Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

What Ever Happened To The F2P Cash Shop?

1356

Comments

  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,035
    Blanket payment model isn’t to blame - it’s on the publisher/developer to implement that in a fair and responsible manner.

    Ive seen (and paid for) great games on subscriptions, and horrible games subscriptions.

    Ive seen (and paid for) great games on F2P, and horrible games on F2P.

    same thing for B2P... and I am willing to bet the same thing will happen whenever the next big payment model rolls out too.

    what it really boils down to is if you like the game and you feel you are getting worth from it - rather that involves monetary payment or not, it still involves time and effort and those are currencies as well.
    gervaise1Mendel
  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 7,561
    Subs are a hard proposition.  180 a year is expensive. Not counting box and expansion price.  The content of being most heroic task master doesn't sound appealing or a good deal. 
    This was my point too...I wouldn't spend $180 in the cash shop....Also when I paid a sub I felt obligated to play, not play when I felt like it.
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,139
    edited April 2019
    Ungood said:
    goboygo said:
    There I was when the first F2P hit the western market and Im going how stupid does someone have to be to think F2P games are going to be good in the long term.  And there is the wave of short sighted penniless gamers arguing with me about how great it was.  And some writer on this very site, don't remember who he was, telling everyone F2P games were the future of gaming and the western market was behind the times. everyone wins he says.  

    Then later when they realized they do have to spend some money to have any chance at having a normal playing experience, the argument was, but I only spend money when I need it, Im in control.  Okay buddy whatever you say.

    Then the same group realizes they are spending WAY more then they ever would have on a sub game that gave you everything, and they still don't have anything close to everything on the "one" character they can afford to spend money on.

    And now guess what, I don't hear them defending F2P games anymore.
    I hate to say it.. but when I was playing GW2, I used to get a bit of a joy hearing people cry about the price of things in the cash shop, when, spending a pitiful $20 a paycheck I never had an issue buying what I wanted.

    In the endm, if I am having fun playing a game, I want to spend money on it to support it, and a cash shop is a neat way for me to do just that, without feeling obligated to pay a sub. If one month, I am off contract, and need to live on the savings, ok.. I don't spend.. next month, I am back on contract, and I might splurge and spend a c-note, in many ways I am in complete control.

    If I don't like the game, for whatever reasons, I don't spend money on it.. I also stop playing it and try to find a game I will enjoy.. and F2P, well.. allows me to play a game for a bit and make that decision, sometimes, I might make an account, make a character, log in .. and get distracted by something else.. like a Walking Dead marathon leading up to Spoiler, which kills ALL my free time, and not go back to the game for a month, so a "free trial" does not work for someone like me.

    In the end.. whoever said F2P was the future of games.. they were in fact right.
    I doubt anyone back then envisioned "FTP" games generating $3B a year....

    Someone is spending big money on silly stuff....just not me



    Gdemami

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 17,650
    edited April 2019
    I bought Atlas 30 bucks,no cash shop no sub fee no cost,i just play as i feel.

    The way to go with game design to give us great mmorpgs would be a similar design,survival+rpg+private servers+modding.

    Most devs don't like private servers or modding because they want to ABUSE those ideas to profit even more.Some would say THEIR game,they can choose to profit anyway they feel,except one problem,running a business takes two to tangle a seller and A BUYER.

    If all you want to do is abuse your customers ,you deserve to lose your business.

    I was eating,then i was tired so i left a video describing what happened to RIFT and the author sure painted a VERY accurate picture.We often forget the board of trustees,investors getting their dirty hands on these games and ruining them for GREED of money.

    I can even look at Blizzard,i never liked their games but at least i had respect for their business,they never did anything i didn't like.Then all of a sudden i noticed this change in Blizzard,a very heavy push towards GREED and cash shop gaming.I never thought much about it then realized>>>Activision.Once you add another piece to the puzzle greed becomes even bigger,too many hands want to get rich.

    So on the same topic and using Blizzard as an example,who's idea was it to turn D4 into a cash shop mobile game Blizz or Activision or outside investors?I am saying this because we know full well they are aiming at mobile because they see an EASIER cheaper avenue to big profits,there is NO SUCH thing as f2p mobile gaming.

    Point being,there are a LOT of influences that have turned games south.Tons of people want in on the market but need outside help to do it,so in comes big investors and BAM..gaming ruined.So far it seems t obe working for the developers,it is NOT working for us the gamer's but seems a lot of people are supporting these really bad games and spending enormous amounts of money in the cash shops.


