Warskull wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 19:29:

Beelzebud wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 19:01:
Is World of Tanks any good, or is it pay2win?

It used to be extremely pay to win, the best ammo was paid ammo. I heard it is slightly less pay to win now. However, if you want a tank game, they are it.

It can be pay to win, but in normal games people rarely use gold
(paid) ammo.

Its F2P up to a point. To compete in the Clan Warfare, which is really really fucking competitive you need those TierX tanks. No way you can get past TierVI or VII without paying for a premium account unless you are a NO LIFER of the worst smelly-unwashed-mom's basement kind.

Once you aquire a few top tier tanks and get into a good clan, the game turns into F2P again, because the good clans earn gold by holding territory.

You wont mind paying the dough though, the game really is that good (if you are into that kind of thing).

I quit because it got too competitive for me, I had to show up for team training, tactical discussions, clan battles and other totally time consuming activities.

Team training....Jesus....

NKD wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 14:28:

jdreyer wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 14:05:

It's a good question. I didn't think that WoT was really that popular. I suppose they could get a loan and amortize the purchase. Also, I'm sure that GPG probably didn't cost that much, being on the brink of insolvency.

WoT is like crack. It isn't WoW, but there are a ton of people hooked on that shit.

This is true. I was hooked for about a year and a half, spent about 350 Euros on that game in that year and a half. Mostly on a preorder tank, premium time and some premium tanks. Crack. It is. Because its a pretty damn good game.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 19:29:

Annex wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 14:50:

10+ million per month is what theyre making.

That's a crazy amount. How do you know that?

In Soviet Belarus, revenue generates you!

Their most recent standalone game, Order of War, is available on Steam. Anyone ever play it?

Reviews show it to be a solid but not sublime game.

EDIT: After reading, seems like a large scale WW2 RTS, but all tactical, no base building. Similar to what GPG has done in the past, but of course GPG RTSs had base building.

This comment was edited on Feb 15, 2013, 02:28.

Annex wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 14:50:

10+ million per month is what theyre making.

That's a crazy amount. How do you know that?

Beelzebud wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 19:01:
Is World of Tanks any good, or is it pay2win?

It used to be extremely pay to win, the best ammo was paid ammo. I heard it is slightly less pay to win now. However, if you want a tank game, they are it.

Wargaming.net now has 1400 employees?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wargaming.net

Is World of Tanks any good, or is it pay2win?

Lobster wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 15:30:
Just what the world needs... more F2P MMOs...

Because the ability to choose without paying through the nose (Yes SW:TOR, I'm looking at you) is a bad thing...

Wargaming's model might not appeal to everyone, but it's incredibly popular, particularly in Russia, and it's making them a shitload of money. Given the current trend of major production houses falling through, I think that some of the more successful new concerns (who obviously have a business model that's working at this point in time) investing in studios is a good thing.

Just what the world needs... more F2P MMOs...

jacobvandy wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 14:36:

Alamar wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 14:22:
But... What about Wildman?

-Alamar

On the back burner like Kings & Castles, probably. Depends on what Wargaming wants them to do.

I asked Chris that same question; he told me there is no defiant answer that he can give right now. I think they have to get the whole transition taken care of and I’m sure there are going to be meetings on how they are going to proceed on future titles.

I agree that there's no question that GPG went for less than it would have had Chris decided to sell the company on the quiet a few months ago. He really hurt his company valuation with his desperado videos. Apparently, it sure seems like Wargaming was the only company stepping up to the plate to buy GPG, and that there was no competitive bidding among companies--Wargaming looks like "it" for interest in GPG.

But I think the experience Chris has along with his GPG employees is near invaluable--hard to even put a dollar amount on that kind of experience and talent, imo. And I also think GPG has a lot of valuable IP, too, which is something many other studios just don't have. I think GPG is worth far more than mere "payroll liabilities" to someone who understands that "bean counters will not successful games make"...;) Here's the thing, though: we don't know what and for how much GPG was sold. It's entirely possible that Chris might've retained ownership of some of that prior IP if not all of it. Or, he may have had to sell everything at clearance prices.

