#Game Design Feedback: Transitioning F2P to F2Try Model

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

undone kettle
#

(I am a developer with over 20 years of experience in the gaming & cooperate industries. I have built entire game systems and have worked at top Triple-A studios such as Hi-Rez, Blizzard, and Fallen Earth along with some of the worlds Largest Companies top Like Cigna,. This Feedback is Intended to Solve Core Issues in the Game Design that keeps leading us back to things like Stat Re-Rolls, and Burn Mechanics that are Just Symptoms of a poorly Designed Or Peace Together Game Landscape)

Overview
The current Free-to-Play (F2P) Gauntlet model primarily supports Illuvium as a company but does not effectively incentivize or support landholders or Illuvial NFT minters. While it allows for broad access, it fails to generate a meaningful bridge to Leviathan Mode due to the disparity in cost and performance between poorly-statted Illuvials (pennies) and highly competitive Illuvials (thousands). The proposed redesign would transform the F2P Gauntlet into a Free-to-Try (F2Try) mode, where players can freely explore the game but must own Illuvials to advance significantly.

This shift would:
Enhance Conversion Rates: Encourage more meaningful engagement and progression for players with a realistic cost of entry.
Support the Ecosystem: Boost demand for Illuvials, benefiting both Illuvium and landholders/NFT minters.
Create a Pathway to Leviathan: Provide a smoother bridge from casual play to competitive play, improving long-term player retention.

#

Current Issues
F2P Model Lacks Incentive for Ownership: Players can fully enjoy Gauntlet without owning any Illuvials, resulting in no demand for NFTs or land-produced resources.
Unrealistic Conversion Rates: Even with a large acquisition campaign (e.g., 1M USD), conversion rates to Leviathan are prohibitively low.
Hypothetical numbers:
500,000 players acquired at $2/player.
0.1% conversion rate to Leviathan = $2000 per Leviathan player acquisition cost.
This is unsustainable.
Cost Disparity: The cost gap between low-statted Illuvials and competitive ones creates a major barrier for players progressing to Leviathan.
Ranked Mode Balancing: Current F2P systems do not address balancing issues, making adjustments harder for casual and ranked play.

#

Proposed Changes
Switch to F2Try Model: Allow players to try the game for free but implement progression caps or disadvantages for non-owners.

Players can play indefinitely at low ranks, but to advance, they must own Illuvials.
Ownership would grant normalized stats and levels in ranked play.
This creates a low barrier to entry while driving demand for even low-cost Illuvials, boosting ecosystem participation.
Normalized Stats for Casual Ranked Mode:

Owned Illuvials receive normalized stats and levels, making any Illuvial viable in casual ranked play.
Non-owned Illuvials remain at base stats, creating a natural advantage for ownership.
Adjusted Acquisition Costs:

Focus on targeting a smaller audience with a higher likelihood of converting to ownership.
Example:
1M USD spent on ads for 100,000 players = $10/player acquisition cost.
2.5% conversion rate to Leviathan (industry average) = $400 per Leviathan player acquisition cost.
This is significantly more sustainable and aligns with the ecosystem's economic goals.
Integration with Landholders and Minters:

By increasing demand for even low-statted Illuvials, landholders and minters benefit from a steady market.
A balanced ecosystem where more players enter ownership ensures long-term health.

#

Benefits of Ownership in the Redesigned Gauntlet Model

Clear Progression Path: Owning Illuvials with normalized stats creates a stepping stone for players to upgrade their collection over time, focusing on improving specific Illuvials rather than feeling pressured to purchase an entire competitive deck for Leviathan.

Lower Barrier to Entry for Leviathan: Players no longer need to own perfect or near-perfect Illuvials to participate. Instead, they can gradually enhance their lineup, making Leviathan more accessible and reducing the intimidation factor of high upfront costs.

Encourages Experimentation: By starting with Illuvials that offer decent baseline stats, players can experiment with strategies and builds, increasing their confidence and readiness to try Leviathan Mode without feeling overmatched.

Smooth Transition to Competitive Play: Players naturally progress from casual ranked modes to Leviathan Mode as they upgrade their Illuvials, creating a seamless journey that lowers resistance to engaging in the highest levels of competition.

Sustainable Player Investment: Rather than feeling the need to "buy everything" upfront, players are encouraged to make smaller, incremental investments, fostering a more enjoyable and manageable long-term experience.

#

Implementation Plan
Redesign Current Gauntlet Mode:
Modify casual ranked to require ownership for progression.
Normalize stats and levels for owned Illuvials, offering an advantage without making the game pay-to-win.
Launch Marketing Campaign:
Target a narrower, more engaged audience (e.g., players with a propensity for investing in games).
Emphasize the low cost of entry and the pathway to competitive play.
Ecosystem Communication:
Clearly explain how the new system benefits all stakeholders, including players, landholders, and Illuvium as a company.

#

Closing Thoughts
By transitioning the F2P Gauntlet to an F2Try model, Illuvium can create a sustainable ecosystem that drives demand for Illuvials, supports stakeholders, and provides a clear pathway for new players to advance into Leviathan Mode. While this increases the cost of player acquisition, the tradeoff in improved conversion rates and ecosystem health makes it a worthwhile change.

smoky bronze
#

Thanks for the write up.
in this idea, do the players need to own a minimum amount of illuvials to progress each rank bracket?
for example 10 illuvials to progress to silver, 20 to gold, etc?

undone kettle
# smoky bronze Thanks for the write up. in this idea, do the players need to own a minimum amou...

The proposed model introduces soft gates instead of hard barriers, allowing players to progress without owning Illuvials but making it significantly more challenging to compete effectively at higher ranks. This approach fosters engagement without alienating free players, creating a natural incentive for ownership.

