Future of the Game

When SSL Steam was first released to Early Access and I started playing it, like 3-4 people messaged me from another community saying things like "that game is on steam now?? i remember playing the flash version years ago. thats pretty cool". After mentioning to pretty much all of them that it's $15, none of them expressed any additional interest.

Sure you can argue that the game is worth $15, but that's because you're in the minority. I'm in that boat to. I, personally, think the game is worth $15. But that's because I grew up with this game and hold it dear to me, even after all the vitriol I subjected it to. Sadly, a vast majority of people don't feel that way and it's extremely apparent when you see the stagnancy the game has reached in its playerbase.

Kyle has to realize that not just SSL is on Steam. He's competing with thousands of other titles that offer even more for a smaller price. You can't compare SSL to only other tank games when pretty much the entire Steam userbase isn't looking for basic 2D tank shooters they've played on DOS years ago.

 

SSL1 is still free.
SSL2 is free also, and both are fun and interesting.

SSL1 already was, after a few months of release date.

They don't have to get better at the game. It's just that the weapon packs do more damage, but the tactics that you need in order to gain XP properly is almost the same as most free weapons.
e.g. Needler and Stream.

Either way you only have to restart the game from Lv1 to Lv50, this requires no more skill than you have before prestiging. Well, unless you want to get till Lv50 in a day.

Yeah, these are so true and not ignorant.

The game has only been up for a week or a bit more and you're comparing it to the other two games that have been up for years. That's like comparing a professional architect to an architectural student who has just graduated high school.

 

Well, let me clarify some more random things.
@Agent60 , I made that post more to support kChamp than the game, although the physical game was much involved. Poor kChamp has been working on this for probably over 6 months, and the only thing we do is complain. There isn't enough people, it isn't worth $15, it isn't with the fanbase that DOTA2 has. Honestly, we are criticizing it far to much. This is a guy in college who has made us two great games (SSL not included due to not preventing hacks at all, and making the game 100% uninhabitable). It is still in BETA, so the true greatness of this game hasn't even come out. Yet, there are those that think this game is doomed. There is still so much in progress and so much this poor guy can handle in one day. We gotta respect that. We can't just go out whining to him when it isn't even two weeks in BETA yet. We just can't do that to him, or this game.

In other news, I'm going to bring up why we are bringing up DOTA2 now. Why are we even comparing it to this right now? It's a different genre, different style, different everything. Also, it had fantastic advertising before its release. This game had two videos which are easily missed. Why we are just instantly going out like this and calling this game a failure because it doesn't match up with a larger game? It's ridiculous. Although F2P is an advantage, that is truly one of the reasons it has so many players. Of those 60M players Day 1, how many would actually had bought the game? I can bet at least 59.999M wouldn't have. If you guys were so supportive of this game being produced only to complain that it doesn't have 500+ users when it's in BETA, can you even be considered a true supporter? (Also, we would have 2-3 pages of games if people didn't make so many 4v4s. If we weren't so greedy on that account, we wouldn't even be discussing this right now, most likely. If you complain about the lack of users, just make 1v1s!)

 

The point of Early Access is to criticize the game. We criticize because we want the game to succeed. Improvements aren't made without constructive feedback. Doing nothing but praise the game isn't productive in any way.

 

But comparing it to the fanbase of DOTA2 doesn't help the game get better, either. I can understand the argument with the money, but comparing it to DOTA2 gets us nowhere. It isn't anything kChamp can fix, so we should eliminate that comparison. SSLS will never get 60M players, nevermind in one day, and that's the facts.

 

Nobody is expecting SSL to have 60 million players.

Easy, lower the price.

 

Lowering the price would not necessarily solve the problem as even if it was lowered people could still complain about the price, not only that it would also open up a door to a whole new set of problems as people who payed the original price for it will be going ape shit wanting a semi refund for the difference.

