Jump to content


Player Turnover.


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

Erwin_Von_Braun #1 Posted 28 May 2018 - 10:35 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 37332 battles
  • 4,530
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-25-2014

There has been much discussion in recent days concerning valued members of the CC team departing and long-term players leaving, including Spek going to the trouble of deleting his account.

Now, there are often topics asking if Wot is 'dying', personally I don't think it is as the player base seems fairly healthy.


 

What I would like to see are the figures for player turnover - ie, the amount of players that leave vs the amount of new players registered.


 

My guess is that the turnover number would be fairly high - that would certainly be consistent with WG current business model & the fact that they really seem to not give a monkeys about valid criticism.

In other words, let's push through unpopular decisions knowing, probably with some degree of certainty, that it will all blow over in short order & the cash will continue to flow.

So, to sum up I don't believe WoT is dying but I would LOVE to see the figures regarding player turnover - come on WG, let's see 'em.:)


 



jabster #2 Posted 28 May 2018 - 10:51 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12532 battles
  • 22,786
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010
You could probably get a rough idea by popping over to WoT News as that has players registered per-month, active players and how many battles a player has ever played.

HaZardeur #3 Posted 28 May 2018 - 10:51 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 33257 battles
  • 1,152
  • Member since:
    08-14-2010
WG will love a high turn over as it makes sure their lies and poor customer service doesnt reach new players before they are milked and starting to look up forums.

HeidenSieker #4 Posted 28 May 2018 - 10:59 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 10046 battles
  • 4,648
  • Member since:
    03-26-2016

View PostErwin_Von_Braun, on 28 May 2018 - 10:35 AM, said:

What I would like to see are the figures for player turnover - ie, the amount of players that leave vs the amount of new players registered.

 

How can you tell when players "leave"? I bet most don't delete their accounts, they will just leave them "dormant".

NoobySkooby #5 Posted 28 May 2018 - 11:09 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 10727 battles
  • 1,729
  • [TFMB] TFMB
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

Some will go, some will stay, others wil maybe play once a week or something.

 

 

I am definitely a stayer, as much as there is problems with the game, and the annoying lack of feedback from the WGEU top brass, I still love playing the game and if I don't get my fix at least once a day, then I feel cheated lol



Erwin_Von_Braun #6 Posted 28 May 2018 - 11:13 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 37332 battles
  • 4,530
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-25-2014
It's those 'play for a couple of months - drop £100 on some over-priced bundle then move on to something else' players that WG love.

unhappy_bunny #7 Posted 28 May 2018 - 11:14 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17923 battles
  • 2,455
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

In the normal, tin-foil free, world of computer games, the playerbase tends to fluctuate. As a game becomes more well known, the playerbase increases as new players flock to it. This cause problems for the existing playerbase who were there from the start. They have gained experience, and to certain extent, they have had thing their own way. They have settled into doing things a certain way, They have overcome certain issues, developed tactics, and they are then faced with a lot of new players who aspire to the levels the existing players have reached. This causes a clash of players that do things one way, and players who are learning or ignoring the "accepted" way of doing it. Also, there is a clash of skill levels, both groups will have players covering a range of abilities and skill at playing computer games. Thus the existing playerbase gets diluted and they suddenly find themselves playing with and against, players of more varied skills. Some of the existing players may resent this and because they are having less fun, decide to move on to another game. Some of the newer players find they struggle, do not have the fun they expected, and so they too leave for pastures new.

 

Then there is the issue of change to the game. Some of the changes may seem to the older players as catering for the newer players. This causes resentment, and when that sets in, their interest in the game dies, they have less fun, they suddenly see everything being a case of their are being taken for granted, and so they look for pastures new.

 

Then there is the issue of people changing as they grow up or get older. Their lives change, their circumstances change, and their priorities change.  They might not have the time to dedicate to the game. They may even just become bored with the game. This is probably more likely to affect the players who came into the game early on, in their teenage years or early twenties, and it entirely natural. Life is a constant change.

 

Some disappear quietly, some make a big fuss, some, because they have allowed themselves to become bitter, make even more fuss. 

 

So in some ways the change in the playerbase, with more established players leaving, is to be expected. As long as enough new players join and progress, the game shouldnt die. 