Soft Gates Defined:

Players can climb ranks freely, but their advancement becomes increasingly difficult due to the normalized advantages of owning Illuvials.
If a free player manages to reach mid-to-high ranks (e.g., High Silver), it’s an impressive accomplishment, reinforcing their investment in the game without requiring upfront purchases.
Why Not Hard Gates?

Hard gates, where non-owners are completely restricted from progressing, can alienate players and reduce retention.
Soft gates maintain accessibility while subtly encouraging ownership through gameplay advantages, preserving the welcoming nature of F2Try.

#

Mechanics of Normalized Stats
Owned Illuvials: Baseline Strength

All owned Illuvials are normalized to 3 stat points (e.g., attack, defense, speed). This creates a baseline strength advantage for ownership without over-reliance on RNG or perfect stats.
This mirrors Leviathan’s mechanics for units a player doesn’t own but shifts the normalization to owned units in casual ranked.
Balancing with Fine Controls:

Developers can fine-tune Illuvial stats by adjusting the baseline numbers for specific units (e.g., lower a slightly overpowered Illuvial’s attack stat from 3 to 2 while maintaining balance across all owned Illuvials).
Competitive Balance: This provides granular control for an esport environment, ensuring balance is achievable without rewriting the core system.
Non-Owned Illuvials: Standardized Stats:

Illuvials not owned by the player have lower baseline stats (e.g., set to 0 in this system).
This mirrors the Leviathan mode’s handling of non-owned units, ensuring consistency across modes.

brittle acorn
round dragon
#

Every illuvial should have its usecase!! Now, even if u find a ramphire in the ow it doesn't count if he have shitty stats, and this is sad!
You have to own the illuvials to participate in an tournament with a price pool! Whats the problem to make 2 leagues? one with ownership were stats dont matter and a second one like leviathan. I think it is affordable for everyone to buy or. hunt a shit stats team? Otherwise this person should stick with web2, in my opinion!

undone kettle
slim osprey
#

My fear is that influencers/reviewers will disregard it with a broad stroke and say it's all Pay 2 Win. Where as with a completely Free 2 Play mode it is not only fully accessible to all but shields us to some extent from these haters.

I think just copy TFT for Gauntlet. Get lots of users with good gameplay and features and make money on cosmetics. It's tried and tested, let's not try to reinvent the wheel on every last thing we do.

Gauntlet = make money from cosmetics.
Leviathan = make money from illuvials.

undone kettle
errant wave
#

I think you have something here imo 😊

I hope the team reads this and gets inspired 🤝

olive mulch
#

The F2Try model is a much more sensible choice. I understand why the team is so adamant on separating web2 from web3, but OTG has demonstrated that all it takes for web2 players to give crypto games a shot is through paid endorsements from enough streamers and influencers, which Kieran has already stated is going to be part of the plan for the upcoming Arena relaunch. Additionally, our current f2p model has no intrinsic way to convert players to Illuvial owners. Unless we're relying solely on skins and cosmetics as our revenue base, some form of f2try is the way to go if we want Illuvial NFTs to have any value in the future.

round dragon
#

I fully understand the team to make a f2p version, thats for sure the easyest way to get a lot of players in, also leviathan makes sense but i doubt that we get enough player who spent that much money, and in the OW you have to catch 100 illuvials to get a good one!
We could make a 2 league system in gauntlet!? One with stats, and one without. We need something in between f2p and levi.!
Otherwise the 99 percent of illuvials with bad stats are useless! What should i do if i find a ramphire with shitty stats in the OW? Use a t5 shard on it?

earnest plume
#

There is a better way to convert players from f2p to Levi without having to change the model, just add into it.

Make only players that own illuvials eligible for any leaderboard rewards. This can be done 2 ways:

  1. You earn rewards at the end of the season, based on how completed your collection of illuvials is. For example, you own 83% of all illuvials, you earn 83% of the allocation per player in the bracket you end up in, or
  2. Each non leviathan gauntlet tracks which units you use each game, at the end of a season those percentages add up, and forms a final percentage being eligible for the bracket allocation the player ends up in, for example you owned 63% of the units you used during the games in that specific season, so you are eligible for 63% of one player allocation in your bracket, for example gold 2.

In the end of the season, the player ends up getting 83% or 63% of the gold 2 allocation bracket for them. If the total allocation for that bracket for all players in gold 2 is 100ilv, and there are 200 players in gold 2, it means each player gets roughly 0.5 ilv if they all had 100% owned illuvials. Then you apply the % based on the actual illuvials used, some players will get more, some will get less. Kind of how the staking currently works with different weights.

Furthermore, neither mine nor your suggestion will completely solve the problem of having a ton of low stat useless illuvials, it will just help lower it down. But we will definitely need one or more burning mechanisms to tackle that issue. We have millions of illuvials minted, after a couple of months of sub optimal revenue.

If/once we reach the desired revenue for the studio to be self sustained, on a consistent basis month after month, the market will be infinitely times more flooded than it is right now even with a growing playerbase.

undone kettle
drowsy fiber
# undone kettle (I am a developer with over 20 years of experience in the gaming & cooperate ind...

Finding it hard to make a TLDR of your proposal as a lot of it is salesmanship but here I go:

  • Casual Ranked: Non-ownership leads to less stats than ownership itself. So say we implement this but non-owned get a 10% disadvantage
  • A progression system which requires ownership to progress <- still vague to me, what exactly is being progressed here? What do you get from being "progressed"?
  • Keep Leviathan Ranked as is?

I don't think going from OwnToPlay (Ascendant) to OwnForSmallAdvantage is a bad thing, it's a lot easier to digest than OwnToPlay, but I am worried that it will trigger the "unfair" label for new players due to whatever stat bonus we go for between Ownership and non-ownership. Does OwnToCosmetic (current model) really fall short of it though? Say we pay some influencer $100k and somehow end up with a pretty good funnel of 10k players from "web2" AND we have smooth-as-possible onboarding, one click and you own something from your bank account:

  • OwnToPlay: probably lose them right away as they cant try before buy and the amount of transactions/understanding needed to get there is substantial
  • OwnForSmallAdvantage: will play for a bit, but once they find out the advantage is pay-gated, the "unfair" trigger happens and they blame PayToWin or other stories to leave.
  • OwnToCosmetic: will play for a bit, see cosmetics (including ownership cosmetics) being used by others, buy a cosmetic or illuvial and go from there.

