EA Forums - Banner

Funds

Replies

  • eddi13131
    4 posts New member
    Антон, так займись этим вопросом))) Тебе же проще без языкового барьера - доведи до ЕА наши проблемы))
  • EE_Elephterion
    1501 posts Envision Developer
    Just so everyone knows, pricing and billing are not the domain of Envision Entertainment, that is entirely up to EA.
    My guess is they did not like to see the game flooded with cheap funds so they closed the loophole.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • eddi13131 wrote: »
    Антон, так займись этим вопросом))) Тебе же проще без языкового барьера - доведи до ЕА наши проблемы))

    как ты предлагаешь этим заняться? до кого довести? я ж пишу что на той стороне не с кем разговаривать, нет не то что заинтересованности, а вообще по всей видимости никто в еа не догадывается о существовании игры
  • gamerdruid
    3490 posts Moderator
    Officially we only respond to comments in English.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • As far as I understand, Envision is making this game and gets paid for his work. If people stop paying for this game, it means that there will be no funds to pay the employees of Envision for their work, in my opinion, there is also an interest in Envision. Therefore, it is easier for us to communicate with Envision as with those who understand and know what we are talking about, and they must already find a responsible person in EA and convey all our thoughts.
  • And by the way, new patches are being released by Envision, and after the last patch everything has changed, so you did it yourself.
  • EE_Elephterion
    1501 posts Envision Developer
    As far as I understand, Envision is making this game and gets paid for his work. If people stop paying for this game, it means that there will be no funds to pay the employees of Envision for their work, in my opinion, there is also an interest in Envision. Therefore, it is easier for us to communicate with Envision as with those who understand and know what we are talking about, and they must already find a responsible person in EA and convey all our thoughts.

    Yes, we can relay your thoughts to our contacts on the EA side, but EA has eyes and ears of them-self's for this forum with their community managers. And ultimately, it is up to EA to decide.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • eddi13131
    4 posts New member
    There are 3 stakeholders in this game - EA, Envision and the gaming community. If the gaming community gets out of this deal, this game will die. I think both EA and Envision knew about the possibility of using Argentina before.
    Envision introduced this patch at the request of EA - that's why Envision should give feedback to EA about the negativity of such changes. Few people are willing to pay that kind of money to participate in this game.
  • Welt141
    2 posts New member
    The only what we can do just vote by money. Just do not pay that price. EA did decision. Now need to wait for the result. Maybe some of people will continue to play. Will see how much of them.

    Small calculation time:
    14 Firestorm was the 1st world where I spent more than 55$. I found out about Argentina's model 2 weeks ago)) Cheap funds made me buy them. Usually, I spent not more than 10-15$ by the world.

    2200 rub / 30$ is not expensive for me (cuz Moscow not Russia) but expensive for browser games. It's a price of 1 new game. One world takes much more than 50k funds.

    Anyway, the game need money, maybe we wrong and EA will get more $$$, or maybe the community will leave Tiberium. And a small group of players who continue to pay will stay alone without any competition.
  • Yes, we can relay your thoughts to our contacts on the EA side, but EA has eyes and ears of them-self's for this forum with their community managers. And ultimately, it is up to EA to decide.


    I really hope the community manager is seeing that thread and makes the correct conclusions, also I hope you EE push a little bit ;-)

    In fact even with the 13$ ARG model the game is not really cheap, in case you fully fund and use all your SP for CP. Before with 7$ it was, but there was some adjustment 1y ago or so, which doubled the price.
    But 13$ was a price most of the people like to pay. Given that low price I am sure the people also spend more funds ultimately. Because was cheap to buy again ;-) – maybe a few “noobs” paid the full amount of their home country, but as soon as you enter an alliance with some experienced players you never go back from ARG funding.

    For myself, the new pricing (not really new, but now forced ^^) means I have to stop buying. Its just too much to spend that amount of money for a browser game, even if it makes such a joy.
    If my financial minister at home ever sees such bookings on my credit card, I am sure she will regender me – schnippschnapp :D

    I am sure the income numbers in July were extraordinary ;-) – I know a lot of people used the last opportunity to buy cheap funds. But this will drop from now on, the income for this game will go down to a minimum (if no one finds a new way for cheap funds).
    What this means, we all know.

    Would be really sad and a shame if it ends that way, the game is nice (I don’t really know another game like that) the community is nice – lots of players playing since many years.

    OK sure i could be wrong about the "ending", mabye there is a new player base who will play - but hardly doubt that - from where should it come?

