You “incentivize” players to do something if you actually reward desired behaviour while clearly stating why players got a reward. Players should connect the behaviour and the reward in their mind.
Thats how you train AI, a dog or a videogamer.
Vague for you =/= vague for everyone.
I asked my russian friend and he said the same. You should really ask you friends and others when you think how to do a UI/UX, its called testing. That helps a lot because you can’t “first meet” your own design as you already know how you meant to interact with it.
What does his nationality have to do with anything?
But okay, let’s stay there’s a strike aircraft tutorial, where at some point in the tutorial it says “Strike aircraft have a reward multiplier for destruction of ground targets”
Then it proceeds to part of the tutorial where the player shoots AI ground targets.
Simple, clean, efficient.
No one is forced to do it, but they can if they feel the need for such a tutorial.
Matches already have match objectives such as “Destroy the ground targets at E4” or something similar. Could be refined so that all maps have clearer mission objectives instead of something like “Don’t let Bastogne get captured”
How many players do a tutorial in warthunder?
What if we just tell the player that the increased reward he got is from using a strike aircraft for attacking AI targets…
Why do we even want a different reward based on different classes, what if you just design targets to be better suited for different targets, lol…
Text popping up at the start of the match that says so? Much like we have a text that says something like “Your aircraft needs to use flaps to be able to take off”
Why not?
What armament bombers have that strike aircraft doesn’t?
- Big bombs.
- Massive amount of small bombs.
What strike aircraft have?
- Frontal gun.
- Unguided rockets.
- Small amount of small bombs/napalm.
Can’t you just suggest making bomber targets require big bombs or a massive amount of small bombs, but strike aircraft targets require precisely laid small bombs or rocket hits or cannon hits?
I’ll go design a suggestion with some infographics, idk. There should be different targets for different munitions, not for different plane classes.
I said in the opening post:
Nah, instead of multiplier you could just make specific targets more suited for specific weapon types and thats it.
Players will learn it naturally and “the hard way”
I still don’t understand why you are first against the multiplier, then not, then you are again.
Inconsistent and disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
Go and answer the post i made about the Fw-200 while you’re at it, where i asked you to provide some source or proof about your claims on what it what it was designed for.
It has been 5 days and im truly curious to see your sources.
Toodaloo!
Because I read your replies and think about the feature more and more, deciding that there are better solutions to this? Should, by your opinion, I die on the hill with the first decision I make about anything? And not think about it twice, thrice and so on, reading arguments pro and contra, analyzing other solutions?
Speed, small size and maneuverability. Bombers are slow, massive targets with the maneuverability to match.
Strike craft are almost always faster and more maneuverable while staying relatively small. Also far more flexible loadouts.
How is this difficult to understand?
The easiest solution to force team play is give escorting fighters rewards based on time spent close to bombers.
I talk about armament. Maneuverability is actually helpful for the separation of targets, where strike aircrafts can drop a bomb/shoot a missile/shoot a shell precisely, a big bomber will have a hard time doing so. While also, where strike aircraft will drop a small bomb on big and wide target, barely scratching it, bomber will bomb it easily in one go.
I am already writing a suggestion, hope it won’t be rejected.
This?
Similar to this idea on this post?
