Jump to content


Why is there no real competitor to WOT?


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

Mko #1 Posted 11 July 2018 - 11:22 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16132 battles
  • 1,188
  • Member since:
    07-03-2010

I can't help but wonder, why does WOT not have a proper competitor?

WT is not really a competitor, it has a much smaller playerbase AFAIK, and it's also a slightly different niche.

AW is not a competitor, it has almost no playerbase.

 

WOT generates a lot of money. So how the hell is it possible that none of the big publishers brought a WOT competitor to the market?



unhappy_bunny #2 Posted 11 July 2018 - 11:32 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18012 battles
  • 2,568
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012
Probably because it is not that easy. It would require a lot of time and money, and the product would have to be something really special. WT and AW showed how hard it is to compete with an established product in, what is effectively, a niche market. 

kaneloon #3 Posted 11 July 2018 - 11:41 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27899 battles
  • 1,495
  • [OBLIC] OBLIC
  • Member since:
    11-18-2011

Those who paid wot won't invest in a similar game.

 

Those who can't pay can really access to all the content without paying anything : hard to compete with that.



Balc0ra #4 Posted 11 July 2018 - 11:52 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66042 battles
  • 16,110
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostMko, on 11 July 2018 - 11:22 PM, said:

I can't help but wonder, why does WOT not have a proper competitor?

WT is not really a competitor, it has a much smaller playerbase AFAIK, and it's also a slightly different niche.

AW is not a competitor, it has almost no playerbase.

 

WT made the mistake of having the Russian tech tree balance made by their main Russian office. And the other nations was done by the EU office. The issue was that RU and EU did not communicate much. So every time the Russians got buffed. It scared half the player base off. Until the EU office came and fixed it. WT has always been a mess in that area. A perfect example is when they buffed the 122mm guns. So that the IS could 1 shot a Maus. Or even the old air tech tree, when the Russian tier 1 dominated vs anything US or Jap... even their Jets. 

 

AW made a different kind of mistake. They did listen and do everything the players wanted. Thinking they would get the players fleeing from WOT if they did what WOT did not do. Turns out WOT don't do it for a reason. As doing everything at the same time lost them 90% of their players 4 weeks after open beta started. 

 

But they were called WOT killers before they were launched. It seems it's not easy to make a competitor as you would think. There is also a common issue that has been noted by many on this forum. Even if a better game came along. Or even WOT 2.0. No one is interested in grinding the same tanks again. It's more or less why I never play WT that much. I play the air there. But have little need to grind tanks tbh. 



NUKLEAR_SLUG #5 Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:02 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 28629 battles
  • 2,189
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View PostBalc0ra, on 11 July 2018 - 11:52 PM, said:

AW made a different kind of mistake. They did listen and do everything the players wanted. Thinking they would get the players fleeing from WOT if they did what WOT did not do. Turns out WOT don't do it for a reason. As doing everything at the same time lost them 90% of their players 4 weeks after open beta started.

 

Yep, turns out listening to a bunch of clueless gamers that think they know how to 'fix' games isn't such a good idea after all.

Private_Pearts #6 Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:56 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 21785 battles
  • 525
  • [WOPR] WOPR
  • Member since:
    02-24-2015

View PostMko, on 11 July 2018 - 11:22 PM, said:

I can't help but wonder, why does WOT not have a proper competitor?

WT is not really a competitor, it has a much smaller playerbase AFAIK, and it's also a slightly different niche.

AW is not a competitor, it has almost no playerbase.

 

WOT generates a lot of money. So how the hell is it possible that none of the big publishers brought a WOT competitor to the market?

 

I'm not sure I agree that WT isn't a competitor. I play it a lot just for a change. Yeah I know how that sounds but it is different enough. Anyway I think the player base for WT is very healthy, I don't know any figures but I think that the waiting times for a match are about the same.

NoobySkooby #7 Posted 12 July 2018 - 01:59 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 12226 battles
  • 2,393
  • [TFMB] TFMB
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011
if you want to compete then go ahead and do it yourself see if you can improve on everything that everyone hates.

Strappster #8 Posted 12 July 2018 - 03:20 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 23695 battles
  • 8,964
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 11 July 2018 - 11:02 PM, said:

Yep, turns out listening to a bunch of clueless gamers that think they know how to 'fix' games isn't such a good idea after all.

 

Trouble is most players think they know how to fix the game but when you look at their plans in detail they mean, "make it better for me". Taking that step back to consider how to run a successful game as a business is beyond them.



LordMuffin #9 Posted 12 July 2018 - 05:48 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 48094 battles
  • 10,995
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011
The players invested in WoT are very hard to persuade to play a similar game wiyh much grinding, so you can't start your WoT competitor with Russia as main market.
Though if an American company creates a competitor with the US as main market (unexploited by WG) and expand from there, a strong competitor could begin.
Which imo would be good for both games.
Kind of how LoL and Dota 2 compete for same market where LoL has Japan/Korea as main market and Dota 2 is more US/EU based.

