@jhbuchholz I didn’t compare it, someone else did that I originally posted to, and I just replied back. And btw, you can get tickets for a lot less than $125, you have to use different outlets. I found tickets for a game this year, for a team that’s supposed to go to the Super Bowl (per Vegas & Sports talk shows) that cost $9! And that’s in a football town that sells out continuous losing seasons
Yeah. Now you're reaching and making false claims.
@jhbuchholz now that u got proved wrong your done with it, lol typical! And saying someone is making false claims IS calling them a liar! And anyone that constantly trolls is like a little kid, so....
@jhbuchholz I didn’t compare it, someone else did that I originally posted to, and I just replied back. And btw, you can get tickets for a lot less than $125, you have to use different outlets. I found tickets for a game this year, for a team that’s supposed to go to the Super Bowl (per Vegas & Sports talk shows) that cost $9! And that’s in a football town that sells out continuous losing seasons
Yeah. Now you're reaching and making false claims.
There are plenty of would-be whales who, like many, simply don't find/feel/see the value in most if not all purchase options.
Anyone recall that first time you bought a single-character shard pack only to get the minimum or just above it, and perhaps experienced that semi-sick feeling that you received no value for the money you just spent? And subsequently felt spending that much (or any) money on a mobile game is a waste, at least for a while?
Sure, you can see the probabilities when you buy a pack, but even if fully aware of them, those no-value experiences affect the consumer psyche far more than a pleasant experience, so they overwhelmingly tend towards having lasting negative effects on spending. Even more interestingly, these kinds of packs are often offered as the sole way to obtain particular shards at the time, so by offering no other options, they're pushing customers into making a purchase that has a high likelihood of reducing the amount and frequency of said customers' future purchases, if in fact they do bite. Again, not a good way to go; customers spend (repeatedly) when their purchases are rewarded and they see value, whether consciously or subconsciously.
(Simple version of the solution in that example: increase the minimum reward and/or decrease the price until you're in a zone in which you're not devaluing your product and customers are highly likely to feel they've received value even with the minimum possible reward.)
Sorry for rambling, but this stuff jumps out at me because it's what I do, and it's amazing how much revenue and customer satisfaction can increase for the relatively tiny cost of hiring outside experts to consult on such matters. I'd love to see some sales data...
While I'm rambling, a couple other points:
* The football ticket example is horrid because it mentions selling out the stadium either way, meaning lowering ticket prices flat out equals less revenue. This is a game with digital goods and no cap on the number available, so it IS possible that lowering prices and/or tweaking what's offered can in turn bring in more revenue. In other words, this is a stadium with unlimited capacity, and the decision is whether the company is open to adjusting its pricing so it can make money from the person who is willing to either continue spending $0 to watch from home or spend x% of the current price to get tickets.
* I have no idea what EA does or does not do with its sales data. Personally, I've played for years and haven't identified much in the way of significant change in pricing structure/model - at least not in the way that jumped out to me as likely to expand its base of paying customers, frequency of purchases, etc.
"It's profitable therefore we're doing it right" mentality is lazy, irresponsible, and self-defeating. It often results from basing goals and expectations off of what seems feasible assuming things continue to be to done a certain way, even if there's nothing to indicate that way is ideal in the first place. One could call it a form of tunnel vision, and it's a problem that often requires outsiders to correct. It leads to heightened fear of change and limited risk-taking, even if said risks are borderline trivial and/or there's significant research to indicate significant improvement is likely. The question to be asked is not whether this is good enough, but whether it can improve (and to what extent). Based on several clear and persistent violations of tried-and-tested, widely-accepted, research-based "best-practices" that can be identified without even seeing sales data... there's room for improvement here.
You can only gather so much direct data on things you don't implement, and if the options you can try are solid, high-percentage ones based on decades worth of research and data on sales principles (sales in general, digital sales, microtransactions, sales specifically in the genres of gaming and even mobile gaming, etc.), consumer psychology, etc., "risk" is very low. This is especially true considering reversion back to the existing sales model can happen almost instantly since we're dealing with a digital storefront and no actual physical products.
Well I already told you that annerdoone is the one that compared it and I was just replying back to, so it has to be the claim the football team is supposed odds to make it to the Super Bowl per Vegas and sources /
Vegas 20/1 odds
Lol why would this have any weight in this discussion? Annerdoon gave an example where if prices were lowered, the richer people would probably stop paying. You showed us that there’s cheap tickets for a different football game that’s allegedly supposed to go to the Super Bowl, why exactly?
Also I think the biggest thing to remember here is that theoretically, if prices were lowered, more people would spend. But, considering EA alone has the stats, it would probably equal less money for them. You can ask all year for lower prices if you want to, but I wouldn’t count on it happening.
I think CG would benefit from throwing us a freebie every once in a while. Even adding a bonus to an offer (um, without increasing the price like the last time, obv).
@Nihion Someone else was trying to be smart about something, so I was being smart back, nothing more nothing less. I told someone in my original post that they can’t compare football and this game, and another person tried to tell me that I couldn’t compare them, so since he was trying to be a smart - , I was being one back
Oh, well Annerdoons worked a little bit because it equated the situations correctly, I wasn’t sure where you were going with yours.