Good luck, hopefully it gets accepted to be up for discussion o7
Be sure to go through the suggestions checklist:
It’s not definitive but it covers most points, a suggestions mod gave it to me
Spoiler
General (all suggestions)
- [ ] Clear, specific title
- [ ] Written in English
- [ ] Poll included, with a “No” option for every poll
- [ ] Not a duplicate (check the previously suggested list)
- [ ] Not a bundle, one vehicle/idea per thread, unless it qualifies as an allowed family
- [ ] Multiple variants of the same vehicle family may be included where allowed (e.g. “A6M (General)”)
- [ ] Multiple distinct vehicles/models should not be combined into one suggestion
- [ ] Low plagiarism, write the suggestion yourself
- [ ] Genuine effort (not a one-line suggestion)
Vehicle suggestions additionally need:
- [ ] At least one image/photo (rare exceptions if the documentation is otherwise solid)
- [ ] History/background: approximately three paragraphs
- [ ] Unclassified specifications/performance data (text, table or list preferred)
- [ ] Sources:
- One primary source (manual, blueprint, factory document), and/or
- Two or more independent secondary sources (books, articles, etc. not Wikipedia or other tertiary sources)
- [ ] Not a paper/fictional design — the vehicle must have been built or partially built, or have vehicle-specific components actually constructed
- [ ] Correct nation assignment:
- Operator takes priority where the vehicle entered service
- If never operated, use the nation that tested the vehicle
- If ordered but never delivered, use the nation that ordered it
- If it was never operated, tested, or ordered by another nation, use the manufacturer’s nation
- Export and experimental vehicles have additional nation-assignment rules; check the relevant guidelines where applicable
- [ ] Systems/combined vehicles: the vehicles/components must have historically operated together, and all vehicles in the system must be self-propelled. Stationary or deployable equipment (e.g. a deployable NASAMS) does not qualify as a vehicle component
Tech tree suggestions
- [ ] Each vehicle must independently qualify for inclusion
- [ ] Basic specifications are provided for each vehicle
- [ ] Each vehicle has a short description/history
- [ ] The suggestion provides enough detail to explain the vehicles and their place in the proposed tree
Matchmaking / Economy / Progression suggestions
- [ ] Proposes a fundamental system change (not just a single BR, SL or RP adjustment)
- [ ] Well written and detailed, with several substantive paragraphs explaining the proposed change and its reasoning
- [ ] Not about an individual system-calculated parameter (e.g. isolated repair costs, which belong in feedback threads)
Gameplay suggestions
- [ ] Well thought out and clearly explained, with approximately 2–3 strong paragraphs
- [ ] Not a one-sentence wish
Skin suggestions
- [ ] General rules still apply
- [ ] Two sources are not necessarily required if the reference images themselves sufficiently document the skin
- [ ] Clear description of the skin/decal
1 Like
Here are my ten cents on this manner:
TLDR - The root of Air RB’s problem is its win conditions, where currently each individual objective is able to win rounds all by itself without input from any of the others. Nobody needs anyone else to win the day, thus the playerbase gravitates to whatever is “meta” and normalizes that as “the default.”
What I propose is to make it impossible to auto-win any match by just one objective. The ironic thing is that the game mechanics already are in place to accomplish this with only modest numerical changes on the back-end. These are as follows:
- Remove all auto-win ticket bleeds for “no active players left on hostile team,” the autowin bleed for destruction of all ground units (yes it exists), the airbase destruction autowin bleed (yes it still exists on some maps), and all lopsided ground unit self-destruction bleeds that auto-win for one team without player involvement.
- Double the amount of tickets in the ticket bar, but intentionally leave the number of ground units and their ticket values unchanged. This ensures killing all ground units only destroys 50% of the bar.
- Remove the simple bombing targets from the mode entirely, and replace those with one target using a building-based damage model like in the Deep Strike Event, but without cracked SPAAG defending it. Set the total ticket value of this objective to 50% of the initial bar.
- Increase ticket losses from killing all aircraft, player and AI alike. The total would be again 50% of the initial bar.
- Increase match timers back to 60min, now that the old reason for halving match time (crafting events) no longer even exists.
- Return the “extra supply line vehicles” to all maps like a few still possess, which spawn 20min into the round and are worth in total 50% of the original ticket bar. These are a failsafe to avoid games being needlessly dragged out.
- Remove red enemy markers from all aircraft to bring Air RB in line with other game modes. Currently the enemy ground units still often use oversimplified damage models that look no different dead or alive, and thus without red markers its impossible to tell if they are dead or alive - if those received updated models that look more like player tanks, then they too could have all markers removed.
Only when all plane classes doing their intended jobs don’t step on the toes of the rest of their own team does it become worthwhile for developers to add a bunch of more interesting objectives to nonfighters, such as:
- factory assaults
- taking out radar networks
- severing supply lines
- sinking the Tirpitz on the Norway map
- destroying airfields without autowin bleeds to deny enemies places to land and repair
- destroying oil fields
- sinking ships stuck in port (how do we not have a Battle of Taranto map yet after all these years when Japan literally used this as their model for Pearl Harbor?)
- etc.
From my pov you have strong believes - but not really a noteworthy willingness to reflect your own position on certain aspects. This by definition rather a strength (determination) but limits also your openness to different view which might be a more precise view on things.
So even if we have some common views on certain aspects of the game - in others we deviate significantly especially the structure of the player base.
