confusing. Trust me you're going to just overly confuse everyone before u make it more accessible. Remember how many people thought illuvitars would be used in the pvp arena. This is like that but way more confusing.

Quite frankly I think f2p is a bit overrated. People value their games they pay for far more highly than anything else and money is also a powerful retention hack. Think how often you wanted to play world of warcraft even tho it was crazy grindy and kind of monotonous. It's because u paid for it upfront and felt like u wasted your money if you didn't play it every day.

Its the same when u drop 5k on league of legends skins, time to get your moneys worth. Any moment you make some things 'free' and others not without clear barriers you are devaluing the time of those that care enough to play the game.

I will say that if Illuvium launched as a mobile game this may be a different story. A majority of mobile games are heavily dependant on free to play mechanics, however there isn't a single AAA game in existence that is F2P. At least not one I can think of.

I will add that making the game more accessible is still good. But this is not the way to do it

glad vault
#

"there isn't a single AAA game in existence that is F2P"
have you been living under a rock?
78% of all revenue in gaming comes from F2P games, kinda over-rated right?
idk how about fortnite as 1 example of many

edgy token
edgy token
# sick pine Thank you for your response and for providing more insight into your proposal. I...

This all needs obviously to be handled carefully and balance in the how much F2P is harder than paied will be the key to if it succeeds or fails and somehow hurts someone in the process. tho @elder needle the point in making it harder to get when free is to keep the incentive for people to make their journey "easier/faster" and pay.

Also you can easily defeat S3 waves with only T0 illuvials so using F2P Tier fives in Overworld is not an issue.

daring grove
# edgy token Thank you for your constructive feedback! Yes economy would change, but we think...

Thanks for the reply Zeptyle.

Another thing you probably know about me is I'm older, over 40 under 50. I remember the adoption of computers into homes and of the internet. I remember when the first few gaming geeks started playing internet games. It was very niche. In fact most people never thought the internet would catch on. I literally remember someone talking about how we could order pizza online and we were all like, why would we do that when we can just phone Pizza Hut? 😂 I laugh but when I look at how we went from the majority really thinking the internet was not going to catch on to the world we live in today, it is mind blowing. If we believe in blockchain, if we believe in the idea that people want to own their assets, that they want a game studio like Illuvium who will build interoperable games, then the fact that it is starting out as niche shouldn't bother us too much. It will catch on if it is everything we say it is.

In your point number 2 you say that we will attract more players (the ones who don't care about crypto) and that will increase the demand for fuel. However, if they are the players who aren't into crypto and are playing for free, exactly how is fuel demand going up? Are you thinking they will play for awhile, decide that it is easier to pay to get things faster and that will be the catalyst to onboard them to crypto?

If so, I am not sure I agree because I think that the mindset of the "normie" is that crypto is a scam, that they are just trying to hook you and get you to pay etc. etc. and I think that is how they will see it or they won't care about owning assets or getting there faster and just keep playing for free.

At the end of the day though, I think it is too big of a change to the ethos of Illuvium.

Now, I do want to see easier credit card payments. I think that is important. Thinking of Blankos and how many joined easily with a credit card and email address.

glossy hollowBOT
#
DMs are scams

Mods and Team members will never DM you.
Never trust advice or links received in DMs.

Beta access, giveaways, and promotions are not given out via DM. Scams are designed to trick you into installing malicious software to gain access to your wallet or to convince you to enter your seed phrase into a website. Never give your private key (12 to 24-word seed phrase) to anyone.

Support is not provided via DMs

Support is handled publicly, or in threads within the Illuvium Discord. People offering support via DM are scammers.

Please follow the instructions pinned in #report-scammers to report bad actors so we can remove them from the server.
cedar wigeon
glad vault
edgy token
glass gorge
#

you can't give a way our core

pseudo egret
#

If the F2P gives players access to T1-5 illuvials and can compete in the pvp arena with them, immediately all "tradable" illuvials lose almost all the value they will ever have. So this can't work.

glass gorge
#

and if you really want to spend 0 in game, you still can.
there is still some value in the nft from the free travel. Just convert them into what you need
yes it is crazy hard but we never promised that it'll be easy

old whale
#

I want to say thanks for bringing this stuff up and I think there are a lot of good talking points in all these discussions. And I love the idea of making it more progressive for free to play people but I don't feel like this is the best approach to do so. Something like weekly missions and progressions or the like I am not sure.