Erwin_Von_Braun #8 Posted 28 May 2018 - 11:16 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 37332 battles
  • 4,530
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-25-2014

View PostHeidenSieker, on 28 May 2018 - 09:59 AM, said:

 

How can you tell when players "leave"? I bet most don't delete their accounts, they will just leave them "dormant".

 

Probably what Jabster said.
 

View Postunhappy_bunny, on 28 May 2018 - 10:14 AM, said:

In the normal, tin-foil free, world of computer games, the playerbase tends to fluctuate. As a game becomes more well known, the playerbase increases as new players flock to it. This cause problems for the existing playerbase who were there from the start. They have gained experience, and to certain extent, they have had thing their own way. They have settled into doing things a certain way, They have overcome certain issues, developed tactics, and they are then faced with a lot of new players who aspire to the levels the existing players have reached. This causes a clash of players that do things one way, and players who are learning or ignoring the "accepted" way of doing it. Also, there is a clash of skill levels, both groups will have players covering a range of abilities and skill at playing computer games. Thus the existing playerbase gets diluted and they suddenly find themselves playing with and against, players of more varied skills. Some of the existing players may resent this and because they are having less fun, decide to move on to another game. Some of the newer players find they struggle, do not have the fun they expected, and so they too leave for pastures new.

 

Then there is the issue of change to the game. Some of the changes may seem to the older players as catering for the newer players. This causes resentment, and when that sets in, their interest in the game dies, they have less fun, they suddenly see everything being a case of their are being taken for granted, and so they look for pastures new.

 

Then there is the issue of people changing as they grow up or get older. Their lives change, their circumstances change, and their priorities change.  They might not have the time to dedicate to the game. They may even just become bored with the game. This is probably more likely to affect the players who came into the game early on, in their teenage years or early twenties, and it entirely natural. Life is a constant change.

 

Some disappear quietly, some make a big fuss, some, because they have allowed themselves to become bitter, make even more fuss.

 

So in some ways the change in the playerbase, with more established players leaving, is to be expected. As long as enough new players join and progress, the game shouldnt die.

 

Hmm?

Wise words - tbh I wasn't expecting such a sensible response, but you do make some valid points.

I guess turnover is to be expected and, to some extent, is actually healthy for the game - but you're right, change will generally tend to annoy established players.


 

HeidenSieker #9 Posted 28 May 2018 - 11:22 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 10046 battles
  • 4,648
  • Member since:
    03-26-2016

View PostErwin_Von_Braun, on 28 May 2018 - 11:16 AM, said:

Probably what Jabster said.

 

wot-news.com/stat/server/eu/norm/en

CircleOfSorrow #10 Posted 28 May 2018 - 11:47 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28819 battles
  • 1,986
  • Member since:
    12-26-2012

View PostHeidenSieker, on 28 May 2018 - 09:59 AM, said:

 

How can you tell when players "leave"? I bet most don't delete their accounts, they will just leave them "dormant".

When the player has been registered for at least a year;

Player.matches.last60days = 0 /* Players that have left

Player.matches.last365days = 0 /* Players that didn't look back



arthurwellsley #11 Posted 28 May 2018 - 12:06 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 51256 battles
  • 2,810
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

As HeidenSieker correctly states above http://wot-news.com/...rver/eu/norm/en answers most questions.

100k (or thereabouts) new players per month has been pretty steady since late June 2014.

The number of players per week at about 1 million has a winter rise, and a summer fall, but the pattern has repeated since September 2014.

The graph for the percentage of players in clans looks wrong, not sure what is going on there.

The graph for the increase in players also has been stable since 2014 and shows an average rise of about 0.1%.

 



SovietBias #12 Posted 28 May 2018 - 12:17 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37203 battles
  • 1,257
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

A company that has not announced earnings for a while now, and you are asking for them to publish relevant business information? Good luck.

 

Meanwhile, WoT-news is your best friend.



Erwin_Von_Braun #13 Posted 28 May 2018 - 12:21 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 37332 battles
  • 4,530
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-25-2014

View Postarthurwellsley, on 28 May 2018 - 11:06 AM, said:

As HeidenSieker correctly states above http://wot-news.com/...rver/eu/norm/en answers most questions.

100k (or thereabouts) new players per month has been pretty steady since late June 2014.

The number of players per week at about 1 million has a winter rise, and a summer fall, but the pattern has repeated since September 2014.

The graph for the percentage of players in clans looks wrong, not sure what is going on there.