    Scot

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,999
    edited April 2019
    Interesting poll, but...it really doesn't say anything we didn't already know.  When people used to say whales carried a game, it doesn't mean whales were the only ones spending.  It meant that the average player was maybe spending 30 dollars a month, but whales were spending 1,000 to 60,000 a month (this is my definition based on leaks from some games)

    So while developers loved anybody spending, one whale being worth 100s, or even 1000s of average customers gets their attention...

    I'm curious if the new ultra successful F2P games carry or buck that trend.  Is the billion dollars that  Fortnite made contributed more by the average player, or the whales?
    My impression has always been that supposedly whales pay for f2P games and no one else does. I get that from posters and articles which only ever talk about the 2% of whales. As a proportion of money spent 'minnows' are small, as a proportion of players paying minnows are large.

    So I think the small amounts many give is underappreciated and reveals the lie to the idea that the baulk play F2P for "free". Currently we are at 91% have payed in the past.
    Gdemami

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,211
    edited April 2019
    Scot said:
    Interesting poll, but...it really doesn't say anything we didn't already know.  When people used to say whales carried a game, it doesn't mean whales were the only ones spending.  It meant that the average player was maybe spending 30 dollars a month, but whales were spending 1,000 to 60,000 a month (this is my definition based on leaks from some games)

    So while developers loved anybody spending, one whale being worth 100s, or even 1000s of average customers gets their attention...

    I'm curious if the new ultra successful F2P games carry or buck that trend.  Is the billion dollars that  Fortnite made contributed more by the average player, or the whales?
    My impression has always been that supposedly whales pay for f2P games and no one else does. I get that from posters and articles which only ever talk about the 2% of whales. As a proportion of money spent 'minnows' are small, as a proportion of players paying minnows are large.

    So I think the small amounts many give is underappreciated and reveals the lie to the idea that the baulk play F2P for "free". Currently we are at 91% have payed in the past.
    It depends on the game and the sum. If the publisher has a good product, and uses smart the much bigger scale, that F2P gives with price variety - so things from 1 to 100 USD, most players will pay. But many publishers do not have good products or competency. Take TW3 as example. It has no protection, actually you can take the same game from the store and for free from a torrent tracker. Still most people bought the game. 

    In fact I downloaded TW3 for free first, then I payed, as I was impressed by the quality of the product. If I find a MMO with equal quality of gameplay, I will pay for sure, as that will be a long term investment into my entertainment. And most players have much lower standards for a good game than myself.
    GdemamiScot
  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW Member RarePosts: 1,344
    Scot said:
    Interesting poll, but...it really doesn't say anything we didn't already know.  When people used to say whales carried a game, it doesn't mean whales were the only ones spending.  It meant that the average player was maybe spending 30 dollars a month, but whales were spending 1,000 to 60,000 a month (this is my definition based on leaks from some games)

    So while developers loved anybody spending, one whale being worth 100s, or even 1000s of average customers gets their attention...

    I'm curious if the new ultra successful F2P games carry or buck that trend.  Is the billion dollars that  Fortnite made contributed more by the average player, or the whales?
    My impression has always been that supposedly whales pay for f2P games and no one else does. I get that from posters and articles which only ever talk about the 2% of whales. As a proportion of money spent 'minnows' are small, as a proportion of players paying minnows are large.

    So I think the small amounts many give is underappreciated and reveals the lie to the idea that the baulk play F2P for "free". Currently we are at 91% have payed in the past.
    This is a poll for pokemon go.

    https://www.strawpoll.me/16451112

    I think you are overthinking.  There may be people in those 91% who spend very little, or dont' spend money on most games.

    Also most people quit games very quick.  So understandably why a specific game would say 90%+ of players never spend any money.  Because they quit the game before going far.
    Gdemami
  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,656
    Let's repeat it again. F2P is much more than a monetization model, it changes the entire game from core to detail (and not for the better).
    The sooner f2p dies, the sooner you can get good games again.
    GdemamiScot
  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 7,103
    kjempff said:
    Let's repeat it again. F2P is much more than a monetization model, it changes the entire game from core to detail (and not for the better).
    The sooner f2p dies, the sooner you can get good games again.
    It won't die too profitable to die because people keep buying after claiming they don't. 
    AlBQuirkyKyleranScot
    Crichton: 'If he masters wormhole technology, what will he use it for?'
    Scorpius: 'Faster delivery of pizzas.'