The reasons I am not a fan of the proposal is I don't want this to turn into a F2P game. I know web2 had a lot of success with the different games you have listed but I want something different. I want a new modal to take over from that. Just like F2P took over the WOW subscription modal. I know when that happened there was a lot of people telling them to stick with what works and what has the most money. Statically it might make the most sense to go with an already working modal for making money and mass adoption like all the web2 games, but the large draw from Illuvium is trying to make a new modal with the new tech. Just slapping web2 games with nft's is a bit boring to me.

All that said I do want to see continued talk about these topics as I think we can always modify and improve how we go about helping making the economy of illuvium great, I just don't personally think converting it closer to a web2 modal is the right approach.

pseudo egret
daring grove
# edgy token You are entirely right and about point number 2, yes that is exactly how free to...

I laughed when I read your post to me, all I could think was I am in my 40's not my 80's.😂
I get it though and I will take it as a compliment.

Right now how the Illuvium economy will work is theoretical. We may need to do something to increase numbers in the future. Maybe we will have to expand F2P or offer something else. I don't think now is the time to do it though, I think we should release it as it was promised to be and go from there. I also don't think we should be considering changes when we need to be looking for large investors.

It is good to think about and talk about these things though, here in Discord and to see what others are saying. Have a great evening Zeptyle. Thanks for the discussion.

winged kestrel
#

👎🏽 to this proposal idea as i feel it deters away from web3 adoption.

potent dust
#

I appreciate your ideas. The problem you are describing is exactly my main concern if Illuvium will ever reach mass adoption. But sadly I don't think your solutions will work. They could even make it worse.

Illuvium has 7 regions that can be fully explored and offer maybe 10 - 100 hours (depending on your motivation to grind) of free content and 75 (like 1/3 of all illuvials) T0 to catch and level up. And you can even earn money by catching t0 and gathering rocks/plants. We don't know yet how much that will be. I would say that this type of content is more than enough to onboard new players and show them what the game is all about. If they like it they might start spending money or farm to make some paid trips to get higher tier illuvials. If they don't like it they can just stop playing.
I feel like making a pseudo f2p illuvium won't add any value. It may even look worse to the players and feel like pay2win. Here are some concerns a player might have.

  1. you have to pay money to increase your catch chances
  2. Hight tier illuvials are harder to find in f2p? What is the fun in spending your slowly earned fuel to catch the 100th atlas?
  3. Assets are untradeable is confusing. Let's say you are catching a Ramphyre with (near) perfect stats but you can't sell it because you obtained it by playing f2p. This feels like the game is treating you like some 2. class gamer because you are not spending enough money. You are hiding key mechanics of illuvium behind a paywall. What if you have a ramphyre and you decide to start buying fuel to get all the tradeable assets but you are too late because we are already in set 2 and the bonding curve makes it nearly impossible to find any ramphy? You feel rugged because your existing Ramphyre is worthless and all your work in getting it was for nothing.
#

I don't think you could encourage players into spending money by implementing these mechanics. It might even turn them away. The comparison to a f2p game like fortnite doesn't work here. You can play f2p games completely free and access all content. But you are proposing to make Illuvium f2p without accessing all content.

I also think a comparison to free2play doesn't work at all because you can extract value from playing illuvium. You cannot do that right now in web2 games. So any web3 game has to be really careful when giving away stuff for free

crisp valve
#

I see a lot of comments rejecting the F2P enhancement proposal because the solution brought in this thread perhaps IS not suitable enough. I agree with the points that say that the proposed solution destroys the economy. For that, we need to find a better one.

Regardless, Illuvium needs F2P to be enhanced otherwise a lot of players will face too much friction. If they find it too hard or impossible to keep on getting stronger by playing the game for free, they will consider Illuvium a Pay to win (P2W) game. A P2W game is super irritating because it kills competition and upsets players that try their best to reach the top of the ladder with only skill. Becoming P2W is a clear threat for the success of Illuvium.