In our last exchange you draw conclusions (“gaijin wastes money”) based on the imho wrong assumption regarding the player base - as you refused to answer a short question for clarification i decided to put a reply via the edit function to my previous Post to show you why:
Edit part of a previous exchange
It boils down that you believe / assume that WT and WoT would have the same player base or at least the same main income group - without looking at the main differences of WT to WoT and even pure flight sims. In other words you limit your horizon without any need.
That’s why further exchanges make no real sense as your base assumption is flawed - without trying to understand the needs of other players and their relevance for gaijin’s business case theoretical exchanges are futile.
For a pure Air RB player like me gaijin’s willingness to adapt their game to the needs of kids/teens grown up with Cod / Fortnite or tank MMO players ruined the gaming experience significantly - for the same reasons tankers complain about aircraft bullying them in tanks.
The main difference is that the impact of casual shooter players or tanker mains in Air RB is way more severe than people realize - your game result as pure pilot became more and more a random event as your individual game impact is limited by team composition - and as a rule of thumb: The team with the most non-dedicated air players loses. Period.
That why i am happy that others see team work as worth to strengthen - despite the fact that pure and dedicated air players see this as cornerstone of their game play not worth to mention.
Jea i am sorry that i know what i want lol :D
While its being very offtopic already:
Its funny to me thst u say “my wrong assumtions”… what makes you believe that u can say that they are wrong? Tf
You have more info about it then the rest? Care to share?
As none of your own assumtion you gave so far comes to the conclusion that my assumtion is wrong. (yes you also have only assumtion as neither you or me can prove anything)
You just assume smt yourself and claim to be right? lol. But you happily accuse me of not looking left or right :D
such a dirty little double moral you have :D Love it <3
But to the money wasting topic, you should maybe consider to do a quick research… why gaijin is making less money, in not only wt, but on all of their games… what their sales strategy is, compared to wot…what is different about it and why people dont spend nearly as much money on gaijins games… i give you a hint, its called “trust”.
edit* i give you even a second hint, that one is called “frustration”
edit2*
I made a short research if both games players have roughly the same disposable income, to check if theres maybe a big difference in it.
Spoiler
Result: Not really, tried to locate the playerbase based on scrambled data for only wot pc and wt, took that by the estimated country puchase power index and came to the result that wot is roughly 5% behind the purchasing power of wt, but due to only scrambled data i would come to the conclusion that they are basically the same.
edit3* for only people who cares, i made a llm promt, result is in the spoiler.
Spoiler
Prompt:
world of tanks and warthunder are competitors as you know, do a bit of reasearch, history, selling tactics and so on, why gaijin is making so much less money then world of tanks and always has been? Why are the players not spending more in gaijin games, especially in wt?
LLM:
My read: World of Tanks established a huge paying audience earlier, and its sales system gives established players more reasons to keep buying. War Thunder can make a purchase feel like buying faster progress without resolving the frustration that prompted it. That is a plausible explanation for weaker spending—but the claim that Gaijin has always made much less, especially per player, is stronger than the public evidence supports.
Here’s what the research shows, followed by my interpretation.
First, the financial comparison needs some care.
| Available evidence | What it tells us |
|---|---|
| SuperData estimated World of Tanks revenue at just over $500 million in 2014 . | WoT was already an enormous business. This was an external estimate, not an audited game revenue disclosure. |
| Preqin’s Gaijin Games Kft. profile reports approximately $151 million revenue for 2023 . | One Gaijin entity has substantial revenue; this does not establish consolidated Gaijin revenue or WT revenue alone. |
| Wargaming transferred its Russia/Belarus operations to independent Lesta management in 2022 . | Historical worldwide WoT figures cannot simply be treated as today’s Wargaming business. |
These figures concern different years and business boundaries, so dividing them would produce a misleading “revenue gap.” Revenue also isn’t profit. dev.by
More fundamentally:
Revenue = active players × percentage paying × average spending per paying player.
Lower total revenue does not necessarily mean individual players are less willing to spend.
