Web2 Scale, Web3 Value

[rustic stone]

This proposal outlines a strategy to position Illuvium MMO Lite as a premium AAA-quality indie game, designed to reach mainstream Web2 players while preserving Web3 ownership as an optional and earned layer. The objective is to transform Illuvium’s existing content and systems into a sustainable commercial product that supports long-term development and ecosystem health.

Illuvium MMO Lite would launch at a $14.99 price point, delivering 20+ hours of polished gameplay across two regions, with full access to exploration, combat, and progression systems. The pricing is intentionally set to reduce onboarding friction and encourage adoption from players unfamiliar or skeptical of Web3-origin titles, while still positioning the game as a premium experience.

Post-launch growth would be driven through region-based DLC packs priced at $9.99, each delivering approximately 15 hours of additional story gameplay. Two additional regions are already developed and ready for release, enabling a realistic content pipeline and allowing Illuvium to operate as a live AAA-indie franchise rather than a one-off launch.

Monetization beyond base sales and DLC focuses on Fuel as an in-game currency used exclusively for cosmetics, skins, emotes, and visual customization. Fuel remains non-pay-to-win, earnable through gameplay, and purchasable for convenience.

Web3 integration is optional and progression-based. Existing Illuvial NFT holders retain immediate in-game utility, while new players may unlock the option to mint Illuvials only after completing the base game, reinforcing NFTs as premium ownership rather than access requirements. The proposal also includes forward-looking consideration for Illuvium Zero, with future integration driven by increased player demand rather than dependency at launch.

Full proposal and supporting data:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19o9dV_U_NafEur85wl35KBrwALitG7lW/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=113463088701978764558&rtpof=true&sd=true

[flat cypress]

Read my mind, excellent strategy.

I would note that I'd like to see NFT Illuvials play a more major role, but maybe its postgame content type stuff.

Also you don't need to create constraints around gameplay time. Eg. DLC could easily be 10 hours of gameplay, better than 5 extra hours of fetch quests for example.

[rustic stone]

Noted. I wanted to be specific on gameplay but that is open to change, it definitely would need to be looked into by devs, what is viable and cost efficient

[ocean nacelle]

I love the proposal in especially the thought about that the NFT is something premium and no one obstacle

[gritty violet]

Sounds cool and very well thought out. Could you help me understand why this would be better than a player pass subscription model with added purchases to turn Illuvials into nfts? Do gamers prefer 1 up front cost to a subscription model?

[rustic stone]

Yes, this is a great point and one I did not take lightly.

There are basically two paths in my mind. One is the F2P route: free entry, battle pass, cosmetics, heavy live monetization. And yeah, instinctively that sounds attractive because downloads will obviously be higher. But the downside is retention is worse, monetization is extremely whale-driven, and realistically you need millions of players before it really works. Given where we are today, I’m honestly not confident we can polish the game enough or support that kind of live-service pressure without burning a lot more runway.

The other option is a low-price premium core. I genuinely believe we can ship 20 hours of solid story-driven gameplay that’s worth $14.99. Hitting ~100k sales at that price is not some crazy outcome that’s a pretty normal result for a good indie game. It’s not going to pay back historical dev costs overnight, but it does create real revenue, starts feeding RevDis, and gives the crypto side something positive to anchor to instead of pure speculation. From there, extending the game with regular DLC packs feels like something we can actually execute well.

[steady smelt]

The problem with this from what I see is - 100k sales of 15$ = 1.5mil. With the current revdis distribution and the 800k gaming tokens in Treasury assisting it - that is enough to sustain the DAO for one month. Meaning if this is to work, we should release a dlc every month. Or we need a to scrap revdis altogether. Thoughts?

[rustic stone]

Good observation and the 100k sales would be the lower end of having a good release. But as it stands right after having ICCP-22 approved all that revenue would go to the safety pool adding 1.4 million of hard cash to it.

Selling at least 100k copies in my opinion opens up real revenue (cash up-front), bring web2 eyes to the ILV universe (this will move the steam algorithm) and give us a real chance for a break out opportunity. I find it a realistic path to success and not pure speculation.

My question to you is how do you see us making millions in revenue if we stay in our current lane?