So instead of rejecting what has been brought up on the table, if you want Illuvium to succeed, I suggest you begin thinking of ways to enhance the F2P experience and allow non-payant players to compete with payant ones. F2P will always take more time and effort, but at least players have a goal. We need this goal in Illuvium.

grave wren
#

I'm all for enhancing the F2P experience in Illuvium and that's why I gave this idea a good read. I don't think this big pivot is the way to go, I would have loved to read a more in depth plan to this proposal, for example it is not very clear the impact in development this would have across all areas (maybe talk to a dev and get his/her professional opinion). I don’t think the genre of this first game fits perfectly with the full f2p model you guys are proposing. I'm of the same opinion as Torial, I think if we believe and invested in the idea that video games with block chain technology are the future we should keep at it. I'm more focused on the game being great ATM.

I think we can brainstorm to find better ideas to improve our F2P. Great job drafting this, I appreciate your time and effort but sadly it will be a thumbs down for me.

glad vault
# crisp valve I see a lot of comments rejecting the F2P enhancement proposal because the solut...

for me the main takeaway from the feedback so far is about the same

  1. We need to find some ways to make the F2P experience more engaging than it currently would be (if possible without adding too much work) and I'm glad this got the conversation started at least

  2. Its going to be important that at least the pricing points for travel are made accessible enough, considering that most games are around $60, for that price point people should be able to build on average at least a reasonable starter deck for PvP, with really competitive decks hopefully not too much more than the $250 range (if whales want to whale they can have full holo or dark holo decks worth substantially more and fancy pants skins for their mozart and ranger)

autumn sorrel
# crisp valve I see a lot of comments rejecting the F2P enhancement proposal because the solut...

I personally think a full F2P model could only really work with Illuvium: Zero. And even at this stage that isn't ready yet because we need to come up with some sort of engaging endgame for IZ.

Right now our F2P is basically long demos of our products that are meant to engage the audience enough to get them to convert to the paying model. If you give the ability for someone to farm something for free you are taking demand out of the market. @glad vault @edgy token I appreciate the work you put into this and endorse this for a model to be used on IZ in the future but not for Overworld.

dusk junco
#

F2P models to me are a must. Personally the last 6 major games I've played started as f2p then I went paid. I only pay for titles I know and trust. Something new needs to be f2p or else its a big gamble and makes it seem like it could be a money pit.

Anyway, if a player gets going, loves it, does research into nfts and such and decides to start paying, they will eventually will have 2 sets of nfts. F2P and paid. This would need to be called out somehow for players so its clear which is which. This is something else the devs would need to configure or adjust. I dont think it would be major but worth noting.

How far do you want this to go ? Example F2P PVP mode or are we talking NFTs only?

I feel like this is part 2 of what Aaron developed as the base F2P model.

zealous dust
#

Not the time to deviate the set course.

  1. Not 100% that it won't eat up dev time or cause more delays
  2. Lack of data to support considering business model of ILV
  • ILV was never marketed as a F2P game I.e. overwatch apex fortnite etc
    It's an interoperable block chain game with f2p aspects not the other way around

So my stance here is let the game go public beta and see the data if there's a need to pivot or not. But any changes should be done after public launch and not before.

That being said, there are merits to initiating a discussion on enhancing f2p experience for future iterations/pivots.

Examples:
Monthly rewards to top 100 f2p players can be awarded fuel to travel. The amount may or may not cover one s1 run etc.

Having a payable "pass" that awards you fuel and others is a possibility.

Anything that is time-gated would be best to lessen botting impact.

The idea of vetemor and zeptyle can be introduced here by having soulbound or off-chain fuel that can't be traded to offset botting from pooling.

Core idea here is to allow them not only to experience the loop of tier 0 areas but to also give them the opportunity to experience paid areas as a reward for their hardwork and skill

cedar wigeon
# glad vault

Apex and Warzone are good examples. However titanfall 2 and call of duty didnt begin that way

cedar wigeon
# glad vault

Every single game in the top 5. Had IP built as paid games before releasing F2P. Just worth mentioning

#

F2P only works at scale. League of legends is testament to that. We have no guarantee that Illuviums IP will be a worldwide phenominon. So ruining 90% of the potential revenue to try and cater to a larger audience is kinda wild.

#

Just gonna say it.

F2P is overrated 🙂 No one under the age of 16 is going to touch blockchain gaming.

72.4% of fortnite players are on console. (Children typically don't have a pc btw)

62.7% of them are 18-24. Likely skewed towards the lower end.