The graph for the increase in players also has been stable since 2014 and shows an average rise of about 0.1%.

 

 

Cool, cheers - I learn something new every day:)

HundeWurst #14 Posted 28 May 2018 - 12:24 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 67720 battles
  • 4,278
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

View PostHaZardeur, on 28 May 2018 - 10:51 AM, said:

WG will love a high turn over as it makes sure their lies and poor customer service doesnt reach new players before they are milked and starting to look up forums.

 

I also feel like thats there model. More like a "hit and run" strategy from their part: Sell someone something "faulty" and be gone when the buyer realizes what kind of crap he actually bought back in the day.

I do understand that pretty much any free2play game wants to do that as much as possible, as I have the feeling that the money per time unit played genuienly decreases and is the highes in the beginning.

Once you have multiple premium tanks any the premium accounts need to be renewed every now and then. "Big" investments are not needed any more. So WG tries to get as much fresh meat in the grinder as they possible can. I guess they have some kind of target goals: A player should on average just play 5.000 battles and in that time spend something like 100 Euros on the game.

At least that is what I would do. On the other hand a healthy and active community can be something really helpfull for the company as well. But WG tries to do everything to make a "community" go away. They just really dont want to see longterm players all the much, or well they stop caring about them at some point. All these completly stupid cupons you get are evidence for that.

 

But oh well. Maybe in this market and industrybranch its cheaper to get new customers then to keep longterm ones.

 

PS: As the other guy said. A lot of the changes which are made are obviously not liked by the seasoned players. But in the end WG is a business maximising profits over all other things. They are most likely doing all that for the additional money they can get. Its sad that we old players feel forced out, but I guess this is how it goes. I most likely will at some point be replaced by 10 new fresh customers who are all willing to spend xxx amount of money compared to me. Its sad but its like it is.

 

PPS: The most annoying thing about WG is their communication. They lie to us, tell us only half truth, or dont tell us anything. The amount of time they stated something the right way, you can count on like 1 finger :P

 

WG uses the good old "Mother Russian" way of communication. There most likely also is their reason why WG will never have success in the US. They treat their customers like peasants rather than like kings.

 

View PostErwin_Von_Braun, on 28 May 2018 - 11:19 AM, said:

View Postunhappy_bunny, on 28 May 2018 - 10:14 AM, said:

In the normal, tin-foil free, world of computer games, the playerbase tends to fluctuate. As a game becomes more well known, the playerbase increases as new players flock to it. This cause problems for the existing playerbase who were there from the start. They have gained experience, and to certain extent, they have had thing their own way. They have settled into doing things a certain way, They have overcome certain issues, developed tactics, and they are then faced with a lot of new players who aspire to the levels the existing players have reached. This causes a clash of players that do things one way, and players who are learning or ignoring the "accepted" way of doing it. Also, there is a clash of skill levels, both groups will have players covering a range of abilities and skill at playing computer games. Thus the existing playerbase gets diluted and they suddenly find themselves playing with and against, players of more varied skills. Some of the existing players may resent this and because they are having less fun, decide to move on to another game. Some of the newer players find they struggle, do not have the fun they expected, and so they too leave for pastures new.

 

Then there is the issue of change to the game. Some of the changes may seem to the older players as catering for the newer players. This causes resentment, and when that sets in, their interest in the game dies, they have less fun, they suddenly see everything being a case of their are being taken for granted, and so they look for pastures new.

 

Then there is the issue of people changing as they grow up or get older. Their lives change, their circumstances change, and their priorities change.  They might not have the time to dedicate to the game. They may even just become bored with the game. This is probably more likely to affect the players who came into the game early on, in their teenage years or early twenties, and it entirely natural. Life is a constant change.

 

Some disappear quietly, some make a big fuss, some, because they have allowed themselves to become bitter, make even more fuss.

 

So in some ways the change in the playerbase, with more established players leaving, is to be expected. As long as enough new players join and progress, the game shouldnt die.

 

Hmm?

Wise words - tbh I wasn't expecting such a sensible response, but you do make some valid points.

I guess turnover is to be expected and, to some extent, is actually healthy for the game - but you're right, change will generally tend to annoy established players.

 

True and false though. Its also a bit of the style of changes and how they are applied.

As a seasoned player I dont like the dumbing down of the game which has been going on lately. I can easily adept to the new "balancing" or the lack of said. I still think its stupid and completly uncalled but if WG wants it their way, let them do it.