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 6,154
    cheyane said:
    kjempff said:
    Let's repeat it again. F2P is much more than a monetization model, it changes the entire game from core to detail (and not for the better).
    The sooner f2p dies, the sooner you can get good games again.
    It won't die too profitable to die because people keep buying after claiming they don't. 
    Exactly. The only reason to NOT do F2P is for the players. No one is going to do that :)
    GdemamiScot

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • XasapisXasapis Member RarePosts: 6,337
    In fact, one would argue that the developers/publishers are becoming more aggressive with invasive and manipulative methods to "convince" people to spend as much money as possible.

    MTX have become so bad that governments started to intervene. It won't be long before calls for restricting F2P monetization will be requested to be put in place.

    Especially since things seem to move to the mobile space.
    GdemamiScot
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,139
    cheyane said:
    kjempff said:
    Let's repeat it again. F2P is much more than a monetization model, it changes the entire game from core to detail (and not for the better).
    The sooner f2p dies, the sooner you can get good games again.
    It won't die too profitable to die because people keep buying after claiming they don't. 
    Just like porn.

     ;)
    AlBQuirky

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • XasapisXasapis Member RarePosts: 6,337
    Kyleran said:
    cheyane said:
    kjempff said:
    Let's repeat it again. F2P is much more than a monetization model, it changes the entire game from core to detail (and not for the better).
    The sooner f2p dies, the sooner you can get good games again.
    It won't die too profitable to die because people keep buying after claiming they don't. 
    Just like porn.

     ;)
    I'm a twitch subscriber. I should probably swap it with pornhub.
    KyleranAlBQuirky
  • ikcinikcin Member RarePosts: 2,211
    kjempff said:
    Let's repeat it again. F2P is much more than a monetization model, it changes the entire game from core to detail (and not for the better).
    The sooner f2p dies, the sooner you can get good games again.
    Let face the truth, after the newsletters for the profits of LoL and Fortnite - F2P is the future of the MMO marketing.  Fortnite expects net profit - so the profit after all costs and taxes for the current year, around 3 billions USD. And because they make it only with cosmetics, all the incompetent publishers will copy that marketing, exactly as they copied from Blizzard and WoW. There will be also more mobas like LoL, maybe even MMOs - Albion is an obvious attempt into that direction, not a good one. 
    Gdemami
  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 7,561
    kjempff said:
    Let's repeat it again. F2P is much more than a monetization model, it changes the entire game from core to detail (and not for the better).
    The sooner f2p dies, the sooner you can get good games again.
    Would you really want to pay $15 a month for every single game you play? We did it back in the early 2000s because we had no other choice and there were only a handful of games, but in 2019 we have many choices. Also just because you pay a monthly doesn't aurtomatically make the game better.
    CryomatrixMendel
  • PemminPemmin Member UncommonPosts: 623
    edited April 2019
    kjempff said:
    Let's repeat it again. F2P is much more than a monetization model, it changes the entire game from core to detail (and not for the better).
    The sooner f2p dies, the sooner you can get good games again.
    Would you really want to pay $15 a month for every single game you play? We did it back in the early 2000s because we had no other choice and there were only a handful of games, but in 2019 we have many choices. Also just because you pay a monthly doesn't aurtomatically make the game better.
    for mmos? I would. now design is all about getting all the money upfront by influencing people to spend cash to bypass timegates. while in yester-year player retention was actually a thing.



    FTP has always been about companies maximize profits and has never had the gamer's interests at heart. It is/was a very well spun narrative I will give the suits that.
    Gdemami
  • XasapisXasapis Member RarePosts: 6,337
    kjempff said:
    Let's repeat it again. F2P is much more than a monetization model, it changes the entire game from core to detail (and not for the better).
    The sooner f2p dies, the sooner you can get good games again.
    Would you really want to pay $15 a month for every single game you play? We did it back in the early 2000s because we had no other choice and there were only a handful of games, but in 2019 we have many choices. Also just because you pay a monthly doesn't aurtomatically make the game better.
    You get a full game for the cost of 15 a month. At this point and considering how barebone and chopped the F2P games are, this became an amazing deal. Personally I'm willing to give double that or even more to completely negate the presence of a cash shop. Unfortunately I seem to be among the minority that looks at the true cost over time, instead of only at the upfront cost.
    GdemamiScot
  • WargfootWargfoot Member UncommonPosts: 257
    My only problem with cash shops, outside of pay-to-win, would be game design that revolves around making the cash shop important.  