The mean age for World of Warcraft (a subscription model) is 31.24

And the crypto age groups are most concentrated in the 25-34 age bracket. (because they have disposable income).

I know which group I am betting on every day of the week. F2P isn't going to bring mass adoption, not to a PC game anyways.

sharp pollen
# cedar wigeon Just gonna say it. F2P is overrated 🙂 No one under the age of 16 is going to t...

Just yesterday I setup an Illuvium account for a Pokemon friend and showed them how to buy a few Beyond D1Sks. They were lucky to spend 60$ and get Illuvitars worth of 400$. The kid loved the Lynx and the Clown Nose and I showed them how to bond. I will give them a T1 land soon. What I am trying to say here is following: For most people the mental hurdles to enter crypto (not financial, but fear and bad taste from mainstream media) are way too high, even with all technical hurdles set aside. But once shown by someone they trust, they start to see the benefits of trading digital items and see the analogy to trading Pokemon cards on eBay. So we either educate them one by one or wait for the big ones like Amazon to introduce the masses to NFTs. But I start to think like Aaron and Scoriox that we should be a Web 3 game by heart and just focus on making onboarding to crypto and llluvium much easier and less scary. Maybe we just need to focus on web 3 people now and be prepared when NFTs take off in the mainstream. We might be able to ride this new train like Axie Infinity rode the past bull market.

cedar wigeon
# sharp pollen Just yesterday I setup an Illuvium account for a Pokemon friend and showed them ...

I think that's the core difference. U don't get Pokemon cards for free. Would completing your collection or playing the pokemon tcg mean as much to you if u got the cards for free. A cost has inherent value, much like time. When u break it down we don't really have a time factor. If we take pvp out of the equation. It's an important part of the puzzle but if u kill the collectables aspect you kill overworld.

Maybe a better alternative is a sandbox esque arena for illuvium. Where anyone can use anything without owning it. It's casual play and u can't climb the leaderboard but u can enjoy pvp. Similar to how league of legends gives u free characters outside of ranked.

Thats a WAY better alternative

sharp pollen
# cedar wigeon I think that's the core difference. U don't get Pokemon cards for free. Would co...

The sandbox arena idea could possibly be enhanced: A mainstream player could rent an expensive good deck from a web 3 owner for a fixed fiat amount and share the winnings with the web 3 owner. I know this type of scholarship model got a negative touch, but I don't understand why. This introduces new skilled players to Illuvium and with their earnings they can start building their own deck. It would be someone else playing the web 3 owners Illuvials, either in his own name or the web 3 owners name when it comes to ranking.

crisp valve
low plinth
sharp pollen
native anvil
#

The more I think about this proposal with the addition of this comment #1092111899845472406 message the more I like it. It would open up the full experience for all, and after they are hooked, there is a high likelihood that they will look into buying and Illuvial to complete a deck or upgrade something. It would only make or real Illuvials more valuable and gain a larger audience.

#

People will have a hard time looking into buying Illuvials if not properly hooked first, unless they can pay with credit card without KYC (the barrier would be similar to other games then)

sharp pollen
edgy token
# cedar wigeon Just gonna say it. F2P is overrated 🙂 No one under the age of 16 is going to t...

can you please stop acting like League of Legends, Dota and Counter Strike don't exist? They are all successful (to say the least) PC only games, in fact even Fortnite that you quote there started as a PC only game.

Also, the purpose of the entire proposal was in fact to target a wider audience than "just the crypto people" in order to achieve mass adoption so please explain me why, making a move towards F2P players would be a bad thing for the project with valid points and not irrelevant numbers or false statements.

Also did you know that even tho Millenials have the least buying power they actually are the biggest spenders in the gaming industry? So your stat actually serves our purpose by saying that millenials are more attracted to F2P games xD.

cedar wigeon
# edgy token can you please stop acting like League of Legends, Dota and Counter Strike don't...

F2P players aren't in crypto or Web 3 gaming yet and won't be for quite sometime. What this proposal asks is to destroy the Web 3 experience in the name of attracting someone who doesn't care. What makes more sense is making Illuvium the Web 3 marvel it's supposed to be. Then when we build out the moba in 2-3 years its the perfect opportunity and a way better genre to attract those mainstream gamers that will be ready to adopt the space.