So assuming they like the game in all models (cause why spend money otherwise), its a battle of competitive paid advantage vs cosmetics

Unsure tbf

earnest plume
earnest plume
drowsy fiber
earnest plume
drowsy fiber
zealous shore
#

I think it makes sense to incentivise people to own Illuvials in the arena, regardless of stats. In the same way as it was originally thought for Ascendant mode, where you had to own the Illuvials to build your team with. and you didnt have to own every single one to start with, just the ones you would use.But with the move to gauntlet we obviously can use that model. I also think it’s a good idea to find a way, where you can start out by owning a few Illuvials and get some sort of “reward” for that, and progress by collecting the full sets. Maybe having 3 Leaderboards could work.

  • Gauntlet Normal - F2P (as is today)
  • Gauntlet Tournament - you need to own illivials to progress on the leaderboard.
  • Gauntlet Leviathan - Keep as is
    Normal & Tournament Gauntlet could be same lobby, but with enough players you would ideally be paired against other tournament players as a priority. (but you dont get any advantage in the game as stats are all normalised)

As a new player you would start out with the f2p, and if you like the game could go get a few illuvials and enter the tournament leaderboard, by adding more to your collection you could get to higher rank. By playing tournament you would also start to gain XP for your illuvials, so maybe you would want to try Leviatan at some point.

earnest plume
# drowsy fiber It can help, but how does it "solve" it?

It can solve it if you include stats/lvl of the illuvials, into the ownership requirement, as a power system. The higher the power level of each illuvial in your collection, the higher % of the rewards of your bracket you are eligible in.

So in the end if a player wants to maximize their seasonal profits, they have to slowly improve their collection.

That of course can be a bit overwhelming for new players. The rewards can be split into 2 tiers for each season, one tier you claim based on your ownership, and a second 'advanced' tier with a bigger allocation, that uses the power level system of each illuvial in the collection to measure the players rewards.

It depends what we want to prioritize, we can just leave it at ownership without including the stats etc, but that is one way to deal with multi accounting. Of course players can still multi account then, but they will have to complete a full collection of good stats in order to maximize their rewards for each account, that will mean if not fully mitigated it will greatly reduce it.

undone kettle
# drowsy fiber Finding it hard to make a TLDR of your proposal as a lot of it is salesmanship b...

TL;DR Response:

The proposal aims to shift "Casual Ranked" from the current OwnToCosmetic model to an OwnForSmallAdvantage system, where non-owned Illuvials receive slightly reduced/no stats (e.g., 10-20% disadvantage). This introduces a natural incentive to own Illuvials without hard-gating free players from progressing. Ownership provides tangible gameplay benefits, creating a gradual progression system: players start free, invest incrementally in Illuvials they like, and eventually transition to Leviathan Mode when they build a stronger collection.

Key points:

Progression System: Ownership unlocks stat advantages, enabling players to climb ranks more easily compared to non-owners, encouraging gradual investment over time.
Soft Ownership Incentive: Avoids hard-gating while making ownership meaningful in gameplay, balancing free access and competitive play.
Leviathan Mode: Remains unchanged, serving as the ultimate competitive mode with no stat normalization.
Addressing Fairness Concerns: While there’s a risk of the "unfair" label, the small advantage system is less alienating than OwnToPlay. It bridges casual play and Leviathan while keeping free-to-try viable.
Ultimately, the goal is to make ownership impactful without alienating free players, fostering a sustainable progression from casual play to competitive modes while supporting the game's ecosystem. Balancing competitive paid advantages vs. cosmetics will depend on onboarding clarity and ensuring the advantage feels rewarding, not exploitative.

drowsy fiber
drowsy fiber
drowsy fiber
undone kettle
# drowsy fiber Why not put this on the side of Leviathan instead (I know some community members...

Levithan already Requires Owenership? The problem is the Gap between Levithan and Free To Play Gauntlet and that F2P Gauntlet Brings little to Nothing to the Economy, the must common Items that F2P Gauntlet will sell is either Beyond Disk or Battle Boards. that Doesn't nothing for Fuel , or Illuvial Prices, If Gauntlet is is going to be our Primary Game the Primary game has to drive the Whole Economy? If we had a Player Base large enough you can have 3 modes 100% F2P , Owenership Model , Stats Model but we don't have it?

undone kettle
drowsy fiber
#

Probably works better for a web3 crowd though

undone kettle
# drowsy fiber I don't want to disregard the model don't get me wrong. I just think the pain of...

If players aren’t willing to spend a few dollars to start collecting teams they want after trying the game for free, they’re highly unlikely to ever invest hundreds—let alone thousands—on Leviathan. Focusing too much on avoiding the "P2W advantage" label sacrifices meaningful progression and monetization opportunities. Instead, the model should guide players naturally: free to try, affordable to start, and scalable for those who want to invest more. Building a player base that values ownership fosters long-term commitment, while catering only to free players dilutes the ecosystem and wastes resources without meaningful conversions.