However you can also argue that WG exactly wants the "dumb down" effect. It might help them with their player turnover much more than we might think. As said in my previous post, it very much looks like WG has no interest in longterm players (any more).

 

Change will always happen, but in WGs  case you can often ask yourself the question: Was that even needed, was that any good? An example were the changes to the SH mode 1 year back. Especially the tier 8 skirmishes pretty much shut down for a time. The small amount of statistics we can track showed that their changes made a lot of things worse, as less players played these modes.

No doubt that the entire mode needed changes, and quit a few were actually decent ones as well. However there were others which made no sense, and quit some players saw that before it even was released.

But maybe I am also just talking out of my a$$hole right now and the number of tier 8 skirmishes recovered back to the old values. I cant be bothered to check that.


 

Aikl #15 Posted 28 May 2018 - 12:36 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostHundeWurst, on 28 May 2018 - 11:24 AM, said:

(...)

But oh well. Maybe in this market and industrybranch its cheaper to get new customers then to keep longterm ones.

 

 

 If a man sticks with our game for ten weeks,

then he stays almost forever.

 

Victor Kislyi, Wargaming

 

 

 Victor wants this to signify success in terms of player retention, which is the context here. I think he's right. The way it is phrased kind of implies that the early WoT game is like an sadistic and vastly accelerated Darwinistic selection process. Trial by fire.

 

(I'd make a more elaborate, sensible, reply, but Hunde has provided that in excess already.)


Edited by Aikl, 28 May 2018 - 12:36 PM.


HundeWurst #16 Posted 28 May 2018 - 12:40 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 67720 battles
  • 4,278
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

View PostAikl, on 28 May 2018 - 12:36 PM, said:

 

 

 If a man sticks with our game for ten weeks,

then he stays almost forever.

 

Victor Kislyi, Wargaming

 

 

 Victor wants this to signify success in terms of player retention, which is the context here. I think he's right. The way it is phrased kind of implies that the early WoT game is like an sadistic and vastly accelerated Darwinistic selection process. Trial by fire.

 

(I'd make a more elaborate, sensible, reply, but Hunde has provided that in excess already.)

 

Well the one thing I always heared in my economic part of my studies was that its up to 10 times cheaper to keep an already aquired customer than to get a new one.

In that context I just wonder if that is also appliable for online gaming, or the free2play market.



Erwin_Von_Braun #17 Posted 28 May 2018 - 12:46 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 37332 battles
  • 4,530
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-25-2014

View PostHundeWurst, on 28 May 2018 - 11:40 AM, said:

 

Well the one thing I always heared in my economic part of my studies was that its up to 10 times cheaper to keep an already aquired customer than to get a new one.

In that context I just wonder if that is also appliable for online gaming, or the free2play market.

 

I would say no.

My guess is that, in purely financial terms, new players contribute far in excess of established players - as I mentioned previously with the £100 bundles.

It is simply in WG interests to cater to this section of the market.

It is a shame, more so for players that have been here since the beginning, but you only have to look at what happened to Warcraft as the perfect example of where this game is heading.


 


 



jabster #18 Posted 28 May 2018 - 12:49 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12532 battles
  • 22,786
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostHundeWurst, on 28 May 2018 - 11:33 AM, said:

 

True and false though. Its also a bit of the style of changes and how they are applied.

As a seasoned player I dont like the dumbing down of the game which has been going on lately. I can easily adept to the new "balancing" or the lack of said. I still think its stupid and completly uncalled but if WG wants it their way, let them do it.

However you can also argue that WG exactly wants the "dumb down" effect. It might help them with their player turnover much more than we might think. As said in my previous post, it very much looks like WG has no interest in longterm players (any more).

 

Change will always happen, but in WGs  case you can often ask yourself the question: Was that even needed, was that any good? An example were the changes to the SH mode 1 year back. Especially the tier 8 skirmishes pretty much shut down for a time. The small amount of statistics we can track showed that their changes made a lot of things worse, as less players played these modes.

No doubt that the entire mode needed changes, and quit a few were actually decent ones as well. However there were others which made no sense, and quit some players saw that before it even was released.

But maybe I am also just talking out of my a$$hole right now and the number of tier 8 skirmishes recovered back to the old values. I cant be bothered to check that.