AW failure for me was that I was uncertain my computer could handle it. Then I heard it had a badly implemented MM, and then that it was MBT vs MBT where all other classes was rather far below.

So why would I change from 1 game with flaws to another game with flaws and have to redo the grind.

AW seems to have listened to much at the average WoT player based on their decision and who propose them on this forum.

1: introduced sbmm.
2: Frontal impervious tanks (MBT).
3: keeping arty.
 

5_InchFl0ppy #10 Posted 12 July 2018 - 06:18 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40720 battles
  • 1,644
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

AW would have been a success if they had launched with no arty. Instead they shoehorned it in, refused to remove it and a lot of people stopped playing as a result.

I could have taken some ropey mechanics that needed tweaking, I couldn't tolerate playing another game with clickers. The MM was also poor.

 

WT was pants from the get go. It was riddled with bugs, had an awful progression system where you basically played a million games to unlock a tank that used the same gun as the previous vehicle. Also, everything was a one shot. It made no sense from a gaming perspective.

 

 

 



Nethraniel #11 Posted 12 July 2018 - 07:08 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13015 battles
  • 1,938
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012
WT has problems with it's BattleRating spread, with abusable graphic settings for RB/SB, and a brutally boring and slow grinding. Having to unlock the same basic modifications over and over and over is exhausting and the economy is also slow. 

Element6 #12 Posted 12 July 2018 - 07:19 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29305 battles
  • 10,394
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View Post5_InchFl0ppy, on 12 July 2018 - 06:18 AM, said:

AW would have been a success if they had launched with no arty. 

How can you possibly know this?



Geno1isme #13 Posted 12 July 2018 - 08:44 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 42060 battles
  • 7,548
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

Most of the big publishers are based in the US and Western Europe. The biggest market for tank games is Russia, and western companies generally don't do well in that market for various reasons. Western companies mostly focus on the US market, and in the US there isn't that much interest for tanks (just look at population numbers of NA servers in WoT or AW). And if a company would consider it they'd see how AW is failing and how population in WoT is shrinking, and reconsider spending millions of dollars and several years of development into this area. And then of course you run also into the issue that not many WoT users are going to invest a similar amount of time and money into another game where they have to start from scratch.

 

AW failed for many reasons, for me at least:

- game was too sterile (or too "modern" looking), the color scheme always looked wrong to me (blue and orange don't associate well with tanks)

- massive hitbox issues on maps early on, so the detailed maps were actually a downside

- while it had the more modern graphics tech, the tanks looked pretty bland in comparison to WoT

- grinds felt much longer, and you barely felt any progress during a grind

- too much pixel sniping going on

- probably most important: their decent PvE basically killed their PvP mode

- interesting base feature was abandoned and later on removed

- it basically copied the binary spotting system from WoT, which IMO is one of the most frustrating aspects of the game


Edited by Geno1isme, 12 July 2018 - 08:56 AM.


Paketeman #14 Posted 12 July 2018 - 09:20 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 43456 battles
  • 210
  • [NLIFE] NLIFE
  • Member since:
    03-10-2013
Basically it happens like in many mmo.In this, people have spent years playing, and not even crazy would go through that farm again, if the game is not worth it or do not know if it will last. Better known crapthan crapto know One of the only things that makes you lose time in this game, is that it is not like other companies that let the games die and get a new one. In this case they are "improving" and do not waste all the time invested in it.
But be clear about something ... the day they stop making money with it, they would not mind closing the game and throwing away all your time invested .....

NUKLEAR_SLUG #15 Posted 12 July 2018 - 09:41 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 28629 battles
  • 2,189
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View PostPaketeman, on 12 July 2018 - 09:20 AM, said:

But be clear about something ... the day they stop making money with it, they would not mind closing the game and throwing away all your time invested .....

 

That's no different to any other online game. At some point they reach end of life and the servers close down. If people are going into MMO games expecting otherwise they're in the wrong gaming genre.

vixu #16 Posted 12 July 2018 - 09:56 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 42356 battles
  • 3,319
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

There is no real competition to WoT because:

 

1) WoT is good. It has its problems, but they did many good decisions, one of which was to limit the game to only tanks (and arty) and to limit the era. 

2) WoT is very well implemented. There is very few technical issues with the game. 

3) Real competition has to come up with a something much better then WoT. And WoT has some 8 years start time. It would require huge investment with highly uncertain outcomes. Even WG is struggling to create/buy another milking cow. As far as I can tell, other WG games such as MOO are dead or way less popular then WoT.


Edited by vixu, 12 July 2018 - 10:33 AM.


jeffrey_mk2 #17 Posted 12 July 2018 - 10:16 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12529 battles
  • 329
  • [NLWGG] NLWGG
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

Ive tryed out all the other tank games that where mentioned before but none of them was good enough for me.
 

