PDA

View Full Version : Gold Pricing & Event Requirements



RealTeflonDon
03-03-2014, 11:41 AM
So, right now most Job LTQs require a vault or so to complete. Everything else is roughly the same.

That's something like $500-600 for an individual to complete every event in a month. Add in what it costs to be competitive in Wars & complete SLTQs.. Now we're nearing the $1,000+ range. It's simply not affordable, or, justifiable for the overwhelming majority of players.

GREE can continue targeting that small group of addicted & rich players. In turn, their new players will be discouraged by the heinous costs of "playing" the game and more people in general will cease spending, potentially outright quitting.

Or

GREE could target a larger group of players by reducing the prices of gold and/or the gold required to complete events. This would help hook new players, encourage spending from many free players & former gold spenders, and would indubitably increase the population of active players (because now almost everyone can actually play the game in its entirety- instead of being let down numerous times a month).

I know, what a crazy thought, but look at it like this. There's maybe a few thousand players hitting that first tier of the gold bonus program. 6,000*500 = $3mil (of course there are the heavy spenders to add into that & obviously I don't know the exact number of players hitting each tier of the bonus program. Important to note, they're definitely bringing in more than $3mil/mo).

So we have that rough estimate. Now, what if the game were more affordable. What if you had, 100,000*20? Okay, that's only $2mil, but that's ONE event. Multiply that by 5 or 6 & we're talking $10+mil. Now factor in SLTQ events and GREE's probably looking at $20+mil.

I know, crazy!! So why are things the way they are? Is it to help keep players stratified? That could easily be corrected by including more leaderboard events, as well as drastically improving war prizes for the Top 250 teams.

The only downside for players, would be having to readjust IP & player stat requirements. Oh, and the game would be vastly more fun. Wait, that's not a downside.

Anyways, I'm sure there's going to be a lot of TL;DRs & the "shut up or pay ups". I can see why you would want to protect your investments, but, if done properly, the players would still be stratified as they are now, for the most part. Increased emphasis on leaderboard events & War would help to keep all of that in tact.

Food for thought, GREE

Love and War
03-03-2014, 12:18 PM
Well said...the majority of us do not have a disposable income to spend over a thousand pounds every month on a mobile game!!! I don't even bother with ltqs for the simple fact that I know I'll never finish them without 2 vaults of gold! The way this game is so expensive now loads of members are retiring now. Come on now gree fix up!

Jclew
03-03-2014, 02:35 PM
I have to agree with all this as well. I would be interested to see real numbers of gold buying for the last 6 months. Not even total gold bought, but just percentages.. Id be willing to bet they have dropped. Along with active players.

lordsagacity
03-03-2014, 04:30 PM
I have to agree with all this as well. I would be interested to see real numbers of gold buying for the last 6 months. Not even total gold bought, but just percentages.. Id be willing to bet they have dropped. Along with active players.
For me, it used to be $20/month before syndicate started. It rose to $200/month for the first several wars and dropped to zero 6 months ago. Being in a top syndicate requires unaffordable money and time. I cannot justify devoting $200/month, continuous attention in weekdays and hours of tedious tapping in weekends to a mobile game.

OmgMileyCyrus
03-03-2014, 05:45 PM
Even if a top 10 syn requires 250k ip that can be done with just a couple vaults. Some top 50 teams have free players. It's not wars that are the problem, despite everyone blaming SAS, TAW, SC, PnL, and cathouse. It's the other events which are completely grees fault. This hasn't been a free game for a really long time now.

RealTeflonDon
03-03-2014, 05:58 PM
Even if a top 10 syn requires 250k ip that can be done with just a couple vaults. Some top 50 teams have free players. It's not wars that are the problem, despite everyone blaming SAS, TAW, SC, PnL, and cathouse. It's the other events which are completely grees fault. This hasn't been a free game for a really long time now.

I agree that wars aren't the problem, but it's all cumulative. The fact that 100% of events now require gold use is discouraging new players from sticking around. It's discouraging free players & former spenders from paying again. It's even causing players to outright quit. (Granted, the cost of the game isn't the only contributing factor for those that do quit).

The entire point of my thread was to show that an inclusive pricing scheme would better suit the game, rather than milking a relatively small percentage of players. Not only for GREE 's profits but, their long-term viability as well.

Jclew
03-03-2014, 06:05 PM
Even if a top 10 syn requires 250k ip that can be done with just a couple vaults. Some top 50 teams have free players. It's not wars that are the problem, despite everyone blaming SAS, TAW, SC, PnL, and cathouse. It's the other events which are completely grees fault. This hasn't been a free game for a really long time now.

Just a couple vaults is 200$ full price. With two wars a month, $400 into a mobile game and the amount of time involved is ridiculous. That's continually too. With no other event involved, and if you don't do all the other stuff your stats aren't gonna stay competitive to all the other sinkholes sooo yeah, totally ridiculous.

400$ a month will pay my cable, internet, phone and insurance with gas money left over...

