Wargaming and Hasbro join hands to deploy Autobots and Decepticons in World of Warships this September. Read it on the portal
So you want that Mayhem skin with choppers instead of planes... i see right through you! (and approve)
I also wanted to comment briefly on collaborating with "historical" franchises, since there are some comments around this topic. Collaborations and IP licensing are complicated endeavors and many factors need to align for the deal to be worth it for both parties. Over the years we've had many more licensing discussions and pitches that failed than those that ended up in a deal being signed. As was mentioned before a prohibitive cost is usually the first and most common barrier we cannot breach - the value received from the partner would simply not be worth the investment. Sometimes it's also shifting time frames and release windows that will mean we either can't complete a full production cycle (bear in mind that deal negotiations usually last many months before a deal is signed by both sides and we can even begin working on content - looks at Greyhound >__>) or we know up-front that the release window proposed by the partner is already full with other commitments and content on our side (for example we have a scope of content that we can release and promote at the same time).
Then finally we come to the question of licensing. Sure, we could technically acquire a license for Midway - we ran promotional campaigns together with the movie's distributor after all - but the question is: what would that license contain? The movie references historical ships and events, some of which we already have in the game. We do not need a license to put any of these ships or events into the game, unless they are works of fiction created for the purposes of the movie's plot, or unless they are depicted in a way specific to the movie. Arguably, neither case applies to Midway. What's left then? The historical characters depicted in the movie also generally fall outside of the license, unless we want to use the likeness of the actors that played them and who in many cases made those characters stand out in the movie. Unfortunately, actors' likenesses are also generally NOT part of the movie license (depends on each actor's contract) and are usually simply not in a price range we can afford. Trust me on that - we've tried getting a Marko Ramius, but the price is simply too high for us to make that investment back.
The bottom line here is that sometimes we'll be able to get a Fury Sherman a Brad Pitt commander or a Dunkirk scenario, but in many cases we won't be able to do that, for a number of different reasons that are not us just being lazy. This applies the same way to historical and non-historical collaborations.
Regards, o7
We're sorry you don't like this one, but just look at this thread alone and all the comments from the people who care more about the fact that there is no Starscream in the first release. The simple fact is that there IS significant demand for this type of content in our audience and that the majority of our audience does not share this sentiment. As many people have already commented, if they don't care about this content they just switch it off and wait for the next release of tech tree ships and this is absolutely the right way to go about it.
We've done collaborations with Revell and Italeri for Tanks and with COBI for Tanks and Warships. If we find them useful we will do more of them, but it depends on the partner as much as on us.
Considering what i wrote above, why do you assume we haven't tried speaking with Bavaria Film, Jürgen Prochnow's agent, as well as Klaus Doldinger? BF has already sold the exclusive rights to Das Boot to another gaming company, making negotiations difficult here. As i already wrote - many negotiations take months or years before we are able to reach a point where both sides are satisfied to sign a deal.
Oh Lord! Have mercy on the kids! I wish we would look at our demographic and listen to our audience!! (sarcasm intended)
The average age on the NA cluster is (data as of January 2020):
North American audience: 44.02
South American audience: 34.67
The average age of NEW players coming into the game onto the NA cluster (data as of March 2020): 33
Please stop with this baseless "for the kiddies" theory, because whether you like it or not, this game and ALL of its content is consumed by middle-aged men (97% male on NA).
That is a fair point, but it's not going to happen, or it would have already with some of the other "casual" content we had previously released and advertised (and that some in the community said is for kids). These stats are not pointless - they show what the target audience for the game is (middle-aged men) and neither anime, nor Transformers nor My Little Pony is likely to change that in any significant way, because the audiences of those IPs are also not kids (at least not where they overlap with ours).
I care and am all for civil discourse, but please don't make this one-sided. I don't have to be here and read all these aggravating comments aimed at me, the devs or the company in general, but i believe in educating people about the business of making games (as much as i am allowed to by my own non-disclosure agreement), because it is clear from many comments that people generally do not understand how it works. However, if I am required to wear white gloves and have my hands bound behind my back while a mob is verbally stoning me, then the community can keep its' etiquette. I don't want to take anything away from people or make them uncomfortable and will just not post anything anymore, leaving that to people who are more qualified. No hard feelings - after all, we've been here before many times over the years.
To remain consistent though, i will try to address the relevant points made. What I am trying to make plain (and which I've commented on multiple times already) is that we understand that we will not please everyone, which means that there will be some upset people at any given point in time, who will vent their frustration. This will be either about not having a collaboration at all, about the collaboration not being historical-based, about Starscream not being in the initial selection of bots (even though we've explained on this week's stream why that is the case and that this character might appear later down the road) or any other topic. However, the fact that these voices exist does not mean that the collaboration should not happen, that it will be a failure or that the game will die of it. If we believed that, we would simply not proceed with it.
I would caution anyone about falling into the same "it's a safe bet fallacy", because the only safe bet in the community is that most players simply do not care that much and this is evidenced by the fact that they do not choose to participate in any community channels. Only around 15.8% of the active NA accounts visit the forums in general and a much smaller % is present on other channels and fan groups. We only see their opinions in their gameplay behavior and content consumption statistics where they generally consume historical and non-historical content equally, or in periodic surveys (where i took the demographic data from). It's easy to look for validation in your immediate environment and to find them, but it will generally be a false positive.
We've explained this multiple times over the years, but there are multiple different development streams with strike teams assigned to them. The fact that content is being released has almost no influence on the resources assigned to balancing, UI/UX design, bug fixes or many other areas that are of concern to us, the community, or both. The modelers doing the skins would not be able to participate in those areas and the effort they put in is measured against the value the content is estimated to contribute to the game's performance indicators (which do not just consist of straight $$). Before you say that obviously they could be working on historical equivalents - yes, of course, but as i mentioned, we need to cater to the demand of the widest possible amount of players within our audience, keeping in mind saturation in each audience and content segment. In short and in general - producing these different content types makes the game perform better in acquisition, retention and yes, monetization.
Still, we acknowledge the fact that there are players who just like historical content and that is still where the majority of our resources is dedicated, with a relatively steady release cycle of 4-5 tech tree lines per year and many "vanilla" (as in: non-themed) premium or special ships, dockyards, etc. We've recently done an overhaul of the mission UI and just announced new unique upgrades, as well as many other items. I am well aware that for many players this is simply not enough and it will not be enough regardless of what I say or what the dev team puts on the roadmap. However, the simple truth is that we will not stop doing collaborations and/or releasing an amount of non-historical content periodically, for as long as there is demand - they are not aside from the game, but part of it now. This is not disrespect for the player base, just the result of running the math on operating this game as a viable product with its unique ebb and flow of audience and demand. We've been successfully running it for 5 years now and want to continue running it for many more. This is ultimately the reality that i am trying to explain.
I guess the last thing to note is that we should all acknowledge, especially considering some of the comments made, that at the bottom line this is about trust. If you don't trust what I say at some level, then we are all just wasting time here, because the reality is that we will not be able to fully disclose all the mechanics and minute data points that we use to operate the game - they are trade secrets, restricted by GDPR/CCPA or simply unintelligible without context from other areas. I can only go so deep and provide the explanations or data that i can and hope that you will see the logic behind them.
o7
devtrackers.gg