The graphics and the tanks appearances is in my opinion better in wot then the other games.

Also the gameplay and sounds etc and the amount of tanks you can get is actually the best part of wot....this game sometimes let me sit on the tip of my chair :ohmy:

Also they got enough events and a lot of information about tanks , also real tank video's are brought online (get inside tank xx).

Some other games feel also more like a game for a child then adult so that also adds up.

Wot has a big player base also .....I dont like any other tank game then this one.

There is just no real competitor in my eyes and probably a lot other people think the same.


 


 



Mko #18 Posted 12 July 2018 - 10:51 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 16132 battles
  • 1,188
  • Member since:
    07-03-2010

View Post5_InchFl0ppy, on 12 July 2018 - 06:18 AM, said:

AW would have been a success if they had launched with no arty. Instead they shoehorned it in, refused to remove it and a lot of people stopped playing as a result.

I could have taken some ropey mechanics that needed tweaking, I couldn't tolerate playing another game with clickers. The MM was also poor.

 

WT was pants from the get go. It was riddled with bugs, had an awful progression system where you basically played a million games to unlock a tank that used the same gun as the previous vehicle. Also, everything was a one shot. It made no sense from a gaming perspective.

 

 

 

 

I got super interested in AW when it came out. I played it a lot, in fact I have over 6000 battles in it.

It had problems, and yeah arty was one of them (that damn Panzerhaubitze). But it was doing relatively well up until that dude from came around with Balance 2.0. It sounded good on paper, but it was a disaster for the game. The game needed some changes, especially in the high tiers, but that was too much, and it was done so badly.

Also PvE created lots of problems and split the population.

They were also consistently failing with events and there were just so many problems in total. I'm surprised they didn't pull the plug yet.

 

View PostGeno1isme, on 12 July 2018 - 08:44 AM, said:

Most of the big publishers are based in the US and Western Europe. The biggest market for tank games is Russia, and western companies generally don't do well in that market for various reasons. Western companies mostly focus on the US market, and in the US there isn't that much interest for tanks (just look at population numbers of NA servers in WoT or AW). And if a company would consider it they'd see how AW is failing and how population in WoT is shrinking, and reconsider spending millions of dollars and several years of development into this area. And then of course you run also into the issue that not many WoT users are going to invest a similar amount of time and money into another game where they have to start from scratch.

 

Well I think the market in Europe for a tank game is quite big, as is evidenced by the large number of tank events that people attend. So there is interest. Also the initial popularity of AW at the start of open beta proves that people would be willing to jump into a new game or at least they would give it a chance. What I guess is needed, the game has to be damn good, otherwise they would just go back to WOT or whatever they were playing before.

 

As for the big publishers, maybe they are not worried about WOT because they have their own big franchises that generate lots of money as well, and it's possible that tanks are just too much of a niche.


Edited by Mko, 12 July 2018 - 10:54 AM.


Simeon85 #19 Posted 12 July 2018 - 11:11 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 2,776
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

The main issue is probably the grind, players have played 100s of hours, and others invested 100s of Euros to get their tier 10 tanks, they have mature accounts with multiple tanks.

 

Getting them to start in a new game from scratch was always going to be hard.

 

Also as Muffin noted they implemented bad stuff in AW that was never going to work, like arty still being in the game, frontally impervious MBTs, and later skill based MM which most experienced and knowledgeable players would have been put off.

 

Had they gone from no arty from the off I reckon they would have convinced more players to move and crucially stay, that would have been a huge incentive for many players.

 

The other issue with AW was the publishers, my.ru, they were not interested in listening to Obsidian who wanted to make a different game. Instead they wanted a copy paste to steal some of the RU players from WOTs.

 

Obsidian wanted to make a game that was more different to WOTs and they wanted to direct it at a Western market i.e, the USA and Western Europe (where WOTs does less well), if they had been allowed to do that then I suspect AW would be a much more successful game right now. 

 

But it goes back to the above point, why would you switch to a game, to grind through all that stuff again for what was essentially a copy-pasta game with modern tanks? 

 

Especially if it still had stuff like arty, idiot proof tanks etc. 

 

You just wouldn't and people didn't.

 

Warthunder is just a different game, that is also just let down by it's Russian developers. 


Edited by Simeon85, 12 July 2018 - 11:13 AM.


Paketeman #20 Posted 12 July 2018 - 11:23 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 43456 battles
  • 210
  • [NLIFE] NLIFE
  • Member since:
    03-10-2013

warthunder is a fail.I loved on the start becouse is a perfect mix between simulation and and arcade,played only on realistic mode when no premium planes are destroying the concept of realistic battles of one faction vs other.

But they started to simplify the game and make it more easy for casuals ruining it and stoped playing.I entered when tanks are implemented to see how it works and is a crap,with graphics that hurt your eyes.






6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users