#

Furthermore, focusing solely on Leviathan as the primary monetization system forces a compromise: making it more accessible to attract broader participation at the cost of alienating current whales. This approach risks diluting what makes Leviathan valuable—a high-stakes, elite competitive experience. By introducing meaningful, incremental monetization systems (e.g., owning Illuvials in Gauntlet), you create diverse revenue streams that bridge casual and competitive play, ensuring whales retain their premium experience while providing new players a clear and rewarding path to engage and invest. Balancing both tiers secures long-term sustainability without alienating core supporters.

drowsy fiber
#

My old Arcanite Reaper on the other hand, staring at those triple digits that just increased by 20%, never felt better

radiant cloak
zealous shore
#

I think a separate Leaderboard could be an option. where you enter the “Tournament leaderboard” just by owning Illuvials, But the leaderboard tiers is gated by points you will have to collect, just like you collected the milestone missions. (changed to owning instead of captured). To be able to progress to Bronze you need 1000 “Collection points”, Silver you need 3000 points etc. but the Stats and level doesn't matter and you could even compete in same games as the “F2P”. (but will be paired against other tournament players as a priority).

In any case, It’s not easy to predict what model will be the best… but I am sure we will need some way of “rewards” for owning Illuvials, that is the middle ground between the F2P and Leviathan.

smoky bronze
undone kettle
#

I Would Prefer Not to Have Hard Gates, Let people Earn Rewards if they Manage, to climb far enough to get rewards but make it easier by owning. If we just gate all the rewards behind a paywall that makes the point of playing F2P fun alone and with no drive it will make the game lose intrest quicily. If you sell they game as Free to Try . The Lowest Ranks will all be people that have zero to no illuvial so it will be fair and as you advance you'll need to keep collecting more to compete.

earnest plume
# undone kettle I Would Prefer Not to Have Hard Gates, Let people Earn Rewards if they Manage, t...

Bro since when does the point of playing f2p and having fun depend on how much you can earn? How about play cause the game is fun? Nothing else is sustainable. And if players want to earn anything besides cosmetics, I don't see why they shouldn't also dip their toes in the economy. Tournaments can be an exception to this.

Any type of gameplay p2w incentives in the competitive f2p mode, that's built for the sole reason of mass adoption, would be mildly put unwise.

earnest plume
undone kettle
# earnest plume Bro since when does the point of playing f2p and having fun depend on how much y...

I think your looking at the wrong models. This is not P2W its pay to own assets that are used in the game . Much like Table Top and TCG's you have to own the assets to play the game. In this way where just offering a free trial without buying anything but to really Compete you need to collect and build your teams. Its the method and the target audience. Thats why one problem here is targeting hard core TFT players. TFT was a game built with the goal of mainting retition not pure profit i don't think its a fair m odel to consider

kind lake
# undone kettle (I am a developer with over 20 years of experience in the gaming & cooperate ind...

I appreciate your extensive explanation. A little Salesy at times, but that shows you are really passionate about making this a reality.

When I read this, it feels like the own to play kind of model similar to how ascendant was meant to be.

I do like the normalized stats and the general feel. However in the end, I'm not sure it matters.

In reality it is just a leviathan lite mode. I'm not sure it will increase the value of the illuvials because people will just buy the cheapest 0 stat 0 level illuvials. Which for the most part are dust right now anyways.

I think It really just depends how we allocate the rewards for Gauntlet. If we make the pool large and spread out widely over the divisions in leviathan where even a gold player could be making some yield with a 50% stated and leveled illuvial. I believe that will drive more demand than having a leviathan lite mode where only the nasty illuvials are picked up.

This own to play model could also easily be off putting for any purely free to play player as well.

So I would feel we are better off putting some rewards for the top leaderboard of Ranked(pulling in a very large audience of free to play players in a traditional format)

Then a large amount spread out widely over the leviathan leaderboards

have tournaments for both.

I believe this will raise the floor price of high and mid stated and leveled illuvials more efficiently then the model you proposed. We have to accept that some illuvials are just not going to be valued at all. And I think that's fine. Same in Pokémon and other games. Some assets are just a waste.

And this hurts me specifically because I dumped 7k in the first couple days of open beta and just slammed illuvials together to get the #1 espial. And all my stats are basically around 30% trash. Which sadly was a bad play on my part.

undone kettle
#

1000 Players would take up like 150k so if we get over 5000 active players new Illuvials have to be farmed and i would wager there are several like lets say (Rampyhyre only 357 Exist total from Worst to best ) So the game doesn't have enough illuvials to have 500 Players with full Sets? I can do some More Math But it looks to me like simply requiring everyone to get a full set to have top advantage in The Ranked mode WOULD drastically effect the cost of Illuvial?

olive mulch
# kind lake I appreciate your extensive explanation. A little Salesy at times, but that show...

I do like the normalized stats and the general feel. However in the end, I'm not sure it matters.

It does matter because it's an inbuilt system that incentivizes users to at least own an Illuvial (which is currently as cheap as pennies).

In reality it is just a leviathan lite mode. I'm not sure it will increase the value of the illuvials because people will just buy the cheapest 0 stat 0 level illuvials. Which for the most part are dust right now anyways.

Short-term, it may not drastically increase values. Long-term, it's about creating a paying player that has been acclimated to the ecosystem. We're trying to play the long game here; it's about player conversion using foot in the door psychology. You want to give players small hurdles that incentivize them towards spending. Small steps like spending pennies for owning Illuvials will get players used to ownership at a small price. Then it becomes easier to sell them on the next thing until that player reaches their spending limit.

This own to play model could also easily be off putting for any purely free to play player as well.

From personal experience, that happens in games because the f2p content is trash to begin with, or too much content is gated behind paywalls. I've come from countless games that are f2try. All of the games I stuck with and spent money on hook me in with the free access content. The games have built-in systems that drive habits in me to get used to the premium content, which is made more accessible via spending money or time-gates. This is normal; web2 is used to this already. The f2try model addresses many of my early criticisms of Illuvium's game design philosophy.

The one concern I have is that even if we convert over to f2try, this is only one part of the overall issue. We still need better free access content and premium content with many more "soft" gates, and that is going to take time to implement elegantly.

severe vine
undone kettle
# severe vine Out of interest, what we’re the monetisation models at your AAA company’s games?...