[ebon frigate]

Great job Tholky, I really like the idea and it looks like you put alot of effort into it. This strategy feels way more familiar to me. I'd be more inclined to buy a title that has a good story and play it when I have the time then squeeze what I can out of a month or 2 of a subscription then drop it. That goes only for me, I don't know the statistics of the typical game nowadays.
The main question I have reading the document would be, what is the point for me to mint my illuvial as an NFT? Why would I want to pay to do that, especially once I'm done playing the "story" part?

[steady smelt]

The safety pool will be filled eventually. Selling 100k copies to web2 players would be a massive success in my opinion, and not an easy task at all. If we can achieve that, everything would be alot easier after. I think if we rely on a one time purchase and a story mode, even 10k copies would be hard to sell because not much sets us apart from similar content.

In my personal opinion the monetization should always be around illuvial capturing and a never ending grind to max out a collection. That way it's on a more recurring basis. If it will net us the needed revenue is another story, depends on how it's done and alot of other things.

[rustic stone]

Good question. We’ve already built Illuvial utility beyond just finishing the game. Once a player completes it and starts digging deeper, they naturally discover Gauntlet tournaments, the IlluviDex, and collection leaderboard rewards.

By that point, they’ve already bonded with their Illuvials through gameplay. That matters a lot, it makes them far more likely to want to compete with them, trade them, or give them real value instead of seeing them as throwaway assets. Finishing the game isn’t the end, it’s the on-ramp into the wider Illuvium ecosystem.

I want to share some great side notes that @regal stone shared with me.....hopefully the bot does not flag it as spam again

.
.
.
.
.

Option 1: Upfront Sale
Sell the game at a low price point and gather money upfront to produce at least 4 DLCs over 2 years.
Option 2: Subscription Model
Offer the game through a subscription model at a very cheap price (half the price of the upfront sale option).
Context:

Indie game with no active community currently
Strong art direction (a real gem visually)
Lacking late game content/concept
Team is running out of money

Option 1 (upfront sale)** is almost certainly the better choice**
Why:
Lower psychological barrier - People are much more willing to spend $10-15 one-time than commit to a subscription, even if it costs $5/month. Subscription implies ongoing commitment.
Immediate cash flow - You're low on money NOW. Upfront sales give you immediate liquidity to continue development. With subscription model, you accumulate slowly and risk not reaching critical mass.
No community = death for subscription - Subscription models work when you already have a loyal player base. Without an active community, you'll have very high churn rate (people try 1 month and cancel).
Platforms like Steam favor sales - Algorithms, wishlists, sales events, visibility in charts. Subscriptions on indie games are nearly invisible.
Social proof - "10,000 copies sold" sounds better than "500 active subscribers" even if mathematically they bring the same revenue.
Recommended strategy:

Launch at accessible price ($12-20)
Early Access if late game is lacking - be transparent about roadmap
First DLC free for those who buy in first few months (incentive for early adopters)
Heavy marketing on visuals/art - it's your strong point, use it for viral clips/trailers
Aggressive Steam wishlist campaign pre-launch

When to consider subscription:

Only IF after 6-12 months you've built a solid community
As additional option (not exclusive) like an "internal Game Pass"
For continuous live-service content

The risk with subscription is burning your only launch opportunity without generating enough buzz or money. With upfront sales you have more margin for error.

[steady smelt]

Slapping a subscription model 6-12 months later is one of the worst things we can do. It will always be accepted negatively. You either start with one or you don't.

Upfront cost - only if you truly believe in your product. If we think it's going to outshine the competition based on gameplay alone, we can try (will provide us with a few months of band aid at best).

If we want revdis to work, and take things in their current shape and form, an f2p model with a playable demo version of the game that later on scales and monetizes the end game one way or another, would be the best approach. We can always do the dlcs, cosmetics, passes etc as time goes.