1. WoT had a major head start where it mattered: building tank players’ habits.
WoT launched in Russia in 2010 and Europe in April 2011. War Thunder’s tanks only entered open beta in May 2014. By then, WoT already had years to establish itself as people’s regular tank game. World of Tanks
The commercial consequence is cumulative: friends, account progression, familiar mechanics, and collections make switching costly even when another game offers attractive features. Early revenue also finances further acquisition. Wargaming’s CEO explicitly described reinvesting in new markets, operations, PR, and marketing in a 2012 interview. GamesBeat
My inference is that a large part of the historical gap was audience scale and accumulated loyalty , rather than Gaijin failing to find a clever enough shop tactic.
2. WoT really did show unusually strong willingness to pay—but WT’s numbers are not disastrous.
In 2012, Wargaming’s CEO said approximately 25–30% of players paid. In May 2023, Gaijin said approximately 80% had never paid , implying roughly 20% had paid at some point. GamesBeat
Those are different dates and insufficiently defined populations, so they are not a controlled comparison. Nevertheless, they do not support the idea that WoT players overwhelmingly pay while WT players almost never do.
Separately, SuperData’s 2014 analysis estimated WoT at $4.51 monthly revenue per active user , unusually high among the free-to-play titles compared. I did not find a reliable equivalent WT figure for a matching period. GameWatcher
I would also be cautious about the familiar “WoT has wealthy older players; WT has broke teenagers” explanation. It is plausible that demographics matter, but I found no satisfactory comparative age-and-income dataset proving it.
3. Wargaming packages spending into occasions, collections, and apparent bargains.
Consider the difference in these documented offers:
| Sales mechanism | Example | Likely psychological effect—my interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Guaranteed value plus a random prize | WoT Holiday Ops boxes combine guaranteed gold with chances at premium vehicles and cosmetics. | Players can justify the purchase as buying useful currency while chasing an exciting extra. |
| A guaranteed reward after enough attempts | Holiday Ops 2024 guaranteed a high-tier premium on the 50th box if none had appeared in the preceding 49. | Progress toward a guarantee encourages additional purchases. |
| Limited availability | WoT’s Assembly Shop offers limited quantities of vehicles for accumulated resources. | Scarcity creates urgency and gives veterans another reason to consume their stockpiles. |
| Large discounts | WT’s 2024 anniversary offered 50% discounts on specified premium-account durations. | Strong conversion opportunity, but also a reason to postpone purchases until sales. |
These mechanics are documented in the respective publishers’ announcements. worldoftanks.eu
WoT’s strength here is turning buying into a recurring event. Someone who already owns an effective credit earner can still want another collectible, a limited vehicle, or holiday rewards.
WT also has collectors, events, and scarcity. The distinction is one of emphasis, not an exclusive feature. And holiday boxes cannot explain WoT’s entire historical advantage: it was already monetizing strongly in 2012.
4. WT’s progression purchases can reach a point of diminishing usefulness.
Gaijin explicitly describes progression acceleration as a foundation of its monetization. Premium accounts increase earnings; premium vehicles provide another progression tool. War Thunder
My interpretation: a player primarily buying efficiency can reach “enough” fairly quickly:
“I have premium time and a vehicle that grinds the nation I want. What does another purchase really solve?”
There are reasons to buy more—other nations, vehicle types, collecting—but every additional purchase competes for the same limited playing time.
This affects WoT too. The commercial challenge is persuading players who have already solved their economic needs to keep spending. Collectibility and sales occasions help do that.
5. Spending in WT does not necessarily deliver the experience the customer hoped to buy.
This is, to me, the most important product-design explanation, although public data does not quantify its revenue impact.
A player may want an enjoyable modern-tank or jet experience. Buying faster access does not automatically provide the knowledge, supporting vehicles, or competence to enjoy it.
That creates several possible reactions:
- Before buying: “This is expensive, and I’m unsure I’ll enjoy it.”
- After buying: “I paid, but I’m still struggling.”
- Before buying again: “Another vehicle probably won’t fix my problem.”
In ground modes involving multiple spawns, the usefulness of a purchased vehicle also depends on what else the player can field. That can encourage buying a lineup, but it can equally make the initial purchase feel incomplete.
A purchase that reduces grind is not necessarily a purchase that increases enjoyment enough to generate the next sale. Both games face this problem; I suspect it is particularly consequential for WT’s more demanding combat experience.
