"CoastalJames;c-1833190" wrote:
"leef;c-1832494" wrote:
As long as people are willing to spend, it's not foolish.
You seem to have missed and/or ignored a large part of the debate here. Having people willing to spend is, by definition, vital for business.
But - making it so lots and lots of players don't think it's worth spending smaller amounts and hammering the very few big, big spenders whilst giving them a terrible deal - is foolish. Because it's unsustainable.
A freemium game is unsustainable by defealt.
Thriving on super large spenders also doesn't mean players don't think it's worth it to spend smaller amounts.
terrible deal or not, people are willing to spend, so in a way it would be foolish to not offer said deal. I mean, there are people who buy white t's for 300 bucks..
There's probably a reason ea/cg uses this model/strategy don't you think? Or do you really think you'd do a better job running a game like this one?
