Re: "we have run tests by putting skins on sale in the store" - where & when?!

Now i might be a bit odd in thinking this.

But if i had figures showing me what the avg spend per person is on a product i was selling, and the figures didn't meet my expectations i'd be thinking;

A) is my product of poor quality?

B) is my product inaccurately priced?

Now respawn know their product is badass,hence the hefty prices. But surely the lack of sales tells them the pricing isn't where it should be. 

1000 coins per skin would have been sensible, rather than making it just over to force people to buy a larger coin pack leaving them an odd number that they will inevitably gamble away on the loot ticks and likely come away unsatisfied.

If a large quantity of players who don't normally spend are tempted into spending on one off purchases they deem reasonably priced,  i would think this would boost profits more than relying on the cruelly tagged "whales" for their profit margins. Pretty sure one off spenders massively outweigh the latter.

On a side note, having more than 4 items that can be bought with apex coins would probably boost profits a lot aswell. The lack of variety is pretty shoddy lol.

@SlivPTS focus group testing and detailed surveys.

Quality of skins is important, I agree, but people keep saying they would buy more if they were less expensive. This points out to quantity. If you have too many skins and also see legendary skins being commonly used in the game, you will probably appreciate the quality less and want them to raise the bar and complain if you have money to spend but there's nothing exciting available in the store. If the current number of skins is kept but the price is reduced significantly, the profit would be affected seriously, potentially slowing the development of the game or even killing it if it becomes unprofitable. 

Doesnt matter if you think its overpriced from the get go,  they slashed  600 coins off of it... thats a sale... by the very definition, thats a sale... so to answer your question, it was right in front of your eyes and you clearly saw it...

@MandatoryIDtag  conclusions should be taken after this event ends, because it's a short time span. You can't fix stuff on the go in a business of millions of $. They screwed this event, the next one may try to fix the problems, it's not worth trying to adjust this one only to screw it up even more and * off the guys that already spent full amount.

In the end, there's also a chance for this event to be successful (living up to the expectations regarding profit and popularity boost of the game), even with this storm of complaints. Keep in mind that people that are OK with the state of the game rarely come up on social media to express their content, and those can be many. Due to negativity bias, it's normal to have any forum filled with more criticism than praise, making them a less accurate measuring tool.

@DoYaSeeMe  I agree completely, the damage is done with this event. My comments were geared more towards future events/additions of saleable content, however i think they ring true with the standard store, all event content aside.

Free games attract a lot players that can't afford to go and buy the latest titles, respawn should have remembered that when implementing their price structure.

@MandatoryIDtag Free to play / freemium are not absolutely free, they are actually way more expensive if you want the complete content. But I think a lot of people are not aware of that. I really doubt EA / Respawn's main reason for going free to play was to make the game more accessible for people who can't afford it. I think this step was taken mainly because they needed the players to be already hooked when taking out the wallets, because this can make them spend more.

@SlivPTS focus group testing, qa and surveys are the way everything gets tested nowadays. You can't put an untested product on the market. The discount in the store is not a test, that move had to be planned before the event, they're not a grocery store 🙂. But if they are actually testing on public...that would be really, really bad...

Regarding the profit, it's not just an assumption, it's simple logic. Let's say a skin sells for 15$, 5$ for development and 10$ profit. If that skin is reduced to 10$, then the profit becomes 5$. Twice as small is something, right? 

I can also say that you're assuming huge amount of players are not buying. I've seen a lot of these new skins in every match, so it's hard to say from the player level. The devs know better, they have the actual numbers and we may never find out the actual truth.

---

@SlivPTS  schrieb:
@DoYaSeeMe
I don't think that you can rely on such data from focus group/surveys. And with "sale in the store" they meant this 33% discount in store.
But 33% is not enough and that's why they get "crazy low" sales.
Even with 33% discount skins are still expensive for avarage player.

"the profit would be affected seriously"
It's just an assumption.
I assure you that huge % of players are not buying skins from store because skins are stupidly expensive. It's not like players can't afford skin for 18$, but it's simply makes no sense to pay such money for skin.
In my eyes they are not worth such money.

---

Totally agree.

But when he said, we were testing around, it should be a little bit more, than giving a 33% discount and check the responses. This 33% is all they did from beginning.

If they would adjust the overall prices in general, I am totally sure, the community would appreciate it and pay it back in form of more purchases. But they are not even willed to check that out.

The point of the thread was the quote "we have run tests" - but this just seems like a poor pretext for me to distract from the fact, that the prices are way too high.

Run more tests, give us 50%, 60% or 2 for 3 whatever and check what happens. You can still revised is after all, who cares? But he can not point out, they tested it, and actually all they did is to offer 33% discount on already too high prices. Of course this does not change the needle, as the first price is already outrageous.