There is nothing wrong with more accessibility but this proposal seeks to replace the current Web 3 goals with a free to play one. Which in the landscape seems inappropriate

edgy token
#

btw @glad vault and myself are still collecting and writing down all the feedback(positive/negative) and even tho it looks like our idea was not "on the spot" looking on the feedback there is a demand within the community to make onboarding to a wider audience more easy/friendly than the actual model proposed. So we'll finish collecting and ordering everything and post a summary here so that everyone can quickly see what's been raised by the community on this topic

cedar wigeon
#

Its worth mentioning that I am discounting free to play games and that's a fair rebuttal. However you are trying to broach the subject just as callously. You act like games people buy are worse than free to play games. That's the key point I am trying to make. There is nothing inherently wrong with paying for a game.. acting like it's a problem feels silly to me.

#

Ive bought lots of games I enjoyed 🙂

sharp pollen
glad vault
cedar wigeon
#

I know its a little bit of a side track but I have talked to Aaron quite a few times now and love the way he thinks. In the grand scheme of things I'd like to see his vision unfold before anyone starts changing things. The free to play model broke the mould when it was first launched. The easiest way for a game to go.viral is to actually break the mould and become its own beast. I'd like to give that a chance and start our own trend of being unique and driven by a new purpose much higher than what currently works. I'd like to see it fail before deciding its not going to work

glad vault
# cedar wigeon I know its a little bit of a side track but I have talked to Aaron quite a few t...

and thats fair enough, I think for me thats one of the main takeaways from this and I think most investors want to see what they invested in play out is it was

I still think this started an interesting conversation about generally what can be done regardless within the bounds of aarons vision to make the game as engaging and tempting for F2P players still so that we can onboard people that dont want to initially commit financially, but thats a seperate discussion

cedar wigeon
glad vault
arctic light
#

I think this is a very cool proposal. I personally would want the intradeables to be very rare and limited. But I definitely like the idea of having them. I think that giving F2P players something to look forward to or grind is necessary to keep them in the game for the long run, and/or eventually convert them to paid players.

edgy token
fickle leaf
#

And card collection games 👀

#

Wellp with Overworld you now you have gamified pack opening.

#

So you are saying that, because it is gamified, people will not want to spend money on getting "cards"?

fathom radish
#

They will be able to buy illuvials on the market without playing overworld at all if they don’t want to.

The model is based on MTG and Pokémon. It’s already proven. It works.

People spend some money to get some illuvials / (cards in MTG).
They can then use those cards in free to play battles as many times as they want to.

Another game could be created that is designed as fully free to play from the ground up.
I’m sure there is a future game type, like a moba, where this would be expected.

Mixing two completely different models is likely to negatively impact fuel sales, and reduce the value that people attribute to owning illuvials. It also isn’t great from a marketing perspective.

cedar wigeon
glad vault
cedar wigeon
void sandal
# glad vault **This is a proposal Draft that is being submitted here in <#1020759212172775464...

I don't believe the correct way to approach fears about adoption is to back away from one of the core reasons Illuvium is a web3 game in the first place. It's been mentioned repeatedly in this thread that players don't understand or care about ownership. I think that's pretty provably false - many players care about ownership, across a wide variety of games. Skins, cosmetics, loot in MMO's, ARPGs all revolve around ownership, they are just using a different model of "ownership" by which the player doesn't truly own assets. The crypto equivalent is that they are using a CEX where they can never withdraw funds. They have access to everything, but no custody.

I'm very, very wary about making parallel balance tracks for a game. That's something that has met with limited success in past games, and takes a TON of development work to create and maintain.

If a F2P system were to be introduced for anything beyond S0, I'd prefer it to mesh with the rest of the game, as opposed to being parallel (with things like modified capture rates etc.).

I think the motivation here is solid, we want to increase accessibility and playership. My strong preference would be to accomplish that through a means other than a parallel F2P gameplay loop. I still think things like S0 tournaments could be sufficient to help onboard strictly F2P players into the paid ecosystem, but I'd be open to hearing other ideas related to that.

#

I do appreciate that you've put this together, and I do think it comes from the right place, I just don't think this specific implementation would be the correct choice.

edgy token
# void sandal I don't believe the correct way to approach fears about adoption is to back away...

