The only thing I am willing to pay for in this game ...

[Vidia]

After spending close to $50, I decided some time ago that I would not buy gems for anything in this game, be it units or events, regardless of its rewards.

However, if there is any thing that would change my mind and let me spend on this game. It is a money building that produces GEMS at a reasonable price and with a reasonable vale.

I guess lots of players out there would have similar ideas. I hope Funzio listens and does not miss this opportunity.

[The_Red]

... until you realize that would cut into their profit margin and no longer require high level gem players to spend cash. Read: it won't ever happen.

[Freekizh]

I would love to own a printing press - in game and in RL too....here is a free history lesson..what usually happens soon after the massive gem hyperinflation, a new gem currency gets created while the old gem currency gets crushed...on a relative basis..u really went nowhere..and that's the inside joke..

[Vidia]

Your concerns are valid but can be addressed. First, the building would be purchased and upgraded with gems which would require buying. Second, the amount of gems produced is still limited. For big gem spenders, they would still have to buy extra gems.

It is a different business model. It is whether you want to sell at $10 price to 1 million people or sell $100 to 10000 people.

[Freekizh]

Your concerns are valid but can be addressed. First, the building would be purchased and upgraded with gems which would require buying. Second, the amount of gems produced is still limited. For big gem spenders, they would still have to buy extra gems.

It is a different business model. It is whether you want to sell at $10 price to 1 million people or sell $100 to 10000 people.

I think you miss the point..everyone who can afford this would be doing this and you end up in the same situation..your ingame relativity stays the same, but you end up spending more money ...do u really want this? Ingame gold buildings already give u a good ability to buy weapons and armor and u can upgrade them with gold purchases which gem players do - so this ability is already there to a certain extent!

[Vidia]

I think you miss the point..everyone who can afford this would be doing this and you end up in the same situation..your ingame relativity stays the same, but you end up spending more money ...do u really want this? Ingame gold buildings already give u a good ability to buy weapons and armor and u can upgrade them with gold purchases which gem players do - so this ability is already there to a certain extent!

First, still certain people would not want to pay. Second, it adds a new dimension to the game and would make it more fun. Third, Funzio would sell probably sell more gems. This business model also created great success.

[Freekizh]

First, still certain people would not want to pay. Second, it adds a new dimension to the game and would make it more fun. Third, Funzio would sell probably sell more gems. This business model also created great success.

That's my point again..I don't think it will be more fun becos u r in the same relative situation..ppl will buy gem buildings instead of gold buildings or units, and there are only so many ppl like u say who will pay. Instead u just screw guys who bought gems and invested in them earlier on as u slowly devalue that currency. Anyway in MW u can earn "gems" in certain ways and it changes the game not much at all or make it more fun in my view.

In fact this could create a disincentive to invest in gems because u don't know if funzio will devalue the currency further.

In my above post I didn't say it would not be profitable - I was posting from the pov of the player. That's the inside joke.

[Vidia]

In fact this could create a disincentive to invest in gems because u don't know if funzio will devalue the currency further.

In my above post I didn't say it would not be profitable - I was posting from the pov of the player. That's the inside joke.
Potential devaluation would not keep people from buying. Computers become worthless in every two years, people still buy. In fact, KA as a game will devaluate too as more competition emerge and technology evolves. How long is a game's life cycle? Probably just one year or less. KA needs to find new ways for people to spend. My suggestion is one possibility for them to consider.

[Freekizh]

Potential devaluation would not keep people from buying. Computers become worthless in every two years, people still buy. In fact, KA as a game will devaluate too as more competition emerge and technology evolves. How long is a game's life cycle? Probably just one year or less. KA needs to find new ways for people to spend. My suggestion is one possibility for them to consider.

That's not true at all..at the very least u will delay your investment decision if you knew prices were going to effectively drop or devalue...that's why we wait for gem sales or when we know new more powerful computers will come out and there is disminishing utility from having faster and faster computers (so we keep them longer and upgrade less). But again I'm not saying that they won't spend ...but that if u get gem buildings, relativity wise u r the same if everyone does the same thing..u feel "richer" but u really are not on a relative basis. That's the inside joke that is currency inflation.

[P4TR1C14N]

Keep the discussing going: Lovely reading material.

For the ones who struggle with the word relativity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

At first sight I'm heading towards Freekizh, but on the other hand, Vidia has also a valid point. I think the only way to decide on this one is to deduct a mathematical model and check which approach is the best for which situation. I guess that both have a spot on the curve.

But it's clear the makers are going for the Freekizh story at the moment.