We can take Warframe for example. A MMO lite. Polished gameplay, beautiful graphics, a ton of content - and it's fully f2p. You can buy stuff with money but you can also grind to progress f2p. We should aim at something similar that covers the largest % of players as possible

The idea is for whales to be able to spend and get what a normal player would have to grind daily for (there will be exceptions). We can also do guild events where whales and casual players compete together against other guilds (I have a cool idea for this). That approach, provided it's done right, can net us both revenue and large playerbase exposure

[rustic stone]

Slapping a subscription model is just an option in case we wanted to do a hybrid system with the DLCs but I agree that we need to pick a lane and stick with it. The problem I see with your vision for the F2P route is how long can we financially stand on what you said ''f2p model with a playable demo version of the game that later on scales and monetizes the end game one way or another". I've been hearing proposals like this with no clear structure and I want to avoid repeating past mistakes.

[rustic stone]

Reaching a larger audience early doesn’t automatically translate into active or retained players. And to be clear, I’m not dismissing the F2P route it is a very strong option. The concern I have is that its success depends heavily on reaching tens of millions of players, which is a very high bar. Without that level of scale, cosmetic and BP driven monetization simply doesn’t move the needle in a meaningful way.

If there’s a strong hypothesis or evidence that we can realistically reach that kind of scale with F2P in our current situation, I’m genuinely open to changing my stance. My hesitation is mostly about risk and execution, not ideology.

That said, even if the F2P path does get us to tens of millions of players, that still implies we have a product strong enough that a meaningful portion of that audience would be willing to pay. If we’re able to convert even ~50% of that demand through a premium model, we’re still talking about tens of millions in revenue, with cash upfront and without even factoring in cosmetics or secondary monetization.

So to me, the question isn’t whether F2P can work in theory, it clearly can, but whether it’s the lower risk path for us right now compared to a premium-first approach.

[steady smelt]

I feel you, but the same things apply to each path we take. It's always going to be about risk and execution.

For example in this thread, we estimate sales of 100k (as a low metric?). How did we come up with this number? Based on previous ones? What if we do 1000 sales instead, as players have plenty of other options and we are gating their entrance behind an upfront cost?

Nothing is guaranteed, it's about giving ourselves the best fighting chance.

And for the record I'm not advocating for a full f2p model. The game can be f2p but part of the end game and collecting to be monetized.

Our main source of revenue should be illuvials recurring capturing, with players looking forward to improving their collections - for as many reasons as we can provide them with. MMOs are the min/max genre, this fits perfectly. Another monetization can be around end game content, dungeons, raids and gear - in ways of keys, crafting etc.

On crafting alone we can do alot of stuff, which can also be monetized.

And now would be a good time to decide finally which model will be used. So that the proper features and content can be built around it. I'm just sharing my opinion as well

[wild nova]

Counter Proposal:

A Central Game that unifies the ecosystem, something small but extremely functional, target mobile.

Game launches into a 2D menu as a hologram look floating over a 3D skin of a background with a parallax effect to show off the design aspect.

From the HOME menu u would see the profile pic in top left that could be linked with beyond

Options to click on could be:

CHALLENGE
-REQUEST a battle, pulls up a QR code to be scanned
-ACCEPT a challenge, accesses camera to scan QR code
-RANDOM BATTLE connects with someone online, options for no risk battles or risk to earn battles

FUSION
-Option to re-introduce fusion if not in the MMO

SKINS
-Menu to View your set skin with no obstructions or to hold down on the screen to bring up the menu to change it

TOURNAMENT engage in online tournaments of varying sizes from 16 players to 32 players or 64, etc

ILLUVIDEX access the illuvidex to buy or sell

SETTINGS typical stuff, include render quality options

INVENTORY place to view any assets in the illuvium ecosystem

CAMPAIGN small story aspect to allow free players to connect with the ecosystem while maybe earning some T0s

ANNOUNCEMENTS include any info regarding updates to Zero, Events in MMO, seasons or leagues in Arena

This would be its own game with a easier version of the arena to get people to dip their tows in, smaller board, 3v3 illuvial autobattle, they select positions before it runs, giving them small practice into autobattle strategies, likely many will get bored of 3v3 and migrate into arena, some may like the quality of the assets and seek out more into MMO for visuals and getting illuvials

Would be stepping stone game into the ecosystem while acting as an anchor point app for the ecosystem, seems like most of the assets needed might already be made in high quality and could be a relatively quick build after MMO launch keeping people engaged with illuvium when on the go

