Please lower in app purchase prices?

Devoted whales + very expensive micro transactions = A true artisanal bread maker.

"Nihion;c-1942227" wrote:
Devoted whales + very expensive micro transactions = A true artisanal bread maker.

True, but detrimental for the sustainability of the game. When people start to feel feel hopelessly behind, as many do, they leave the game. When enough of the user base leaves, the whales have no one left to set themselves apart from. You can’t be epic everyone is epic.... at that point, the game dies.... I want this game to live on a long time.

I’d love to see prices drop, obviously. This game costs way more than I am comfortable spending on a mobile game, and I’d probably spend more (and more often) if they were reduced.

Saying that:
CG and EA have all of the data and metrics around in game spending, along with the budget to hire marketing analysts to determine what pricing scheme will maximize their revenue.
And this is it.
Even though I’d love to see a change, I won’t be expecting one as long as the data tells them otherwise.

All of our theories are worthless in the face of real data. Your 5,000 vs. 30,000 equation makes perfect sense, but it’s also meaningless as it is 100% made up to support your argument.

"joelgs23;c-1942251" wrote:
ya

"kello_511;c-1942249" wrote:
. Your 5,000 vs. 30,000 equation makes perfect sense, but it’s also meaningless as it is 100% made up to support your argument.

Ya, it’s made up, but it was just for illustration. Beside data for maximum profit though, they have to consider the ramifications of dividing and frustrating the user base with obvious whales, dolphins, FTP, etc. segmenting the customers base and causing so many of us to feel ignored or even insulted by their pricing schemes, can only serve to eventually harm to company and this game.

While I agree I might spend more if they lowered prices there is no reason to believe the number or ratio you claim. I do believe that most businesses know how to make as much money as possible. EA very much appears to be one of these companies. Toy R Us is not. That being said I am sure EA has evaluated how much people are willing to spend so they can make as much as possible.

Also, whales are inclined to spend less if they are buying the same stuff as you because it becomes less exclusive to them. Take Coach for example, once considered a "premier" brand it began to create hand bags of lower quality for a lower price and people that were willing to pay more stopped buying them. Why? Because it became pedestrian. Rich people dont shop at the same places as regular people. They pay to be elite, not regular. Argue with self entitlement stuff and what not but it doesnt make it less true.

"JDIII;c-1942260" wrote:
A single piece of gear shouldn’t cost no $20 (or higher) The average person don’t even make than in an hour of work. Someone at Walmart (example) has to work 3-4 hours just to buy a single piece!

I feel you, I also don't want to pay that for a piece of gear. But I'm totally fine with that.

There are people that make a lot more an hour (some even get all their money for free). They don't grind, they pay to be ahead.

Like Monel said: if it's expensive enough, the whales aren't buying. Why would you spend, if it's not giving you an edge?

If they drop the price there may even be much less spending (after a small rise): the dolphins and whales will stop (because no egde), but also TPFKA-FTP might not spend so much or more will quite because it might feel like a P2P game instead of the now FTP/P2W.
With a small player-base spending will definitely be less spending (because there is nobody left 'to buy an edge over').

That’s probably why there’s always so much hate on the game forums

This I never understand: you can play a very nice game, totally for free you only have to allow others that pay for your game to have a small edge.

"joelgs23;c-1942245" wrote:
It has worked, but as Ahnold, Warrior and MobileGamer, along with every other SWGOH tracker has observed, active users and revenue for the game continue to decline. What used to work might not work much longer, and a new strategy could be good.

This is 100% spot on. I couldn’t agree with this more! Hopefully, Mark will bring balance to the force.

@jhbuchholz don’t call me a liar kid:

"JDIII;c-1942459" wrote:
@jhbuchholz don’t call me a liar kid:

*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.

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.

"JDIII;c-1942472" wrote:
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?