New Store - Heroes for Hire (4/11/17)

Ayasugi-san

I think they should decide on one price point and make it available to everyone. I don't trust it while it's in perpetual testing phase, especially when they've said zilch about what the final version will be.

Frustrated1

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

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

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.

That... Would actually be better. 

Right now, D3 is giving some people a competitive advantage by giving them the lower price point. Particularly if the cover being purchased is the 13th cover, which has been the stated rationale for buying these covers from a significant number of posters.  

There is (often) a huge power increase that comes with fully covering a character, both directly (5th cover in a cover often greatly increases the strength of an ability, or adds crucial effects. And fully covered characters can be champed (which increases power), and also re-specced to their optimal configurations.

So, yeah - if everyone were getting the 3600HP deal, nobody would be getting boosted relative to their competition, and D3 would have at least a decent reading on the viability of that price point. 

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. 

revskip

I sprung for my first Heroes for Hire package today.  Nova is close to being finished and now I just need two covers to champ him so I jumped on it.  

Ate up about 1/3 of my HP reserves.  

Borstock

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

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.

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

Borstock

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

The devs run multiple mobile games that have existed for multiple years with millions of downloads. Demiurge Studios was formed in 2002. They know more about this industry than your average player.

Qubort

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.

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.

ejm04

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

If you were to buy 100K iso, it'd cost you over $120. 10K iso costs about $15. Now, while most on these forums agree that that's a bad deal, I doubt d3 will start handing offering 80+% discounts on iso.

You're not wrong, though, people will absolutely buy more if they made that change.

keitterman

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.

This is a pretty optimistic outlooks. Not to be rude, but your response shows the sort of amateurish reasoning that led the powers-that-be to make these sort of decisions.
1) It's reasonable to assume that most players are in an alliance, Any group of players  (including alliance chat) will reveal the different price points.

2) We're not looking at their data. We do have data. Their customers have data. This was done poorly due to the data we DO have. if there is more data that could be shared to improve the situation, that would be great, but the fact that we CAN'T see their data is the issue. We're left to draw logical conclusions on that data we DO have.

3) We know exactly why they have price points: to make money. When you give someone your money in exchange for a product or service, you have to believe that you are getting a fair value out of it (or you're just not great at math). Some people may think that the Gordon Gecko "Greed is Good" is a fine way to run a business, but at the end of the day, people do not like to be taken advantage of. Price gouging is not fun, and if a company wants to do that, then they should at least hide it. This was egregious because they didn't even try to hide it. 

4) Giving a company my money is personal. Almost every company in the world works to make the experience as personal as possible. This IS personal.

MarkersMake

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.

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? 

BoyWonder1914

Is it really always the first color? I could have sworn that War Machine's was green....

I mainly ask because I'm trying to decide if certain deals are worth it, given that there are PVPs for character's coming up as well, and I don't know yet what colors will be given. Kingpin and Miles both enter the rotation this week, who I have at 12 covers. Cho does as well, but I know the DareDevil PVP will give me the last green I need for him. 

keitterman

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? 

This is actually a pretty important point. I doubt there will ever be an official response to this, but we deserve one.

Borstock

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? 

To the first point, you have no idea how much or how little of the information is usable. You're not even totally sure what they were looking to learn. You're guessing.

Alliance Chat is a thing. But not all alliances communicate, especially for casual players.

For the third point, maybe the higher price point is out there so that people will buy a lot more at the lower price point, feeling like they are getting a deal. Maybe there's a higher price point so that when they drop it to the lower one for everyone, it looks like a grand gesture, and that encourages buying. Maybe it's some other reason entirely. Their logic only fails when your logic is applied.

And to your final point, you are again assuming that most people know about the difference, that it is a permanent advantage, and that the number of people who have stopped playing/spending is significantly greater than the new revenue generated... which you can't know, but they can. If a few people get so angry that they stop playing, but the net revenue earned is positive, then implementation was a success.

keitterman

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.

Spudgutter

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 

keitterman

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 

Not sure if you've read anything by Dr. Solomon, I'm not sure if it's required reading for 1st year students, but it goes beyond an anecdotal Reddit thread.

Also, I included his wiki page because he's more than just a PhD. Your logic to discredit him is a fallacy that could be applied to discredit any accredited individual, as long as you can contrast them to a known face like Mr. Nye. 

Borstock

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.

I can't believe I have to specify this, but I am speaking in generalities because I don't think we need to turn this into a treatise on Economics. My argument here is that a change that angers a few people can still be a change that makes them more money than the previous status quo.

kobu

So, I see those with the 3600 price point continue to get screwed over. Awesome game, guys. You're doing a heck of a job.