I've worked on all sorts of game models Traditional Retail ( Ie, You buy the game for 49.99) , Subscription Models you pay 19.99 a month as well as games like Smite which are closer to the league of Legends Model. The Monetization Model has to Fit your Game. We have seen horrible examples of what happens when people try to take like a MMO and turn it into F2P with Monetization . The biggest thing that works for f2p games is they generally have Low Back In Requirements and the things they are selling you have no value and are not transferable . Thats why i'm highly speculaitve a F2P model in crypto spaces. I'm not against F2P models they work i just don't like its use here becuase i don't see it benfeting the whole economy. Let me give a difffrent use where a F2P version would benfit us. Lets say 9 months from now we have Tons of Players Illuvial Prices and Fuel Prices are Through the Roof. It cost 5 to 6 dollars to buy a tier 1 trash illuvial kind of scenario. In this scenario create a New F2P game mode becuase we have the player base to support it would be an Advertising expenses becuase now your creating a no stress entry point. But now we we need our Core game mode to be driving the Economy it makes little sense not to tie it to basic ownership.

severe vine
severe vine
# earnest plume Bro since when does the point of playing f2p and having fun depend on how much y...

These are my feelings exactly.

In honesty I come at this from the perspective of somebody who used to play games when you paid £30 and bought the pS3 disk at your local retail store. You buy the experience, you play for fun and compete with your mates.

The whole idea of needing to reward people to play what is supposed to be a fun experience seems alien to me tbh.

People used to pay to experience it, not get rewarded for it.

#

My reward used to be the experience of playing the game - crypto gaming seems to want to take us away from that 🤷‍♂️

undone kettle
# severe vine Thank you. Does the IBG concept work in your opinion? If you increase the dema...

Well we have a Complex Economy , But the Theory goes if we Increase Demand on Illuvial, We Increase Demand on Fuel, ( Once Illuvial Price Becomes To High and People Decided to Farm Either for themselves or to Sell ) , As Fuel Prices Go Higher we See More Engagment with Zero. So We have Several Meters that will keep Prices resonable for a common player while allowing perfect stated and high tier illuvial to be expensive ( Getting the Attention of the Average Web 3 player but keeping price of Entry approachavle for Web 2 Gamers ) . The biggest Pain point for Overworld (AS IS ) and Zero ( As IS ) , is we have no Demand for the illuvials other than perfect stated ones for Levithan and to be fair ( A grand Total of 0 ) Levithan Games have been played since the Ranger patch went Live. RIght Now our Prices are Really TO Low , We don't want to high for everything but we want Illuvials to have Percieved Value. So we probably wont illuvials to be worth $1 to $10 Dollars for bad stated ones. LIke a Good Magic The Gathering Card. People need to believe that when they are done with the Illuvial they can sell it.

radiant cloak
undone kettle
#

Its been a long Time I worked with them in the Early 2000's when they where still part of Vivendi Games , prior to being merged with Activision It was my first Job in the Space but where i learned alot about games 🙂

radiant cloak
undone kettle
#

It was fun but Sadly the Corporate World Pays way more than the Game Industry lol. Now i work with AI and Automation Tech. But Still love Gaming 🙂

severe vine
#

They are fixing the price of fuel, which is sensible as it removes a layer of complexity.

I don’t believe the biggest pain point of OW is no demand for the illuvials.

I believe most people who play creature capture games actually value collecting and keeping the creatures they catch, not the ability to sell and make a profit from them. In this genre, the game is the collection, not the financial side of selling/trading.

There are exponentially more people that would play Illuvium for the first purpose over the 2nd.

The initial cost of OW when we had most eyeballs was way too high and it gets boring quick going to the same massive regions to play 30+ min runs just to build a team for a completely different genre of game (autobattler) that they may not even be interested in playing (eg I’ve got no desire to play arena or sell my illuvials).

There’s no story, no reason why I’m collecting illuvials, no greater purpose to it.

And if you want to play leviathan arena, you may not even want to play OW (again very different genre). And to play you need to spend decent money for a competitive team, so there’s a huge cost gating to it and if demand for illuvials is good the cost goes even higher. OR you spend hours playing OW just to get started in Arena.

I just don’t see how the IBG element isn’t more than say 10-15% of the community in a separate game mode.

Personally feel each game needs a mode where the purpose is solely related to that game, not ‘illuvial ownership’

Please show me where I’m wrong though 🙏(because certainly I don’t think Kieran and the team see it that way)

severe vine
undone kettle
keen burrow
#

I think this whole conversation boils down to whether it is desirable to have a thriving F2P player base. I don't like the idea of cannibalizing F2P. @proud yarrow has already said, and this should be obvious, that DAU numbers are huge from a valuation/raise standpoint. Converting DAU to paid is something Illuvium will crush in the future (its an IBG with lots of ways to appeal to different gamers). We also have more illuvial utility on the way to really drive the paid player conversion % (OW breach, quests, blueprints, training gyms, etc.) I am a fan of our current direction which creates a whole competitive F2P scene that drives DAU.

Here is a would you rather hypothetical?

  1. Have 5M Gauntlet Casual/Ranked F2P DAU w/ $1M rev/month
  2. Have 500K Gauntlet Leviathan DAU w/ $2M rev/month

IMHO:

  • Converting a large F2P DAU player base to P2W = good problem to have
  • Getting new players in the door and getting them to stick around the Illuvium IP = bad problem to have
undone kettle
# keen burrow I think this whole conversation boils down to whether it is desirable to have a ...

The idea of a thriving F2P player base is appealing, but relying solely on F2P to sustain our core game mode is unsustainable for the ecosystem. This isn’t TFT. TFT was designed to retain League of Legends players—not to generate profits or support an entire ecosystem like Illuvium.

Our ecosystem requires monetization to support landholders, NFT minters, and long-term game development. While DAU metrics are important for valuation, they don’t drive direct sustainability. Converting F2P players into paying users is key—but if they’re unwilling to spend a few dollars to start collecting Illuvials they love, expecting them to spend significantly in Leviathan is unrealistic.