6. Economic pressure can produce purchases—or refusal.
Wargaming’s own CEO described high-tier repair costs as a monetization mechanism back in 2012: players could spend or play profitable lower-tier battles to fund them. So selling relief from economic friction is certainly not unique to Gaijin. GamesBeat
But the balance matters. WT’s May 2023 economy changes were reverted, and Gaijin subsequently published a substantial economy-revision roadmap addressing player feedback. That demonstrates a real breakdown in acceptance of the economy; it does not, by itself, prove a revenue decline. War Thunder
My commercial interpretation is that excessive pressure can change the customer’s attitude from “I’ll pay to improve a hobby I enjoy” to “I resent paying to remove an obstacle.” Some still spend. Others stop spending while continuing to play, wait for discounts, or leave.
So why aren’t WT players spending more? The evidence does not show one universal refusal to pay. More likely, different groups hit different limits: some are satisfied playing free, some have already bought enough progression help, some wait for sales, and some doubt another purchase will improve their experience.
My strongest conclusion is that WoT’s historical advantage combines early audience scale with effective repeat-purchase merchandising. WT’s likely weakness is the gap between the progress it sells and the enjoyment a buyer expects. Establishing how much each factor explains would require comparable active-player, payer-conversion, repeat-purchase, and spending data that neither company publicly supplies in sufficient detail.
Pormt:
You think the peoples paying behaviour could have smt to do with the way the amount of people trust the devs? wot has a history of refunding if they change a premium, wt has the opposite, a history of changing almost every vehicle that they ever placed to be sold
LLM:
Yes. Confidence that a purchase will retain its usefulness could be a significant driver of repeat spending—and my earlier answer gave that too little weight. That is more specific than simply liking or disliking the developers.
Your comparison has a documented basis, although I would qualify its scope:
- WoT has offered compensation for premium changes. When changing the SuperPershing, Wargaming offered existing owners its full retail value of 7,200 gold . That was an in-game currency refund, not cash, but it let customers choose another purchase. This establishes a precedent, rather than a guarantee for every change. World of Tanks
- Gaijin’s published store FAQ takes a much stricter position: it describes virtual-item purchases as non-refundable, with exceptions for technical payment problems. It offers no general assurance of compensation for balance changes. That is its stated commercial policy, rather than a conclusion about anyone’s legal rights. store.gaijin.net
I wouldn’t repeat “almost every vehicle” as an established fact without checking the vehicle histories. But your underlying point does not require that claim to be true.
Players buy an expected experience, not merely a vehicle model. They may choose a premium because it fits a particular lineup, faces particular opponents, has a distinctive weapon, or earns enough to support their preferred way of playing. A change can undermine that purchase even if the vehicle remains statistically competitive.
For example, hypothetically: you buy a tank specifically to complete your favourite lineup. Its battle rating increases, and keeping it in that lineup now changes the opposition for everything else. “It still has a good win rate” does not answer your complaint: the reason you bought it has disappeared.
That can affect spending in several ways:
| Customer expectation | Likely purchasing response |
|---|---|
| “If they substantially change it, they’ll give me a reasonable exit.” | More confidence buying at full price. |
| “It could change, and I bear the entire loss.” | Wait for discounts or skip the purchase. |
| “My last purchase stopped doing what I bought it for.” | Become reluctant to buy the next vehicle. |
| “New vehicles might be changed once enough people buy them.” | Distrust launch offers—even without evidence of deliberate manipulation. |
These are plausible mechanisms, not measured findings about the size of WT’s revenue loss .
The particularly damaging effect is that one disappointing purchase can reduce confidence in the entire catalogue . A player stops asking only “Is this tank worth €60?” and starts asking “Will the next €60 purchase disappoint me too?” They can continue enjoying the game while deciding never to spend again. Player retention can therefore conceal lost paying customers.
Compensation also has a commercial benefit beyond settling one complaint. A gold refund keeps the money within Wargaming’s economy while letting the player recover purchasing choice. It can preserve the next transaction instead of defending the previous one at all costs.
There is a genuine balance problem here: permanently protecting paid vehicles from necessary nerfs can hurt everyone else’s experience. The stronger trust-building promise is “we will treat you fairly when we materially change your purchase.” That leaves room for balancing, with exchanges or compensation where appropriate.