 

you think the everday consumer on steam gone care about that sonny

 

Most of my friends have Steam, playing serious games like Assassins Creed, Skyrim, COD, Far Cry, Bioshock, CS.. When I suggested them SSL, noone, repeat, noone said they gonna spend 15$ on it. They tried flash version saying its okay, but not near 15$, even after polishing. All this is from real life experience, reality. SSL will buy someone who played flash version for some time, or someone who played prehistoric game tanks, not an average Steam user, who can spend 15$ on something much better/more famous.
After reading reviews, seeing that lvling is very slow, there still isnt nearly enough ppl, I'll hold back from buying a game.
Edit: @referee11 Did you buy the game, or someone bought it for you?

 

A valid point, yes. If Kyle was going to lower the price of the game, it'd be best if he did it post Early Access because of the whole "I don't want to sell a broken game to a thousand people" thing.

My main concern is the possibility that Kyle does release at $15, which would just be a disaster.

 

@RumzMumzMario
You are ignorant, sir. What you did in your previous post is semi-quote singular sentences to create an argument so that you may look better.
If you can not respond on a whole post, rather refrain from replying at all.

The fact of the matter is that the game is not worth $15 compared to other games of that price. If I can buy Borderlands 2 and CSGO for $15 in total and the other choice was SSLS for $15 , guess which I would choose?

 

Agent got it for me. Also, I didn't get you tag. Because it was inserted in an edit, I didn't recieve it. I just simply found it by checking another alert from this thread, lol.
Also, this thread is almost getting TOO crazy and flared-up. I'm this close to temporarily leaving to let tempers settle.

 

theres a difference between heated arguments and respectful debates

you have to admit, some of the people here have pretty solid points

 

Well, I never said there weren't good points. I just feel the match is approaching the dynamite right now. These good points are about to clash into a temper explosion. I just feel it.

 

We just want to see better of the game, there's nothing wrong with a serious discussion on the game's chances in the competitive market that is Steam.

 

↑ +1

We just want the game to strive and do well. Nothing else.

 

Honestly what will make or break the game is not the price (even though it does play a large part in it) but word of mouth from other people and youtubers that pick the game up, and the level of involvement kyle has with the community which judging from various posts, steam discussions kyle currently does very little of.

 

the contradictions are real

but yeah, youre right more or less

 

it would be ignorant to say that price doesn't play a part in how well something does, but strictly speaking unless its something so stupidly overpriced that no amount of word of mouth/etc would justify anyone buying a product, it does not make or break how well the product sells

 

Lowering the price will help gain popularity, but won't make anymore money than what the current price is. According to Emily Greer, CEO of Kongregate, she says that demand for games is inelastic meaning although dropping the price would get more people it won't make up the cost for the game being sold at its current price. On that same note you would expect this game to have fewer members in it now because although SSL1&2 has been played by a lot of people, not a lot of people actually pay for the premium stuff. Therefore since not a lot of people on the older ssls pay for the premium items, not a lot of people would pay for the game.

The game is worth the $15 if you see yourself playing this game for hours on end. If Kyle adds more stuff to do in this game (which he will) the $15 would be more worth it.

 

Well you cant say if its worth the money or not, since you didnt pay for it, so all your points loose on value.
Key is to make the game free for limited period of time, for example, COD is free for a weekend, and people can try it, play it, see if they like it, after that they can decide if they want to buy it.
And if the game is really worth it, people will buy it.
[for those who dont know, you cant play the game after, even if you downloaded it, you can only play it at given days]

 

I think we should only have the demo version. Players are able to play online, but as a guest account. Meaning they only have starter weapons.

 

If we were to make it free for ANY reason, this would be the way to go. They get a feel for the game, and can decide from there if it is worth $15.
That just might work.

 

Demos tend to hurt a games sales instead of help specially for a game like this for a very simple reason. If people try out the game even if they are locked into lvl 1 they will most likely play a little bit to get their fill and sate their curiosity and then move on to the next game and never think about this one again if it doesn't truly grab them at that moment.

 

Nope. they should have full access for a limeted period of time, so they can feel tha game as it is, this isnt nothing new, many games do this.