Instead of focusing solely on F2P retention, we should strike a balance:

Create an engaging F2Try experience that retains DAUs.
In your hypothetical:

500K Leviathan DAU with $2M revenue/month is a healthier model for the ecosystem and whales than a bloated 5M F2P DAU with $1M revenue/month, which strains resources and devalues core assets as well as Increase Server Cost and Stability.

Our direction should emphasize a hybrid approach: a solid F2Try foundation to attract players, with a natural progression to ownership and competitive play to sustain the economy and create meaningful value for all participants.

undone kettle
# keen burrow I think this whole conversation boils down to whether it is desirable to have a ...

Point on Assumptions and Conversion Rates

Let’s break down the assumptions for the comparison:
Standard F2P Conversion Rate (2.5%):

In most F2P games, only ~2.5% of players convert to paying users.
For 5M F2P DAU, that’s 125K paying players, generating $10 per player for cosmetics.
Total: $1.25M revenue/month.
Leviathan Players Generating $5/Month:

Assumes 500K engaged Leviathan players, generating $5 each from gate fees, trades, and participation in Illuvial-driven gameplay.
Total: $2.5M revenue/month.
Server Costs:

Multiplayer game server costs can range from $0.50-$2 per active DAU/month, depending on activity and complexity.
With 10x more players, 5M DAU dramatically increases server costs (e.g., $2 per DAU = $10M server cost vs. $1M for 500K DAU).
The F2P model significantly strains resources while providing lower revenue, eating into profitability.
Conclusion:
The question fundamentally misses the mark because the choice is clear—I would always pick the 500K Leviathan players. They provide higher revenue, lower server costs, and a more engaged player base. However, in my model, this isn’t an either/or scenario. Gauntlet players contribute to the economy as well.

By incentivizing Gauntlet players to gradually invest (e.g., collecting Illuvials or participating in soft gates), they generate revenue in addition to Leviathan players. This hybrid approach ensures:

Gauntlet remains accessible to new players.
Players naturally progress into Leviathan, contributing at every stage.
With both groups contributing, you achieve a thriving ecosystem that drives sustainability and scalability, without forcing an unsustainable F2P-heavy model.

keen burrow
# undone kettle Point on Assumptions and Conversion Rates Let’s break down the assumptions for ...

The choice isn't clear as there is an "eventual" conversion rate on the 10M DAU in my scenario. One that neither of us has contemplated in our examples. Those players don't stay F2P forever, they convert or leave eventually. Illuvium will be giving them more reasons to stay than any other platform over time. The 500K may be the winner in the short-run, which is the problem I see with your approach. Illuvium "is" and "should be" playing the long game as well, which is what many of us find exciting.

undone kettle
#

Now the assumption is if you keeep putting out cool cosmetics you may get mutiple cosmetic purchases but i was trying to keep it simple and not get into transaction Volume and things like that but in order to increase your numbers of paid players in the f2p model its not TIME that matters but NEW players. Becuase you will continue to get 2.5% of all new players to purchases cosmetics

keen burrow
#

Basically I think IBGs will blow the 2.5% out of the water. And illuvium has the best. Imagine all 4 games at web2 standards. @proud yarrow has said he regrets doing all 3 at once but i dont. I think it was a blessing in disguise. Illuvium will be the fastest to realize IBG benefits. That is the big bet and the promise of blockchain. You have some great points. There are probably more than one way to get there. I'm ok with the current approach. Just my humble opinion...and my money is where my mouth is 😉

fallow stag
# undone kettle This is a Bad Analogy, One the Money made from Cosmetics doesn't Work to help th...

I agree with the statement of @slim osprey above yours.

f2p gauntlet combined with beyond will be the biggest driving factor and most important monetization, because stuff like this just works. For that reason I think beyond wave 3 should be extended until the team performs the big marketing push.
Since the EcoSystem will change to fixed prices and one unified fuel sort, I assume landowners will just receive a portion of the revenue based on their burned fuel contribution. So, any revenue increase through beyond would benefit land.

I am not in general against an additional "leviathan light" game mode, but having three game modes would split the playerbase quite a lot. I think it is better to balance the stat impact for leviathan a bit to lessen the advantage of perfect stat Illuvials.
In the end Leviathan won't be a big factor anyway, because it will remain p2w (even with your model) and web2 hates p2w more than anything. So, most people will sit with f2p gauntlet + cosmetics. Games like dota2 make millions with a f2p model.

Bottom line is that beyond is the most important monetization and should be aligned with any marketing. With drone runs and good incentives web3 will produce additional income via gauntlet, but that mode, even if modified, will never reach mainstream web2.

undone kettle
# fallow stag I agree with the statement of <@167672546567651330> above yours. f2p gauntlet ...

The idea that Web2 Hates P2W is Wrong , look at Hearthstone with 200 Million a Year of Revenue must of that the mobile gaming market is a P2W advanatge in 2023, global mobile game spending reached approximately $76.7 billion through in-app purchases. Your personal fillings toward P2W or More likley a Pay to Play models like Hearthstone ( and i would say the illuvium model where you own assets to play ) aside it works.

fallow stag
# undone kettle The idea that Web2 Hates P2W is Wrong , look at Hearthstone with 200 Million a Y...

sure, card and especially mobile games are an exception to my statement. Another example would be raid shadow legends. Still, PC gamers mostly reject p2w mechanics and for now gauntlet is exactly that. I am also not sure if gauntlet can transition to a good mobile game which would allow to be part of those excpetions, because to me it seems difficult to manage a good interface in which shop and placement work. Hearthstone has a mobile app as well. So, I would say these examples for now aren't comparable at all and we would make a hugh mistake to think that pc gamers will change their sentiment regarding this topic.

olive mulch
# fallow stag I agree with the statement of <@167672546567651330> above yours. f2p gauntlet ...

