I can believe it. It won’t appeal to everyone. Personally, I like it because it adds a bit of variety and doesn’t make the game stagnant.
Clearly, I don’t want it to reach COD levels, but something in between like WOT with occasional collaborations.
Flashbacks to Naval lol.
2 Likes
Do you know whether naval is actually unprofitable or are you guessing?
That’s true, but it would kind of be cool to see more of the “mysterious enemy” side of SM
We both know I don’t have definite numbers for obvious reasons, but I can make a pretty educated guess.
IIRC Naval has had similar play counts as modes like Simulator or PvE, which immediately tells me it’s a highly niche product that they’ve spent a lot of time building and promoting.
That said, premium ships don’t seem to be that popular.
For April, NAB had only two premium ships in top 30 most played. (NAB is also much more played than NRB)
In NRB, there were 4 premiums.
GRB and ARB are the most popular modes for their specific vehicle type, so I’ll only use those.
GRB had 6 premiums in top 30 most played.
ARB had 9 premiums.
Seems like premium vehicles are not as common in Naval as they are in other, well established modes and their low play count suggests very limited sales. Don’t forget they had to make special maps, mechanics and research for Naval alongside models of course.
Fact that matchmaker is frequently forced to place bots in lobbies so players can have semi-decent queue times doesn’t help either.
So yeah, I firmly believe Naval is freeloading on success of Ground and Air and as such should stop receiving updates for the benefit of like 98.7% of the community lmao. It’s fine though, projects can and will fail all the time, there’s no need to make up excuses.
Is this generated by Gemini?
13 Likes
can we have senrai maidens for air please
Its not an educated guess tho, its pure conjecture, because we dont know the one variable to actually make an informed statement which is the cost of development associated with naval. The only thing youre guessing about in your comment is that naval is less popular and therefore less profitable than GRB and ARB which is not a surprise.
Ok so we get rid of Sim completely as well then? Or Israel in 10.3+ because they have a lot less than a percent of games played there?
there were 2 what looked like CV90s and a Leopard 2, so by a numbers game it looks like they’re saving the world from the Swedish menace.
1 Like
2 Likes
0 Quality Control, you can even see the logo on the flag in the back on the pack page on the store LOL.
8 Likes
New maps, modes, mechanics, AI adjustments and hundreds of vehicle models definitely cost a lot and you have to get that back somehow. They basically made a whole game mode from scratch, which is something not really seen that often in WT.
Simulator is already on life support as purpose-made content for that mode gets released once in a blue moon. Vast majority of updates Simulator receives is tied to their much more popular Realistic brother getting it and Simulator is just going along with it anyways.
As for Israel, I always thought they should be a sub-tree though.
That said, Israeli vehicles would be made anyways so it’s far less of an issue, as they’d feed the money maker mode and keep it spinning.
All signs about Naval are there, so I’d like to ask you something.
Would current Naval mode survive on it’s own as a standalone game ?
1 Like
Yes but
A. You still dont know how much the running costs are and
B. more importantly AI, maps, modes and mechanics are all already programmed upfront costs. Stopping support for naval now would be the dumbest thing ever if current additions are profitable, because thats the only way to recuperate the initial investment otherwise its just a net loss since switching resources to GRB/ARB doesnt automatically make those more profitable.
They arent, because you have 0 idea of the actual numbers behind it and are just yapping with apparently very little idea of how businesses operate.
Just the current form put in a new game? Probably. There is no reason for Gaijin to keep investing in a gamemode thats not profitable. The same applies to the skins here, which are probably insanely profitable considering the most expensive part is reused.
Those can and will change (probably some already did) so I don’t know about that.
There’s a difference between deleting Naval and just stopping the updates.
You can’t say that adding a dozen TT vehicles and few premiums for Naval will give you the same profit as doing the same exact thing but with Air or Ground.
Signs are easily seen wherever you look, you don’t need to peek into Gaijin’s own documents to see that.
Player count is in the gutter so hard that an army of bots had to be called in for the rescue.
Frequency of Naval content is much lower than that of Air or Ground.
Naval threads on this forum are a rarity which is obviously because no one even plays the game mode.
A PvP game where AI is needed in order to host sessions in a decent fashion doesn’t make sense in the slightest. How is that sustainable ?
People come in for PvP action and half of their duels end up being PvE.
Sounds awesome.
How so ?
If a business earns enough money from other projects it might veer off to somewhere else, eyeing out different markets to expand to in order to gain more profits and market share. Of course, that expansion can and often will end up in failure, but as said before, company’s other products can subsidize that failing, unprofitable project while the company fights to bring it up into profitability.
It’s an actual business term called cross-subsidization, but since you have an idea of how businesses operate, no need to teach you I guess.
To end this, Naval perfectly fits into description found above and with all other signs presented it’s safe to say it’s on life support, literally freeloading off of Air and Ground’s success.
Naval’s “spiritual animal” must be a leech lmao.
1 Like
Drop the better dart for the Leclerc S1 and just call it pre-serie or something and it could possibly be as low as 12.0
Yes you do, because without actual knowledge about the costs associated all you do is just pure conjecture based on some player counts which tells you nothing about profitability and that’s where I’m gonna leave it.
Gaijin ain’t even trying😭
3 Likes
Your best argument so far of “Ackshually, companies don’t keep investing in products that aren’t profitable, which means Naval is profitable” was rebutted, so no wonder you’re leaving it be.
Barely any updates, barely any players, barely any Naval talk on the forum.
It kinda speaks for itself lol.
1 Like
It wasnt in the slightest but youre gonna think whatever you want anyway.
Huh its almost like less updates means less resource input means less cost means its easier for it to be profitable but i guess a train of thought going that far is a bit too much.