People seem to get confused by the fact that the company's ONLY real goal is to make as much money as possible on this venture. It's not to be fair, not to put out a great product, not to be the best game on the market, not to advance Star Wars as a brand.... to make as much money as possible for the shareholders. Don't fool yourself into thinking you matter because you'd dropped a few hundred dollars. When it stops pulling a profit, they'll cut stuff and keep running it as long as possible with no changes that cost money and then eventually just let it die when they can't squeeze any more money from it. This isn't some MMORPG where they can monetize outfits or something to stave off the end. This game will end without much warning at all. To expect anything else is foolish.
“This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken..” -Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever
People seem to get confused by the fact that the company's ONLY real goal is to make as much money as possible on this venture. It's not to be fair, not to put out a great product, not to be the best game on the market, not to advance Star Wars as a brand.... to make as much money as possible for the shareholders. Don't fool yourself into thinking you matter because you'd dropped a few hundred dollars. When it stops pulling a profit, they'll cut stuff and keep running it as long as possible with no changes that cost money and then eventually just let it die when they can't squeeze any more money from it. This isn't some MMORPG where they can monetize outfits or something to stave off the end. This game will end without much warning at all. To expect anything else is foolish.
Unless we are talking about CDProjectRed.
But what you say is correct
Replies
Yeah. Now you're reaching and making false claims.
Ok. Whatever.
*sigh*
First, I'm not a kid. Putting me down by calling me one does nothing for your argument.
Second, when did I call you a liar? Putting words in my mouth doesn't help you either.
This discussion has deteriorated rapidly. I'm done with it.
Did you read my whole post? Here, I'll repost it:
"""
Yeah. Now you're reaching and making false claims.
Ok. Whatever.
"""
I clearly showed your false claim in my post. It had nothing to do with ticket prices. I'll let you figure out the rest.
Now stop tagging me in your posts and leave me alone.
Anyone recall that first time you bought a single-character shard pack only to get the minimum or just above it, and perhaps experienced that semi-sick feeling that you received no value for the money you just spent? And subsequently felt spending that much (or any) money on a mobile game is a waste, at least for a while?
Sure, you can see the probabilities when you buy a pack, but even if fully aware of them, those no-value experiences affect the consumer psyche far more than a pleasant experience, so they overwhelmingly tend towards having lasting negative effects on spending. Even more interestingly, these kinds of packs are often offered as the sole way to obtain particular shards at the time, so by offering no other options, they're pushing customers into making a purchase that has a high likelihood of reducing the amount and frequency of said customers' future purchases, if in fact they do bite. Again, not a good way to go; customers spend (repeatedly) when their purchases are rewarded and they see value, whether consciously or subconsciously.
(Simple version of the solution in that example: increase the minimum reward and/or decrease the price until you're in a zone in which you're not devaluing your product and customers are highly likely to feel they've received value even with the minimum possible reward.)
Sorry for rambling, but this stuff jumps out at me because it's what I do, and it's amazing how much revenue and customer satisfaction can increase for the relatively tiny cost of hiring outside experts to consult on such matters. I'd love to see some sales data...
While I'm rambling, a couple other points:
* The football ticket example is horrid because it mentions selling out the stadium either way, meaning lowering ticket prices flat out equals less revenue. This is a game with digital goods and no cap on the number available, so it IS possible that lowering prices and/or tweaking what's offered can in turn bring in more revenue. In other words, this is a stadium with unlimited capacity, and the decision is whether the company is open to adjusting its pricing so it can make money from the person who is willing to either continue spending $0 to watch from home or spend x% of the current price to get tickets.
* I have no idea what EA does or does not do with its sales data. Personally, I've played for years and haven't identified much in the way of significant change in pricing structure/model - at least not in the way that jumped out to me as likely to expand its base of paying customers, frequency of purchases, etc.
"It's profitable therefore we're doing it right" mentality is lazy, irresponsible, and self-defeating. It often results from basing goals and expectations off of what seems feasible assuming things continue to be to done a certain way, even if there's nothing to indicate that way is ideal in the first place. One could call it a form of tunnel vision, and it's a problem that often requires outsiders to correct. It leads to heightened fear of change and limited risk-taking, even if said risks are borderline trivial and/or there's significant research to indicate significant improvement is likely. The question to be asked is not whether this is good enough, but whether it can improve (and to what extent). Based on several clear and persistent violations of tried-and-tested, widely-accepted, research-based "best-practices" that can be identified without even seeing sales data... there's room for improvement here.
You can only gather so much direct data on things you don't implement, and if the options you can try are solid, high-percentage ones based on decades worth of research and data on sales principles (sales in general, digital sales, microtransactions, sales specifically in the genres of gaming and even mobile gaming, etc.), consumer psychology, etc., "risk" is very low. This is especially true considering reversion back to the existing sales model can happen almost instantly since we're dealing with a digital storefront and no actual physical products.
Lol why would this have any weight in this discussion? Annerdoon gave an example where if prices were lowered, the richer people would probably stop paying. You showed us that there’s cheap tickets for a different football game that’s allegedly supposed to go to the Super Bowl, why exactly?
Oh, well Annerdoons worked a little bit because it equated the situations correctly, I wasn’t sure where you were going with yours.
Unless we are talking about CDProjectRed.
But what you say is correct