It was mentioned that the cosmetic route is the last option for monetization if all else fails, so it's safe to assume that the f2p + cosmetic option is not the preferred method by the game devs.

I think it's not a good way to judge what players want by lumping all of web2 into 1 category and saying they collectively hate p2w mechanics. I think this is your own personal bias as there are many titles that have predatory p2w game models that are understandably detestable, but there are also others that have put out a p2w game that is also highly acclaimed, supported (monetarily), and loved by the web2 community.

It's not the p2w mechanics that are the problem, it's the execution.

fallow stag
#

Also selling cosmetics seems to be one of the most successful monetization out there. I don't see why that shouldn't be a priority for f2p gauntlet.

olive mulch
olive mulch
fallow stag
# olive mulch Warframe is an example. Action RPG FPS that sells a premium currency and has a l...

okay, tried to look this up, so, it is obviously not accurate, but it seems the p2w share for warframe isn't that important, because pvp doesn't seem to matter a lot, which means you are just skipping ahead and are flexing on npcs, so, nobody gets a disadvantage through that. Genshin as you said is available on mobile as well.
So, I would say those aren't that comparable again.
Ok, we could say there is a portion of web2 that could be interested in pc only p2w games, but leviathan is an extreme example for a p2w game. Without hitting the mobile market I really can't see that happening, even, if we offer a lite leviathan version. So, I think we would just split the playerbase.
What I can see is f2p gauntlet + beyond (this could be super big an more than enough on its own) and Leviathan with some balance changes for stats if mobile arena is possible

olive mulch
fallow stag
# olive mulch Fair enough. I do see more of the p2w PvP auto-battler genre in mobile gaming th...

well, I guess you can do both as planned.
f2p gauntlet + beyond for web2
lev. gauntlet for web3 enthusiast can be successful with incentives. Obv. mobile would help for that. But it will never break the web2/web3 barrier without mobile. I would even say that it will have a very hard time to break that barrier at all. That doesn't mean it cannot be successful in the boundaries of web3. I just don't see the mass adoption part for leviathan (without mobile).

olive mulch
# fallow stag well, I guess you can do both as planned. f2p gauntlet + beyond for web2 lev. ...

I think I can agree with this notion. Mobile gamers are already used to p2w mechanics so it would be an easier sell. I can see it working especially if Illuvials can be obtained via traditional gacha banner pulls.

Have you kept up with Guild of Guardians? I think their system works quite well to integrate web2/web3 for mobile gaming in the PvP auto-battler genre. I'm curious to know if what they've done falls in line with what you think Leviathan on mobile should look like in terms of monetization and NFT ownership.

fallow stag
# olive mulch I think I can agree with this notion. Mobile gamers are already used to p2w mech...

barely kept up with gog. Played it some weeks directly after release, but got too bored. I can't really estimate how high the entry barrier to have some pvp chances is by now, but for them it also doesn't matter so much, because a f2p player can still play normally in his bracket and slowly add a hero here and there. Illuvium on the other hand aims for quite the entry barrier even with this suggested lite version. So, the playerbase for L-gauntlet won't be gigantic. That being said reducing the entry barrier by bringing perfect and decent stat Illuvials closer to each other in regards of their performance should work without splitting the playerbase over two game modes.
As far as I understand it we already have a similar approach, because you can play L-gauntlet without any nfts, but you would get 0% lvl 1 Illuvials, while owners get a hugh advantage. We can as said always reduce that advantage by decreasing the impact of stats or levels. We could also say that you get 0% lvl 40 Illuvials or you get lvl 1 Illuvials for stage 1, level 20 for stage 2, lvl 40 for stage 3 without owning any nft.
So there are already ways to adjust that system to be comparable to gog, which causes people to sit in their spending areas. Looking at gog this should get incentivized by offering the chance to win nft-Illuvials based on your session performance. So, players would think they can grind their way up, which isn't really true (as it is in gog), because it still is p2w. At some point people invested so much time in their grind up that it is ok for them to spend x$.
So, yes, psychology wise gog makes a way better job to suck people into paying for the game (the same way raid shadow legend does it). Illuvium in general isn't good at addressing the psychology of gamers atm.

olive mulch
olive mulch
# fallow stag barely kept up with gog. Played it some weeks directly after release, but got to...

On the topic of bridging non-NFT characters with NFT characters on the same ladder, GoG has a progression system that DOES actually reward players with ways to convert their non-NFTs to NFTs based on player performance. However, that works because every obtainable character is standardized, unlike Illuvium where every Illuvial has unique traits. My personal opinion is we pigeon-holed ourselves too hard with the current trait system and created a very hard problem to solve of naturally bridging web2 with web3.

fallow stag
# olive mulch On the topic of bridging non-NFT characters with NFT characters on the same ladd...

I think we could just implement a similar progression system that works for our system. Illuvium could just hand out Illuvials based on season placement. For example top x of wood league get random T1 Illuvials with 0/30 base up to obsidian league which gets t3-t5 Illuvials with 15/30 baseline for stats. If done well enough people would start playing in their league and can work their way up.
Raid shadow legends does this perfectly. Every week you have some sort of competition that allows you to get something that feels good, because it enhances your deck just a little.
Illuvium in general can learn a lot in terms of psychology in that area. If done with the right ratio people get sucked into spending without decreasing the value of good stat Illuvials, because the playerbase would grow faster than the amount of good stat Illuvials.
Copying a raid shadow legends system could work pretty well, because it is scalable, keeps people engaged and slowly sucks them in:
Every week you create a sub-leader with 1000 people in them. Performance for the week gets measured by a metric and top 10 get a reward.
We would just have to adjust it for our ranking system. In the end it is just important that it feels good psychology wise and that the time frame between rewards and reset of the sub-scoring is short (maybe even 3-5 days) to keep people engaged.
I think this is way more important as a system than handing out ILV as rewards, because people could just play the game and get some assets which improve their team automatically, without checking the marketplace and at some point they consider to fill the gaps to rank up faster.
re-iterating on stats: Handing out some free Illvuials based on placement won't flood the market with good stat Illuvials and it isn't botable, especially, because gauntlet isn't too easy to bot.
So, we could also combine that with the splinterlands league system, which has a soft reset every week and hands out rewards weekly based on your league.