So I would revise my earlier assessment: trust in the lasting value of premium purchases belongs among the leading explanations worth investigating for differences in repeat spending. We cannot establish that it explains the overall revenue gap, but your proposed mechanism is concrete and commercially persuasive.
promt:
so gimme a summary, also double check if you may find more about it
LLM:
Yes—trust is a credible part of the explanation, especially for repeat purchases. The additional research supports your argument, but also shows that “Wargaming always compensates, Gaijin never does” is too absolute.
Here’s the summary of our discussion:
- WoT’s historical advantage started with scale and timing. It established its tank audience several years before WT’s ground forces launched. That gave it more time to build paying habits, collections, and social connections. worldoftanks.eu
- Wargaming creates recurring reasons to spend. Holiday boxes, guaranteed rewards, and limited-quantity vehicles encourage purchases even after players have enough premium vehicles to grind comfortably. These mechanisms are documented; their precise contribution to the revenue gap is not. worldoftanks.eu
- Trust can affect what players consider a premium worth. If customers expect a purchase to remain useful—or receive a reasonable remedy if it changes—they have less reason to delay, demand a discount, or stop buying.
- WT can lose spending without losing the player. Someone can still enjoy the combat while deciding that another expensive premium is too uncertain. That is a plausible commercial mechanism, not a measured finding about WT’s revenue.
The extra checking uncovered useful evidence on both sides:
| Example | What it establishes |
|---|---|
| WoT SuperPershing changes: owners were offered its full retail value of 7,200 gold . | A concrete precedent for giving customers an exit after changing a premium. It was gold, not cash. |
| WoT Panther 8.8 price reduction: Wargaming offered compensation for the price difference and a full-refund option. | Another example of protecting existing buyers, although this concerned pricing rather than a nerf. |
| WT’s 2023 premium-rank changes: Gaijin explicitly said it generally avoided changing premium/event ranks because that could affect research usefulness; this revision would only raise them. | Gaijin does recognize the importance of preserving some purchased benefits. |
| WT’s June 2025 removal of accidentally available camouflages: Gaijin announced Golden Eagle refunds. | “Gaijin never compensates” is incorrect—but this does not establish compensation for premium vehicle balance changes. |
These examples come from publisher announcements. worldoftanks.com
Gaijin’s published store FAQ still describes purchases as generally non-refundable, and I found no general premium-vehicle refund or exchange promise covering balance changes . Equally, the Wargaming examples do not establish an unconditional refund guarantee. store.gaijin.net
The strongest version of your argument is this: when a premium’s characteristics, opponents, or lineup role can change without a satisfactory remedy, customers may place a lower value on every future purchase . One disappointing transaction can therefore cost several later sales. Whether the change was justified for game balance is a separate question from whether the buyer feels fairly treated.
My revised assessment is that purchase security deserves more weight than I initially gave it . It plausibly helps explain differences in repeat spending alongside audience size, sales tactics, and perceived value. But public data still does not prove that WT players spend less per person today, or how much of any gap comes from distrust.
Promt:
what they say is not always what they do, on both sides. Check for whats happening in reality.
Also gimme a summary of your findings why wot earns so much more: Also give an overview of where you found informations, how sure you are of them, how much you thing your findigs are accurate. Theres some reason why they may multiple times more, if you also cant say realtively sure why, then tell that to me
LLM:
I can give you a reasonably supported explanation of WoT’s historical advantage. I cannot confidently establish that it currently earns several times more than WT, or that distrust of Gaijin explains most of the difference. My earlier answers were too confident about the causes before establishing a comparable revenue gap.
The extra research produced one important correction and some stronger evidence about actual developer behaviour.
1. The best direct spending comparison I found shows a 38% difference—not several times more.
SuperData’s estimates for the year ending March 2014 put average monthly revenue per active user at:
| Game | Monthly revenue per active user |
|---|---|
| World of Tanks | $4.51 |
| War Thunder | $3.26 |
| WoT advantage | About 38% |
Both figures appear in contemporary GamesBeat and MMORPG.com coverage. I missed the WT figure earlier. These are estimates from the same underlying research , so the two articles are corroboration of what was reported, not independent measurements. MMORPG.com also explicitly questioned the transparency of the underlying data. Confidence: medium in the estimates; high that they were reported accurately. GamesBeat
That changes the interpretation considerably: WT was already monetizing fairly strongly per player. If total revenue was several times lower in that period, audience size had to explain much of the difference.