    Regards
    reine


  • Just so everyone knows, pricing and billing are not the domain of Envision Entertainment, that is entirely up to EA.
    My guess is they did not like to see the game flooded with cheap funds so they closed the loophole.

    you mean they dont want to pay you to host this game anymore because that is going to happen.
    Once we all stop playing and just a few people like Soixie are left to win by default the plug will be pulled.
    So i suggest relaying the enormous uproar the price increase has caused and warn your EA masters that we are all about t o quit.

    Then they can kiss whatever money they still got from this game goodbye
    and also EE can kiss its contract for CCTA goodbye.

    its in your favor too to notify your masters at EA.
  • gamerdruid
    3490 posts Moderator
    edited July 20
    eddi13131 wrote: »
    Envision introduced this patch at the request of EA - that's why Envision should give feedback to EA about the negativity of such changes. Few people are willing to pay that kind of money to participate in this game.

    Envision did not introduce a change to the financial arrangements via a patch as they don't have access to that part of the EA system. The only patch introduced was 20.2 which is game related, non-financial.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • gamerdruid wrote: »
    eddi13131 wrote: »
    Envision introduced this patch at the request of EA - that's why Envision should give feedback to EA about the negativity of such changes. Few people are willing to pay that kind of money to participate in this game.

    Envision did not introduce a change to the financial arrangements via a patch as they don't have access to that part of the EA system. The only patch introduced was 20.2 which is game related, non-financial.

    But it was he who made this disgraceful change. Because the worlds were patched on different days, and in the first wave through the old worlds everything still worked correctly.
  • gamerdruid
    3490 posts Moderator
    Wrong - the fact that EA changed financial things and Envision patched the game at similar times is because EA don't consult on financial changes. Please, don't make statements that are erroneous, check with the people who make the decisions!
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • I just stated a fact that any of the players will confirm).
  • The discussion about who did the change, does not really help. for us player the first address is Envision, from them we get the news, they do the patches. what is behind, who really cares?

    also imho this does not matter. we the player address here our concerns in the hope someone is understanding that and act how it is needed.

    Sure EA is a company who wants to earn money, but for that they need to have a player base willing to spend money.
  • > @Soixie said:
    > (Quote)
    >
    > Own your own business? EA isn't here for free hand outs, they are here to be greedy and make money.
    > (Quote)

    Bit weird you're asking personal questions, but i'll humour you - I'm more than qualified to comment on the matter. I'm not asking for "free hand outs" - I'm asking for a review of the costs. You talk about Business 101 - this falls under basic school economics. If you read my post you'd see i've asked about research they've undertaken and such like - the very fact people went through the cheaper route is an indication that the initial price of circa 40 USD wasn't affordable to many - this appears to be supported by comments on here where whole countries feel isolated.

    They need a price which is viewed as reasonable by their customers - I presume you're someone who's clued up on pricing principles - It's basic practice. Price out whole countries and you'll be on a downward turn fairly soon in this industry - especially when people used the funds in other countries. There's also people who didn't buy funds due to the costs of them - If they lowered to say $20 USD they could actually find they have a larger customer base.
  • EE_Elephterion
    1501 posts Envision Developer
    edited July 20
    eddi13131 wrote: »
    There are 3 stakeholders in this game - EA, Envision and the gaming community. If the gaming community gets out of this deal, this game will die. I think both EA and Envision knew about the possibility of using Argentina before.
    Envision introduced this patch at the request of EA - that's why Envision should give feedback to EA about the negativity of such changes. Few people are willing to pay that kind of money to participate in this game.

    To be clear, the price adjustment is independent from our patch and was introduced shortly prior with the rework of the landing page for the game. That is the sole domain of EA and not Envision Entertainment.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • Isaackorp
    22 posts Member
    edited July 20
    Elephterion, It should be easy for EA to compare the spend of players who bought at Argentine prices to the same players spend when they bought in their own currency. I bet if EA compare the 2, the players were spending more with the lower Argentine prices. like I said in my previous post, lower prices give bigger volume, do EA think that Amazon would as succesful if they increase prices at the same margin as EA just did?
  • Just so everyone knows, pricing and billing are not the domain of Envision Entertainment, that is entirely up to EA.
    My guess is they did not like to see the game flooded with cheap funds so they closed the loophole.

    Elephterion, It should be easy for EA to compare the spend of players who bought at Argentine prices to the same players spend when they bought in their own currency. I bet if EA compare the 2, the players were spending more with the lower Argentine prices. like I said in my previous post, lower prices give bigger volume, do EA think that Amazon would as succesful if they increase prices at the same margin as EA just did?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!