[austere garden]

I think both ways could be fine. It is all about content, gameplay and execution:

1. Will the MMO Lite focus more on solo gameplay or group gameplay? You mentioned the DLCs will add "15 hours of story gameplay". Will there also be updates for group play? I personally do not care about cosmetics e.g. skins, emotes etc. when I am mainly playing a single player game
2. From a marketing perspective it needs to be clear what we are aiming at. Single player or multiplayer. I am basically living in this discord and I am not sure what the focus is.
3. We probably need to pay streamers to play the game otherwise no one will find it on Steam.
4. 100k sales (on the low end) seems a lot. How did you come up with these sales numbers? Illuvium has often assumed figures that are too high in the past. Less than 10% of all Steam games sell more than 100k copies. About 50% sell less than a 100. What sets Illuvium apart from all other games? I haven't played it yet, but do we really have AAA gameplay to even stand a chance? The game can't crash repeatedly like Arena did for so long, have lots of bugs, etc.
5. Are we switching completely from the Epic store to Steam as you mentioned and aggressive Steam wishlist campaign? If so Steam takes 30% of all revenue. So in your 100k sales example we only get about 1 million dollar. We also have to subtract marketing costs so our net positive will be pretty low compared to our monthly costs. Especially since I expect significantly fewer sales.
6. I think it's good that people aren't forced to mint their Illuvials as NFTs. However, I'm still unsure why anyone would want to do that at the end. What are the advantages? Currently, there is still no added value in owning Illuvials at all, except for defeating a few bots in the arena. I could do that even without my own collection. What systems are planned to motivate people to own and thus mint Illuvials?
7. Just something a bit different. I think land owners should get the base game for free

[wild nova]

When you look at the fact that limiting illuvium to PC, or even consoles, its not got much hope, even if u try to hit mobile with a full arena or ILZ, ILZ might seem boring to most people, Arena might be too overwhelming for new players, having a stepping stone game with a mini version of the arena down to 3v3 gets people started on the basics and gets them looking toward bigger versions, cant expect to grow when entry to pc gaming and consoles gets more expensive, but most people have a phone, and doesnt hurt to make it hub for people to access their assets on the go easily keeping engagement

[rustic stone]

Thanks for the feedback and for taking the time to raise these questions

1. Group play is important, and it’s already part of the design. Group based raids exist today and are actively being developed, so this isn’t a theoretical addition but something that will continue to expand alongside the solo experience.
2. As the title suggests, MMO refers to an online multiplayer experience that is primarily story driven and fully playable solo, while incorporating online elements such as shared social hubs, co-op encounters tied to main quests, and events or competitive modes.
3. A strong marketing push is non negotiable. This approach assumes a meaningful launch campaign, including visibility on storefronts and creator support, rather than relying on organic discovery alone.
4. 100k copies sold is used as a benchmark (see referenced articles) because it represents the threshold where an indie title begins to meaningfully break through. It’s ambitious, but if we don’t believe this IP can reach that level, the long term outlook becomes difficult regardless of the monetization model. Illuvium has a strong and original IP, and as Kieran has mentioned publicly, a deep and original lore to support it.
5. I would strongly favor a Steam-first launch, and I also believe the game should be console ready. While the numbers are tight after platform fees, this path provides exposure, upfront hard cash for short term sustainability, and, crucially, proof that we can ship and sell a product to a mass audience. From personal experience buying games recently, $14.99 is a very low price point, low enough for players to take a chance, especially if the value proposition is clear and the content delivers strong “bang for the buck.”

6. The thinking around ownership and retention is that we already have multiple systems in place Arena, the Deathmatch mode in development, Ascendant (which can be revived), and trading. These give players who finish the core game clear paths to continue engaging with the Illuvium universe in different ways.
7. On land owners, I agree offering the base game at a discount (or free) is reasonable and worth serious consideration.

[wild nova]

Does illuvium have a plan towards web2 gamers with a game like Aniimo potentially releasing around the same time as we might anticipate the MMO?

[rustic stone]

Not that I know of. We have a limited budget and it's mainly going to the MMO. The plan is to make the MMO a web2 game with optional web3 functions.