For illustration—not an estimate of their actual audiences—three times as many active players spending 1.38 times as much produces 4.14 times the revenue . No single dramatic difference in customer psychology is required.
2. There is evidence that Wargaming protected premium purchases in practice.
The strongest additional example is the Progetto 46 in update 1.10 :
- Removing gun rammers would have reduced its performance.
- Its base shell-loading times were subsequently reduced from 8/9/12 seconds to 7.2/8.1/10.8 seconds .
- That change appears in the release notes and in the independent Skill4ltu vehicle-history database.
- Contemporary players discussed—and criticized—the resulting protection/buff of the premium.
This goes beyond a general promise: there is a recorded vehicle change and outside corroboration. Confidence: high for this example. docs
The SuperPershing gold-refund precedent also has community corroboration, although I did not obtain transaction records proving individual payouts. I would describe that as a well-supported historical precedent , not evidence that every dissatisfied customer receives compensation. World of Tanks
3. There is evidence of WT changes damaging customers’ willingness to spend—but its scale is unknown.
For example, the October 2023 M735 ammunition change appears in the released patch notes. Contemporary players reported reduced penetration, and a purchase-advice discussion explicitly cited the Type 16 FPS’s ammunition as a reason against buying it. That connects a real change with a stated purchasing objection. War Thunder
In a separate F-5C discussion, a player explicitly said previous changes to their T-34-100 had caused them to stop spending, and that the F-5C experience undermined confidence again. Other participants disputed whether the F-5C change made its situation materially worse. That is evidence of expressed distrust, not proof that every complaint accurately describes the balance change—or that the reported spending history is verifiable. War Thunder — official forum
My confidence is medium that this affects some customers; low about how much revenue it costs overall . Complaint threads disproportionately attract dissatisfied players, and searching specifically for spending complaints compounds that selection bias.
4. Wargaming’s protection does not mean purchases retain their practical value forever.
WoT players also report older premiums becoming less useful as stronger competitors arrive. That matters: a developer can leave your tank’s statistics untouched while changing its competitive environment enough to make the purchase disappointing. These reports undermine any simple claim that WoT customers uniformly trust Wargaming. reddit.com
My assessment of why WoT historically earned more:
| Explanation | My assessment | Confidence in its contribution |
|---|---|---|
| Larger established audience | Strongest explanation for a multiple-fold historical gap. WoT had years to establish its tank audience before WT ground forces arrived. | Medium–high , historically |
| Higher spending per active player | Supported by the 2014 comparison: approximately 38% higher. Cannot extrapolate that figure to today. | Medium , for that period |
| Recurring sales, scarcity and collection incentives | WoT’s holiday boxes and limited offers provide repeated reasons to buy. Their existence is clear; their incremental revenue effect is not public. | Medium as a contributor |
| Confidence in premium-purchase protection | Concrete examples support the distinction you raised. Likely matters to repeat buyers. | Medium for the mechanism; low for explaining the total gap |
| WT frustration despite paying | Player reports support it for some customers, but I lack representative comparative evidence. | Low–medium |
| WoT players being older or richer | I did not find adequate comparative demographic evidence. | Low |
The launch chronology and sales mechanisms are documented, but their ranking above is my interpretation. worldoftanks.eu
How reliable is the research overall?
- Released patch notes plus independent vehicle histories: strongest evidence for what actually changed.
- Contemporary industry reporting: useful for historical financial estimates, with methodological uncertainty.
- Forums and Reddit: useful for identifying experiences and possible mechanisms; weak for measuring prevalence or spending.
- Company statements and policies: establish promises and stated intentions, not consistent execution.
- Gaijin entity-level financial profiles: insufficient for comparing consolidated companies or individual games. The 2022 Wargaming/Lesta separation further complicates comparisons across years. www.preqin.com
Your trust explanation survives the checking, but it is not established as the main cause. The most defensible historical explanation is a much larger audience combined with somewhat stronger monetization per player . I cannot relatively confidently explain a current several-times revenue gap because I have not verified that gap on a same-year, same-product, same-region basis. Assigning percentages of it to trust, pricing, or marketing would be inventing precision.
promt:
did you compare revenue from the same year? wargaming has multiple times more income overall, is it because of their other games? what about gaijin other games?