GPG was not in debt, IIRC, so Chris may have been a bit less desperate than you might think--and I don't think he was so desperate that he would have made a bad deal to keep going. I also think he primarily did this for the sake of his employees, too.

Some very positive stuff here for Chris...he doesn't have to shoulder the financial responsibility for the company along with the creative responsibility, and I think he will relish his new role inside Wargaming. I know that I would. If I was Wargaming, I'd care far less about the previous GPG IP than I would about the kinds of future games he could get out of the GPG crew--that's really where the company's value shines, imo.

Wildman was a hasty stab, no doubt about it. Another thought I had about Wildman is that GPG was planning on using some of its Empire-destined code base (consigned to limbo when Microsoft cancelled its arrangement with GPG)--and "Wildman" was what they were planning just to throw on top of that code to some extent. Hence the technological development stages Chris talked about for Wildman, etc.

I also think that Chris is the kind of person who would not have done the deal if he couldn't bring *everybody* with him, at least initially. I might be wrong but I doubt if he left anyone behind. I think that your evaluation and Wargame's rational for buying GPG are very different...;)

RollinThundr wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 14:48:

Yakubs wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 14:40:

RollinThundr wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 13:41:
Again how are they getting all this revenue to buy up devs? Aside from World of Tanks and World of Warplanes I have never heard of any of the titles they've published.

You're making the assumption that GPG is actually worth something. Remember, this is a company that was desperate for some kind of cash infusion as recently as last week. As it stands, the only value GPG has is its IP which is offset by its payroll liabilities.

Meanwhile, Wargaming is probably fairly cash rich on an ongoing basis and running at a fairly high margin considering their revenue comes from a F2P title. Ongoing high margin revenue means the ability to easily add staff.

Wargaming probably bought GPG for a pittance and simply agreed to employ them (or at least some of them) and support some sort of future project. We're not talking a multi-million-dollar buyout here.

I get that, but GPG isn't their only recent pickup. I guess F2P games are making more money than one would think.

10+ million per month is what theyre making.

Yakubs wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 14:40:

RollinThundr wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 13:41:
Again how are they getting all this revenue to buy up devs? Aside from World of Tanks and World of Warplanes I have never heard of any of the titles they've published.

You're making the assumption that GPG is actually worth something. Remember, this is a company that was desperate for some kind of cash infusion as recently as last week. As it stands, the only value GPG has is its IP which is offset by its payroll liabilities.

Meanwhile, Wargaming is probably fairly cash rich on an ongoing basis and running at a fairly high margin considering their revenue comes from a F2P title. Ongoing high margin revenue means the ability to easily add staff.

Wargaming probably bought GPG for a pittance and simply agreed to employ them (or at least some of them) and support some sort of future project. We're not talking a multi-million-dollar buyout here.

I get that, but GPG isn't their only recent pickup. I guess F2P games are making more money than one would think.

RollinThundr wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 13:41:
Again how are they getting all this revenue to buy up devs? Aside from World of Tanks and World of Warplanes I have never heard of any of the titles they've published.

You're making the assumption that GPG is actually worth something. Remember, this is a company that was desperate for some kind of cash infusion as recently as last week. As it stands, the only value GPG has is its IP which is offset by its payroll liabilities.

Meanwhile, Wargaming is probably fairly cash rich on an ongoing basis and running at a fairly high margin considering their revenue comes from a F2P title. Ongoing high margin revenue means the ability to easily add staff.

Wargaming probably bought GPG for a pittance and simply agreed to employ them (or at least some of them) and support some sort of future project. We're not talking a multi-million-dollar buyout here.

Alamar wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 14:22:
But... What about Wildman?

-Alamar

On the back burner like Kings & Castles, probably. Depends on what Wargaming wants them to do.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 14, 2013, 14:05:

It's a good question. I didn't think that WoT was really that popular. I suppose they could get a loan and amortize the purchase. Also, I'm sure that GPG probably didn't cost that much, being on the brink of insolvency.

WoT is like crack. It isn't WoW, but there are a ton of people hooked on that shit.

But... What about Wildman?

-Alamar

World of Tanks brings in 10+ million in revenue per month. More than enough to buy out GPG completely and any other small studio they want.