Thank you for your constructive feedback, we definitely take note of this as there are some very valid points. With this said there's not much we know about those S0 tournaments and as far as i'm concerned that is for now just an idea that the team has once mentionned but no real promess or explanation on numbers/prizes so we just made the proposal assuming they wouldn't happen and if they do, that's still a nice add-on to our idea.

Also @glad vault and myself also agreed according to the feedback we received that the idea was definitely not on point. Be sure that if a new version of this idea comes, it will collate all the received Feedback.

Thank you everyone again for the support and feedback.

mild tulip
#

Honestly way too worried about bots to back this proposal but ik there are other ideas that are being worked on that I could back up!

fresh mural
#

I like seeing new idea’s, but i prefer the current design. This idea could allow players to build up a team and potentially sell the username and password account off market, which is counter constructive to the IZ holders and staker’s.

If the aim is for mass adoption then maybe marketing is a potential solution, i.e more Esports teams.

quaint knot
#

I want to encourage @glad vault and @edgy token for putting this idea. I think we desparatelly need a better f2p solution, than just playing T0 for a couple of weeks and quiting the game. Don't look at this 👎 count so bad. Remember how alpha disks started? I think this idea can be improved upon. Thanks for taking the time and energy.

glad vault
cobalt sandal
#

I haven't commented fo a while but if i had to voice my down vote for this idea. IMO FTP player should simply be the same as the " trial" or " demo versions" of other games . The current version of FTP is quite generous IMO for someone playing "for free".

I feel as strongly about this about as strong as top player being bribed to play with monetary prizes at the top of survival or ladder. Prizes should be only for for "tournaments" and anything past the pay wall only

pvp ladder/ranked survival Anything else free players have access to should be cosmetic / fun. if a "top pro player" doesn't think #1 on the pvp/ladder ladder is good for " fun" that is on them and their elitist and entitled views not the game .

MTG 30 year history Proves it can be done. IMO the exploration portion of the game will be Illuvium's biggest draw for mainstream and beyond .

edgy token
fallen frost
# cobalt sandal I haven't commented fo a while but if i had to voice my down vote for this idea...

I don't think seeing it as generosity is a good way to look at it. There are different game models, for example: free-to-play, pay upfront, etc. Our genre for Illuvium, in general, is play-to-earn, but to newcomers, this looks like pay-to-play, which can be bad for onboarding Web2 gamers. They are not used to paying for every run in a game and getting items with full ownership in return.

I like the current idea that the very basics are f2p, and then it transforms more and more into play-to-earn as they progress in their journey in Illuvium. I think it is super important to educate new players while being on this journey on the game model so they see the paywall coming and don't get a blindside hit from it.

After reading a lot of other opinions in this proposal, I agree that we should stick to the plan, since this is what people bought into. A full F2P model has worked great for some games, but for Illuvium, it seems too risky to try and gamble on attracting a mainstream audience with F2P instead of doubling down on the audience we already built.

One of my favorite things about Illuvium is that one goal is to make competitive gaming available to a broader audience, and I don't think putting ranked rewards/tournaments, etc. behind a strict paywall is in that spirit. Of course, the most rare and expensive Illuvials should dominate the leaderboards, but there should also be something like 2% of players with T0 decks on the leaderboard doing, for example, some crazy strategy.

zealous dust
edgy token
zealous dust
fallen frost
# zealous dust A way a F2P might be nudged to P2E/O/or whatever the term is now is to allow T1-...

This sounds like a nice idea, but it could backfire. If you show new players the super cool Illuvial but also tell them they cannot have it, two reactions can come from that: "Wow, I want this. I will pay to get it" or "Wow, I can't have this without paying? Screw this."

It will be a very delicate task to try to ease new players into the concept of pay-to-own.

many games have free and paid battle passes next to each other. When you don't have the paid battle pass, you can see what you could unlock if you pay for it but can decide to stay on free-to-play and enjoy the smaller free rewards. I like that kind of transparency where on one page, you see what you get for free and for paying.

#

Of course, we cannot use Battle Passes in Illuvium, but the feeling it evokes in you is a good goal. You look at it, and you know what you can get if you pay for it and what you get if you don't. The same certainty about the paid and free-to-play model in Illuvium should be there after 2-3 hours of playing the game.

