Frustrated1 said: The one thing WE know from testing: They blatantly are flaunting their disregard for their customers by allowing this to run with two price points.
Borstock said: Frustrated1 said: The one thing WE know from testing: They blatantly are flaunting their disregard for their customers by allowing this to run with two price points. You're right. They should set it at the higher price point for everyone.
MarkersMake said: Borstock said: Frustrated1 said: The one thing WE know from testing: They blatantly are flaunting their disregard for their customers by allowing this to run with two price points. You're right. They should set it at the higher price point for everyone. By offering 2 price points, and having everyone know about them, they have gained almost no usable information at all, and they have tilted the playing field for no apparent reason.
Borstock said: MarkersMake said: Borstock said: Frustrated1 said: The one thing WE know from testing: They blatantly are flaunting their disregard for their customers by allowing this to run with two price points. You're right. They should set it at the higher price point for everyone. By offering 2 price points, and having everyone know about them, they have gained almost no usable information at all, and they have tilted the playing field for no apparent reason. I fail to see how they gain no usable information. For starters, not everyone who plays the game comes to these forums. There is a very significant number of people playing this game who probably have no clue there are two different prices out there.Second, you're not looking at their data, so you have no idea whether they are getting useful information or not. And finally, you don't know why they put two different price points out there to begin with. For all you know, they did it deliberately so that the people with the lower one would be so thrilled they were lucky enough to get the lower price point that it would actually result in their spending more, resulting in more money for the company. People need to stop taking these decisions so personally, as if there is someone at the company secretly scheming to ruin your day. It is a game designed to generate income. When a new feature is introduced that seems designed to generate more income, that should not shock a single player playing. I also assume that every time a new feature is introduced, it is based on rigorously tested market research that says the net gain from instituting said feature is positive (aka - the number of people who stop playing/spending due to some imagined insult < the amount of new revenue generated). These are not a bunch of high school kids taking an economics class throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks in some weird business simulation.
nickaraxnos said: Maybe you should stop thinking that these devs are so good at what they do. Especially when there are so many good reasonings from too many players that proves exactly the opposite Honestly, lately they seem exactly like a bunch of high school kids doing silly things. Or maybe some well payed mature people with too many achievements in the past who currently have the god complex
Nepenthe said: MarkersMake said: Are you thinking of Hulkbuster (iron man)? Because this is the first time Red Hulk has been offered in this store. As per the OP, the 4* available for today is always the same as the required 4* for the Behemoth Burrito node of DDQ. If you don't have it, here is a list of the DDQ BB required characters - http://forums.d3go.com/discussion/63570/ddq-behemoth-burrito-list/p1 Anyone know if Agent Coulson will be included when this list loops around to the start again? Not sure if he's been featured enough yet. I could really use a yellow Coulson within the next 12 days, though.
MarkersMake said: Are you thinking of Hulkbuster (iron man)? Because this is the first time Red Hulk has been offered in this store. As per the OP, the 4* available for today is always the same as the required 4* for the Behemoth Burrito node of DDQ. If you don't have it, here is a list of the DDQ BB required characters - http://forums.d3go.com/discussion/63570/ddq-behemoth-burrito-list/p1
My understanding was the H4H were characters no longer in the legendary packs. But progression rewards always seem to be new characters so who the hell knows. They might as well called the characters retired.
I only get the 3600 offer. I would buy a needed or champed 4 star for 2500, but instead I'm forced into hording both HP and CP. Not being able to pull anything makes the game pretty pointless.
nickaraxnos said: Thats why i believe they should increase the iso in the deals. 100k for 2500 and 150k for the 3600 offer. Lot of people will gladly buy more offers
You're not wrong, though, people will absolutely buy more if they made that change.
Borstock said: I fail to see how they gain no usable information. For starters, not everyone who plays the game comes to these forums. There is a very significant number of people playing this game who probably have no clue there are two different prices out there.Second, you're not looking at their data, so you have no idea whether they are getting useful information or not. And finally, you don't know why they put two different price points out there to begin with. For all you know, they did it deliberately so that the people with the lower one would be so thrilled they were lucky enough to get the lower price point that it would actually result in their spending more, resulting in more money for the company. People need to stop taking these decisions so personally, as if there is someone at the company secretly scheming to ruin your day. It is a game designed to generate income. When a new feature is introduced that seems designed to generate more income, that should not shock a single player playing. I also assume that every time a new feature is introduced, it is based on rigorously tested market research that says the net gain from instituting said feature is positive (aka - the number of people who stop playing/spending due to some imagined insult < the amount of new revenue generated). These are not a bunch of high school kids taking an economics class throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks in some weird business simulation.
Borstock said: MarkersMake said: By offering 2 price points, and having everyone know about them, they have gained almost no usable information at all, and they have tilted the playing field for no apparent reason. I fail to see how they gain no usable information. For starters, not everyone who plays the game comes to these forums. There is a very significant number of people playing this game who probably have no clue there are two different prices out there.Second, you're not looking at their data, so you have no idea whether they are getting useful information or not. And finally, you don't know why they put two different price points out there to begin with. For all you know, they did it deliberately so that the people with the lower one would be so thrilled they were lucky enough to get the lower price point that it would actually result in their spending more, resulting in more money for the company.
MarkersMake said: By offering 2 price points, and having everyone know about them, they have gained almost no usable information at all, and they have tilted the playing field for no apparent reason.
By offering 2 price points, and having everyone know about them, they have gained almost no usable information at all, and they have tilted the playing field for no apparent reason.
MarkersMake said: Finally, that's an insane approach to game management. You cannot randomly tilt the field in favor of some players, particularly in a game where advancement is in many places determined through competition. If you don't understand this, would you ever start playing a game where some players could purchase in-game items for less than others? Where some randomly chosen players were at a permanent advantage over the rest, granted to them by the devs?
MarkersMake said: Well, first off, I said *almost* no usable information. Second, as has been mentioned by other posters, alliance chat is a thing that actually exists. Third, it's not a question of seeing their data. It's the logic that fails. Did people not buy the 3600HP pack because they thought the price was too high, or because they found out about the 2500HP pack others were getting and decided to wait for a price drop. And yes, the reason for their decision matters. Finally, that's an insane approach to game management. You cannot randomly tilt the field in favour of some players, particularly in a game where advancement is in many places determined through competition. If you don't understand this, would you ever start playing a game where some players could purchase in-game items for less than others? Where some randomly chosen players were at a permanent advantage over the rest, granted to them by the devs?
If a few people get so angry that they stop playing, but the net revenue earned is positive, then implementation was a success.
keitterman said: If a few people get so angry that they stop playing, but the net revenue earned is positive, then implementation was a success. This is not accurate. Here's an excerpt from a book "A Better Way to Think About Business: How Personal Integrity Leads to Corporate Success" by Robert C. Solomon. You can review his credentials here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Solomon .The author makes several great points about profit and revenue that point out why you can't use flat math like this to consider this sort of project a success.
There was a thread on reddit a week or two back about how Tesla selling upgrades impacted the sales of the higher end cars. Long story short, some people pay more, if they feel they are getting their money's worth. Econ 101. Also, CNN had a guy with a PhD debating climate change with with Bill Nye over the weekend. Just because someone smart disagrees with a certain principle, it doesn't mean they are the end all when it comes to the argument