LLM:
No—not for the total-revenue figures. I compared WoT’s estimated 2014 revenue with a Gaijin entity’s 2023 revenue. That mixed years, games and company boundaries, so it cannot establish a revenue multiple. That was my mistake. The 2014 spending-per-player comparison was from the same period.
And yes: Wargaming’s other games are a material part of the answer. Company revenue cannot be treated as World of Tanks PC revenue.
| Business | Wargaming | Gaijin |
|---|---|---|
| Main game discussed here | World of Tanks PC | War Thunder PC/console |
| Separate tank/mobile products | World of Tanks Blitz; World of Tanks Modern Armor | War Thunder Mobile |
| Other games | World of Warships; Warships: Legends; Warships Blitz; World of Warplanes | Crossout; Crossout Mobile; Enlisted; Star Conflict; CRSED |
| Publishing partnerships | Additional publishing activities | Includes Modern Warships through its Artstorm partnership |
These are distinct products and commercial relationships, not necessarily revenues that all flow to the publisher on identical terms. The companies’ game catalogues and partnership announcements establish the portfolios. Wargaming
The clearest evidence that Wargaming’s other products matter is Blitz. Its studio head told GamesBeat in June 2024 that it had exceeded $1 billion in lifetime revenue over ten years . That is substantial business outside WoT PC. It is a management disclosure, not independently audited evidence, and it does not mean Blitz earned $1 billion in 2024—or exactly $100 million that year. Thaine Lyman interview - GamesBeat
For a broader scale check, Wargaming’s CEO described its Russia/Belarus exit as removing approximately one-third of revenue, or $250 million , in a 2023 interview. That implies a roughly $750 million pre-exit revenue base , using rounded management figures. It is not a verified 2023 or current annual revenue total. Victor Kislyi interview - GamesBeat
What about Gaijin’s other games? They must also be included in a group comparison. But I have not found a credible public annual revenue breakdown for Crossout, Enlisted, WT Mobile and the other titles. Gaijin calls WT its main project, which supports its importance but does not tell us whether it contributes 50%, 75% or 90% of revenue. Gaijin Entertainment
There are two important accounting problems:
- Gaijin Games Kft. is one legal entity. Its reported revenue cannot automatically be labelled either “all Gaijin revenue” or “War Thunder revenue.”
- Publishing a game does not establish entitlement to all its sales. Modern Warships is an Artstorm partnership; I do not have the revenue-sharing terms. Adding its entire consumer spending to Gaijin’s revenue would be unjustified. www.preqin.com
My corrected conclusion:
| Question | What I can confidently say |
|---|---|
| Do other games materially increase Wargaming’s revenue beyond WoT PC? | Yes. Blitz alone demonstrates that. |
| Does Gaijin also earn money beyond WT? | Yes , but I cannot quantify the contribution reliably. |
| Do other games explain most of a several-times company revenue gap? | Not established. We need comparable consolidated totals and game breakdowns. |
| Does a larger Wargaming total prove WoT players spend much more than WT players? | No. It combines different games, audiences and platforms. |
We moved too quickly from “Wargaming is a bigger business” to “WT players are less willing to pay.” Portfolio size and audience size need to be accounted for first. Trust remains a plausible influence on individual purchasing, but the financial evidence we have does not identify it as the principal explanation for the companies’ size difference.
promt:
so gimme again a short conclusion so far
llm:
Wargaming’s larger revenue does not, by itself, mean War Thunder players are less willing to spend.
- Scale and other games matter: Wargaming earns from WoT PC, Blitz, console Tanks, and its Warships games. Gaijin also has other games, but we lack reliable revenue breakdowns.
- Our only comparable historical spending estimate: in 2014, WoT earned about 38% more per active player than WT—not several times more. It cannot establish today’s difference.
- Trust plausibly affects repeat purchases: there are concrete examples of Wargaming protecting premium purchases and WT players reporting that changes discouraged spending. We cannot measure the overall financial effect.
- I have not verified a current, same-year company revenue multiple. My initial comparison mixed years and business boundaries.
My best-supported explanation is audience scale plus the game portfolio, with monetization and purchase confidence as possible additional factors. I cannot confidently say how much each explains.
Me again:
So no one really knows, even chatgpt cant find enough evidence and gets confused.
Maybe this is on purpose, think about that. Maybe GJN want players have to figure out certain things. What’s wrong with that?
Have anyone figured out yet what do NEBO radars do?