And also, the feeling of the free-to-play battle pass actually giving you goodies for free should be there. T0 Illuvium should be seen as something everybody wins when they start up Illuvium, instead of it being "only" the demo version.

static pine
#

I've read through a lot (not all) of the comments here and overall I disagree with this particular proposal, however I understand the intent and agree with it to a degree. Others have voiced ideas of providing rewards, and I'd like to echo that.

I think we do need to preserve the value of paid runs, but still provide breadcrumbs to allow people to see what they're missing and entice them to pay a bit here and there or really try to earn it.

The MOST IMPORTANT THING is keeping players engaged within the ecosystem. We don't want people to run out of spending cash for paid runs and then stop playing for the month.

Things I think we absolutely should implement:

  1. Introductory gameplay for new players. At the completion, enough fuel for a S1 run or two to show them the cool illuvials they are missing. This would need to be balanced such that spamming new accounts isn't really feasible, so the time sunk in the introductory gameplay should take a bit. Have the introductory gameplay breadcrumb them between Overworld, Arena, Survival, and IZ. They fire up the game, they jump in OW and get an intro, sent on a T0 run, goal to capture some illuvials. They get a breadcrumb and told about Survival and goals over there.

  2. Methods of earning some trickles of fuel by playing survival, arena, IZ F2P. We want them in the ecosystem playing the games. Something like the Fortnite Battlepass could work. Say it takes 1000 fuel to buy the Illuvium battlepass each "season". Leveling up your account can earn you some fuel (up to maybe 110-120% of your battlepass cost so say 1200 fuel rewards per season), along with some F2P goodies/cosmetics. So someone could buy 1000 fuel, then just play the games mostly F2P and earn enough fuel to renew battlepass plus a bit more, or they could spend it on paid runs. Getting XP to level up your account can come just from playing survival games, arena games, OW runs, IZ levels, daily quests... leading me to

  3. Daily incentives (character limit 😢)

#

As far as daily incentive, I'm not talking about fuel, but things like daily quests, holiday events, social events, things that make the ecosystem feel alive and cared for.

edgy token
#

Ok so after we finished summarizing all the feedback gathered here @glad vault and myself figured that it would be beneficial to have everyone brainstorming together about the all of the ideas proposed above by community members and we'd like to keep these discussions going so we made a new topic here https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1092824956611608637 specifically for the brainstorm. Feel free to join the party!

snow tapir
#

we have tier 0's, this is a blockchain game, why not give an ideal like this... "remove the blockchain" sheesh

snow tapir
#

i played planet calypso for years, nothing new compared to this... it was play to earn, they sat there for hours upon hours siphoning oil from the ground at the rate of about oh 0 to 1 per hour, obviously their siphoning skills improved, in essence, pennies per hour... they used this pennies, to get a small hunt, which could drop a gun, which might sell for $1 worth of tokens, they did this for years... the free players are not going to be inconvenienced in this model...they have stuff to do and earning potential

fallen frost
# snow tapir they can sell tier 0's and many will.... has everyone lost it? you can earn by ...

You missed the point of the conversation - it's about how to onboard new free-to-play players from the web2 space and encourage them to transition into the full paid game, rather than catering to the existing free-to-play audience in web3. Those 'penny farmers' will undoubtedly appreciate the T0 system, as you said, and nobody doubts that.
However, traditional gamers won't be convinced by the prospect of earning $1 per hour. They are at first primarily interested in the gaming experience; not the earning mechanics.

snow tapir
#

I did not miss anything, there is no need for a transition, its a choice, do you like the game or not

#

you can play the game with tier 0's why do they need to be spoonfed, is this game for infants?

fallen frost
# snow tapir I did not miss anything, there is no need for a transition, its a choice, do you...

The game is not even out yet, so we don't know if there is a need for a transition. For now, we are just exploring different ideas. These are ideas for when the game is up and running, as I explained to you in the other thread.

Yes, T0 could be enough, but if it's not, and we see a need to start tweaking the F2P model - we are ready. It could be a good idea to give F2P players a glimpse of what they could get by paying, by giving them a free test deck or rotating free Illuvials to try out and get hooked, like in League of Legends. Or, in the form of a battle pass like in countless of the top Games, to name just a few of the ideas the community has brought up in these discussions. I suggest you take the time to actually read the threads before starting to argue. Almost everything you have brought up is taken out of context, irrelevant, or has already been discussed.