 

As you say it’s hard to know what WG’s long term ‘vision’ is which is made even harder as, like all big companies, things they do may not always align with it. I wonder if part of the long term aims is that yes they do want players to stick around it’s just not the ones they currently have. I have pretty much zero experience of other multiplayer games but with single player ones it’s rather noticeable just how ‘accessible’ they’ve become.



Aikl #19 Posted 28 May 2018 - 01:27 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostHundeWurst, on 28 May 2018 - 11:40 AM, said:

 

Well the one thing I always heared in my economic part of my studies was that its up to 10 times cheaper to keep an already aquired customer than to get a new one.

In that context I just wonder if that is also appliable for online gaming, or the free2play market.

 

Interesting. Time to ramble a bit - I haven't exactly studied economics, so don't take anything as fact. Doubt we'll end up with an answer - but it's always fun to figure out why WoT's run like the early 20th-century White Star Lines.

 

Perhaps this rule of thumb is indeed only applicable to 'traditional' markets, e.g. where you expect recurring payments - and require them because the market is limited as well as contested.

WoT is potentially not limited to the same degree - and has the added luxury of no real contest in their particular niche. I imagine the customer retention 'rule of thumb' is valid for anything from fridge manufacturers to newspaper subscriptions. They are forced to rely on long-term effects and consequences as a consequence of their respective markets.

My guess would hence be that F2P, and WoT in particular, doesn't conform solely with how traditional markets work. At least not in the short- to mid-term timeline. They are recruiting non-players to play, not attracting players from other games. If most existing, loyal, players make either small recurring or large irregular purchases they're practically 'dead weight' compared to someone that buys something and quits.

 

Of course, the answer is likely not solely a matter of 'new customers versus retention', but rather a mix. WoT managed to keep a large portion of the veteran playerbase active payers as a result of their neverending powercreep - that arguably requires investment of time or money to stay ahead of the competition. Want that new strong tank? An arm or a leg - your choice.

This will likely exclude a lot who realize that the powercreep rat race is not something they're willing, or able, to keep up with. This groups is likely considered 'dead weight' if their payments into the game are not regular enough to be considered worthwhile.

I suspect that these player brackets are ones easier to cater to than others. It's worth considering that developing a computer game to keep most players interested is potentially way harder than e.g. improving journalism to keep a reader interested - or developing fridges for that matter. Wargaming's behaviour might be a result of what economics dictate, in a way.



Erwin_Von_Braun #20 Posted 28 May 2018 - 01:41 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 37332 battles
  • 4,530
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-25-2014

View PostAikl, on 28 May 2018 - 12:27 PM, said:

 

Interesting. Time to ramble a bit - I haven't exactly studied economics, so don't take anything as fact. Doubt we'll end up with an answer - but it's always fun to figure out why WoT's run like the early 20th-century White Star Lines.

 

Perhaps this rule of thumb is indeed only applicable to 'traditional' markets, e.g. where you expect recurring payments - and require them because the market is limited as well as contested.

WoT is potentially not limited to the same degree - and has the added luxury of no real contest in their particular niche. I imagine the customer retention 'rule of thumb' is valid for anything from fridge manufacturers to newspaper subscriptions. They are forced to rely on long-term effects and consequences as a consequence of their respective markets.

My guess would hence be that F2P, and WoT in particular, doesn't conform solely with how traditional markets work. At least not in the short- to mid-term timeline. They are recruiting non-players to play, not attracting players from other games. If most existing, loyal, players make either small recurring or large irregular purchases they're practically 'dead weight' compared to someone that buys something and quits.

 

Of course, the answer is likely not solely a matter of 'new customers versus retention', but rather a mix. WoT managed to keep a large portion of the veteran playerbase active payers as a result of their neverending powercreep - that arguably requires investment of time or money to stay ahead of the competition. Want that new strong tank? An arm or a leg - your choice.

This will likely exclude a lot who realize that the powercreep rat race is not something they're willing, or able, to keep up with. This groups is likely considered 'dead weight' if their payments into the game are not regular enough to be considered worthwhile.

I suspect that these player brackets are ones easier to cater to than others. It's worth considering that developing a computer game to keep most players interested is potentially way harder than e.g. improving journalism to keep a reader interested - or developing fridges for that matter. Wargaming's behaviour might be a result of what economics dictate, in a way.

 

Hit the nail on the head there methinks.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users