    For example, when developers intentionally put grinds into the game so that you by the 'half the grind' scroll in the shop.  To me, it is obvious that the cash shop would give the studio incentive to make some things suck so that you buy the key that fixes the problem.  That is BAD for players.

    I have to laugh at people that wince at a $20 sub but then go on to spend 3x that in the cash shop.

    I'm playing Elite Dangerous right now and they have a cash shop and an initial purchase price.  I don't mind it so much there because there is nothing that is pay-to-win and the grind is exactly the same for everyone.  Take it much further and I start to check out.
    GdemamiScot
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,071
    Wargfoot said:
    For example, when developers intentionally put grinds into the game so that you by the 'half the grind' scroll in the shop.  To me, it is obvious that the cash shop would give the studio incentive to make some things suck so that you buy the key that fixes the problem.  That is BAD for players.

    I have to laugh at people that wince at a $20 sub but then go on to spend 3x that in the cash shop.

    ...as opposed to case when developers intentionally put grinds into the game so that they bleed you not only for subscription fees but ton of your time on top.

    Because that is actually GOOD for players.

    /facepalm
    immodiumikcin
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,999
    edited April 2019
    Xasapis said:
    kjempff said:
    Let's repeat it again. F2P is much more than a monetization model, it changes the entire game from core to detail (and not for the better).
    The sooner f2p dies, the sooner you can get good games again.
    Would you really want to pay $15 a month for every single game you play? We did it back in the early 2000s because we had no other choice and there were only a handful of games, but in 2019 we have many choices. Also just because you pay a monthly doesn't aurtomatically make the game better.
    You get a full game for the cost of 15 a month. At this point and considering how barebone and chopped the F2P games are, this became an amazing deal. Personally I'm willing to give double that or even more to completely negate the presence of a cash shop. Unfortunately I seem to be among the minority that looks at the true cost over time, instead of only at the upfront cost.
    Theocritus how long are you playing this hypothetical subscription only game for? I was in ESO for about elven months had no problems with a sub. But many players in that sort of MMO might be in it for only four months, that's not a huge amount of money.

    Also I only play one MMORPG at a time so its not like we would need to pay five subs at once. It is because of F2P you play five MMOs at once, never really get into or enjoy any of them. If I am wrong say so, do you think you would enjoy one well made MMO to your liking (ESO may have not been for you) more than five also rans?

    I have seen lots of people say they are prepared to pay what I think of as a 'whale subscription' just to be shot of the cash shop, I would too. Look at some of those classic servers where you need to pay a subscription in a F2P MMO to play them and how well they were received. There is a market for subscription, and on principle I would have no issues with a cosmetics only cash shop with bind on purchase items. The only problem there is you know once they have a cash shop games always start on a journey that ends as P2W, the only way to be sure that does not happen is no cash shop.
    GdemamiAlBQuirky

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • UngoodUngood Member EpicPosts: 4,127
    Kyleran said:
    Ungood said:
    goboygo said:
    There I was when the first F2P hit the western market and Im going how stupid does someone have to be to think F2P games are going to be good in the long term.  And there is the wave of short sighted penniless gamers arguing with me about how great it was.  And some writer on this very site, don't remember who he was, telling everyone F2P games were the future of gaming and the western market was behind the times. everyone wins he says.  

    Then later when they realized they do have to spend some money to have any chance at having a normal playing experience, the argument was, but I only spend money when I need it, Im in control.  Okay buddy whatever you say.

    Then the same group realizes they are spending WAY more then they ever would have on a sub game that gave you everything, and they still don't have anything close to everything on the "one" character they can afford to spend money on.

    And now guess what, I don't hear them defending F2P games anymore.
    I hate to say it.. but when I was playing GW2, I used to get a bit of a joy hearing people cry about the price of things in the cash shop, when, spending a pitiful $20 a paycheck I never had an issue buying what I wanted.

    In the endm, if I am having fun playing a game, I want to spend money on it to support it, and a cash shop is a neat way for me to do just that, without feeling obligated to pay a sub. If one month, I am off contract, and need to live on the savings, ok.. I don't spend.. next month, I am back on contract, and I might splurge and spend a c-note, in many ways I am in complete control.

    If I don't like the game, for whatever reasons, I don't spend money on it.. I also stop playing it and try to find a game I will enjoy.. and F2P, well.. allows me to play a game for a bit and make that decision, sometimes, I might make an account, make a character, log in .. and get distracted by something else.. like a Walking Dead marathon leading up to Spoiler, which kills ALL my free time, and not go back to the game for a month, so a "free trial" does not work for someone like me.