#

*In splinterlands that doesn't worked for me, because I was pretty late and the game has around zero agency, which is not the case at all for gauntlet. So, the splinterlands approach should work pretty well for gauntlet.

olive mulch
# fallow stag I think we could just implement a similar progression system that works for our ...

I think there is a lot to be said on this and something I've reiterated many times, and that is we have so many great examples to draw from to make this system work. TFT works as an f2p game kept afloat on cosmetic sales so that makes sense for what's being worked on right now in f2p gauntlet.

The concern I have is how we could expand on the mobile Leviathan Arena concept. Right now, content and development is split across Overworld (PC only) and Arena (PC/possibly mobile) which would traditionally be encapsulated in one game. These would be things like the story, PvE, PvP, quests, resource farming, etc. I feel like that makes it harder to capture market share in the mobile genre when competing against full standalone titles like Raid: Shadow Legends.

We would need to shift Arena away from being just a TFT inspired auto battler to becoming more like a traditional gacha auto-battler if the mobile market becomes the focus for Leviathan, which means the development of story, PvE, resource farming, etc should be done within Arena as a standalone.

This would require more time to develop content on top of porting Arena to mobile which would require a big shift in focus for the dev team. In this light, OPs idea seems more easy to achieve in our current situation and for the current development goals.

What are your thoughts on this?

fallow stag
# olive mulch I think there is a lot to be said on this and something I've reiterated many tim...

Two things:
1st:
I still think that the current Leviathan offers enough changeable parameters that can be changed to lessen (or in general adept) the entry barrier without repeating the mistake of too many game modes. This is exactly why we ascendant was moved in the interface. Three different gauntlet game modes are one too many. It is also not advisable to delete the original L-gauntlet mod, because people would riot.
Parameters:

  • impact of levels and stats
  • changing base level of Illuvials that aren't owned as nft
  • season based progression system with Illuvials as rewards similar to gog which creates the option/illusion of progress without paying.

Again splinterlands has a good system but a low agency game, which makes it too extreme p2w and copy paste (similar to our ascendant).

2nd:
I don't think that it is necessary to have more than an arena to be able to enter the mobile sector.
Clash royale for example is a pure 1on1 arena game without any story with more than 10 Million DAU.

Bottom line for me is that I am only again the suggestion of this thread, because we would again have to many game modes and split our playerbase. Also it isn't possible to go back on stats-based L-gauntlet without causing a riot that is likely to destroy the entire reputation of this project.

olive mulch
undone kettle
# fallow stag Two things: 1st: I still think that the current Leviathan offers enough changeab...

We’re not suggesting a third game mode. We’re proposing modifying the current Gauntlet to include ownership incentives. New players can still play the game as much as they want, but they’ll be encouraged to buy a few affordable Illuvials for the team comps they enjoy. With so few Illuvials currently available, even just 500 new players would absorb the entire supply, driving up prices and supporting the entire economy.

Players unwilling to spend even a few dollars are not our target audience. Going the fully Free-to-Play route would undermine the value of Overworld and Illuvium Zero. We’d essentially be throwing away those modes, along with the economic foundation they’re meant to support. This proposal keeps the ecosystem intact while ensuring new players can easily get involved.

fallow stag
#

same arguments as before:
f2p gauntlet + beyond is a secure way of getting popular, make money and gain people to enter web3.
L-gauntlet can be modified in many ways to be accessible, enjoyable and offer ways for users to develop their team over time.
I don't see a reason at all to change one of those.
Your calculation implies that f2p gauntlet won't generate money, which is completely wrong. Many games with systems like this make millions.
Your conversion rate of 0.1% can me modified by adjusting the L-gauntlet parameters I talked about.
Zero can benefit as stated above by distributing 5% of overall revenue to the overall burned (selling fuel from plot = burning) fuel during a month.
f2p is the gateway to mass adoption and success, close it and we are in trouble.

undone kettle
# fallow stag same arguments as before: f2p gauntlet + beyond is a secure way of getting popul...

No, F2P Gauntlet + beyond is not a “secure way.” It’s a dream that doesn’t align with reality. F2P games rely on a tiny percentage of players—around 2.5% at best—to spend on low-value, infinitely resellable items like cosmetics. The other 97.5% of players bring no income and only add to server costs. And that’s for cosmetics; the conversion rate to something like L-Gauntlet would be even worse—closer to 0.1% or lower, making it virtually nonexistent.

Illuvium isn’t a traditional F2P game. It’s a Web3 ecosystem built on ownership and sustainability. F2P doesn’t support that model. It doesn’t generate the income needed to sustain or grow the economy, and it doesn’t align with the value of Web3 assets. Hoping F2P players will convert to something as high-stakes as L-Gauntlet is pure wishful thinking.

We need a system grounded in reality, not hopes and dreams. That’s why Free-to-Try with ownership incentives makes sense. It allows new players to engage meaningfully, invest incrementally, and progress without compromising Leviathan or the economy. F2P doesn’t get us there—it’s just a resource sink. Let’s focus on building something sustainable, not chasing a fantasy.

fallow stag
#

making billions with f2p concepts is proven in many different ways. What isn't proven is the web3 stuff you write here. Not saying web3 won't work, we can keep L-gauntlet for that, but since you write your opinion (yes, it is only an opinion not facts) in absolute it seems we can conclude by agreeing that we disagree on this topic, since I have described everything in my posts above.