    In the end.. whoever said F2P was the future of games.. they were in fact right.
    I doubt anyone back then envisioned "FTP" games generating $3B a year....

    Someone is spending big money on silly stuff....just not me



    I hate to say it.. but some of us were in fact watching this trend unfold, and at first, one of the biggest things we saw was that the on average numbers were better for F2P.

    Where a Sub at the time would get $15 a month per player, F2P games were generating $24 a month per player, which is why a lot of games jumped over to the "Item Shop" model, it was in every way, more profitable.

    It had also been proven that F2P games had a much higher return rate than sub games, since it did not cost anyone any money to come back, players were in fact taking breaks and returning to F2P games far more frequently than they did Sub based games.

    So while Whales do get a lot of attention, there were far more reasons to go F2P than simply someone spending big bucks, as many games today could in fact make theoricially make more with a Sub than going F2P, it is just at this point, not competitive to the market.

    Case in point, GW2, made roughly 20 million last quarter, with potentially 1.5 million players, if they had a 15 dollar sub and those same 1.5 million players, they could have made 65 million a quarter, just to give an idea of the current discrepancy.

    But at the same time, if they tried to put in a sub, there is a better than good chance they would not have 1.5 million players willing to shell it out, purely for the privilege of playing their game. TERA, and a few other games have proved this a few times over. 

    Players now want something more than a game to play for $15 a month.

    As for the 3 billion. Keep in mind, at its height, WoW was making 150 Million a Month on subs alone, couple that with expansions, which would have been another, roughly, 450 million, which means WoW alone made 2.2 Billion in one Year, and that is ONE game. 

    So the money has always been out there.. MMO's have proven to be a multi-billion dollar industry, is simply a matter of how to harvest it.. currently the Item Mall/F2P seems to be working.

    What will come next.. who knows.
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • WargfootWargfoot Member UncommonPosts: 257
    Gdemami said:
    Wargfoot said:
    For example, when developers intentionally put grinds into the game so that you by the 'half the grind' scroll in the shop.  To me, it is obvious that the cash shop would give the studio incentive to make some things suck so that you buy the key that fixes the problem.  That is BAD for players.

    I have to laugh at people that wince at a $20 sub but then go on to spend 3x that in the cash shop.

    ...as opposed to case when developers intentionally put grinds into the game so that they bleed you not only for subscription fees but ton of your time on top.

    Because that is actually GOOD for players.

    /facepalm
    I'm not sure how you managed to read that into my post.
    That said, it does shed a little light on your 'WTF' thread assessments.
    GdemamiScot
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 36,139
    kjempff said:
    Let's repeat it again. F2P is much more than a monetization model, it changes the entire game from core to detail (and not for the better).
    The sooner f2p dies, the sooner you can get good games again.
    Would you really want to pay $15 a month for every single game you play? We did it back in the early 2000s because we had no other choice and there were only a handful of games, but in 2019 we have many choices. Also just because you pay a monthly doesn't aurtomatically make the game better.
    Wouldn't bother me, I only play one game at a time and once "done" with it rarely return.

    Not paying for subs is more of a game hopper issue.
    IselinAlBQuirkyScot

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • WargfootWargfoot Member UncommonPosts: 257
    Ungood Said: It had also been proven that F2P games had a much higher return rate than sub games.

    --------------------------------------------

    I don't doubt this; however, I do have a question about it.

    Do we have a triple AAA title out there that is FTP and delivers the quality of content of the subscription triple AAA titles of the past?

    While I'm sure the FTP is generating a ton of money, and may in fact be keeping the doors open on failing sub-based titles - is the huge cash influx resulting in new, high quality content?

    It seems to me that a subscription implies 'more content coming soon'.  Good story telling and all that sort of thing.  FTP seems to be more about 'more shop items coming soon' - do FTP games (with cash shop, no sub) get the high quality content of the past?

    I ask this because IMHO, I think there is room out there for a $25.00 per month sub provided it is high quality with frequent updates - an absolutely no cash shop.  I think people are willing to pay for a high end experience.
    Scot
  • CryomatrixCryomatrix Member EpicPosts: 2,939
    The thing with me, is that now, an initial buy price for me is a hindrance for me to even play a game.

    If Elite Dangerous was F2P,  there is a good chance that i would have tried it. Perhaps, i would have gotten addicted to it and then spent money.


    Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix
    You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations. 
Sign In or Register to comment.