OmgMileyCyrus
03-03-2014, 06:06 PM
I agree that wars aren't the problem, but it's all cumulative. The fact that 100% of events now require gold use is discouraging new players from sticking around. It's discouraging free players & former spenders from paying again. It's even causing players to outright quit. (Granted, the cost of the game isn't the only contributing factor for those that do quit).

The entire point of my thread was to show that an inclusive pricing scheme would better suit the game, rather than milking a relatively small percentage of players. Not only for GREE 's profits but, their long-term viability as well.yes but they are programmers and developers.....never taking an economics course wouldn't surprise me in the least. They will have to learn the hard way like democrats, socialists and communists. When you don't understand the free market you're doomed to economic failure.

OmgMileyCyrus
03-03-2014, 06:07 PM
Just a couple vaults is 200$ full price. With two wars a month, $400 into a mobile game and the amount of time involved is ridiculous. That's continually too. With no other event involved, and if you don't do all the other stuff your stats aren't gonna stay competitive to all the other sinkholes sooo yeah, totally ridiculous.

400$ a month will pay my cable, internet, phone and insurance with gas money left over...if the game is out of your price range then you would be irresponsible to spend money on it....

GucciMane
03-03-2014, 06:14 PM
who said you have to participate in every event. I just nixed Case Events off the list muself when I realized that they were discriminating on drop rates.





not all of us care to have the highest stats in our level, especially now that the rivals list has been expanded to include minis with more efficiently allocated experience regardless.

RealTeflonDon
03-03-2014, 07:06 PM
Cyrus, Gucci, you two are missing the point of the thread- That, an inclusive pricing scheme would be more profitable for GREE, while making the game more enjoyable for the majority.

OmgMileyCyrus
03-03-2014, 07:52 PM
Cyrus, Gucci, you two are missing the point of the thread- That, an inclusive pricing scheme would be more profitable for GREE, while making the game more enjoyable for the majority.no, I understand that completely

GucciMane
03-03-2014, 07:53 PM
Cyrus, Gucci, you two are missing the point of the thread- That, an inclusive pricing scheme would be more profitable for GREE, while making the game more enjoyable for the majority.

no, I understand that completely.




Paying customers shouldn't have to develop their game's business model. That's not how business works.

RealTeflonDon
03-03-2014, 08:07 PM
:-) excellent.


Paying customers shouldn't have to develop their game's business model. That's not how business works.

Totally agree on this point. Granted, businesses do have to adapt/evolve on occasion in order to stay profitable.

TooFlyRobbie
03-03-2014, 09:12 PM
Cyrus, Gucci, you two are missing the point of the thread- That, an inclusive pricing scheme would be more profitable for GREE, while making the game more enjoyable for the majority.

That's a second step. The first step is always making players' expenses justifiable. If there's no incentive to be strong, the cost of the game wouldn't be justifiable, not even if a vault costs $1.00,GREE are "lucky"? that enough players "can't let go" when it's evident that the game is "dead" or very close to that. By taking away the very thing players (GOLD players of course) want, they completely killed it.

Meaning that, lowering the prices, would be a desperate move that would not save the game, nor will it produce what it produced a few months back/"when it was fun" IF the basics stay as they are now, because as the game get easier (less expensive) for the majority they'll start losing interest and realizing there no point if everyone has the same strength. it's a wrap.

Vile Lynn
03-03-2014, 09:28 PM
don't buy gold... easy choice.

RealTeflonDon
03-03-2014, 10:38 PM
@Toofly

You're eluding to the rivals list change it seems... but the expenses were never really "justifiable", nor sensible- even if it was for the sake of "entertainment".

It's always been a virtual game of "mine's bigger than yours".

To that point, giving more people an opportunity to improve would indubitably improve sales because the quantity of players would be there to surpass what the heavy gold spenders are shelling out now.

If you had read my OP, you'd have caught the part where leaderboard events would be given more emphasis & would need to be further incentivized to help maintain the current stratification- Ultimately giving those with the excessive disposable income more reason to continue on shelling out what they do now. Potentially at greater rates, I might add, because of the increased popularity of the game, as well as the competition this pricing scheme would generate.

I understand that GREE is a business & in order to continue on, they must be profitable. I'm sure they are, but this game (with its current mechanics) has a finite shelf-life, as, there are only so many cash-cows to milk.

Changing the pricing scheme to be more inclusive would help improve the long-term viability/ longevity of the game by hooking a substantially greater amount of new players. It's easier to swallow when its $20 here & there. $100 every couple days... not so much.

sister morphine
03-04-2014, 12:04 AM
yes but they are programmers and developers.....never taking an economics course wouldn't surprise me in the least. They will have to learn the hard way like democrats, socialists and communists. When you don't understand the free market you're doomed to economic failure.
Wow! Isn't it time this stupid "commie" argument was killed dead? It's not the 50s any longer Joe McCarthy! :rolleyes:

1. The programmers and developers aren't the ones running the show. That's the company board.

2. Profits is not the be all and end all here. The driving force is more likely to be bonuses paid to board members; that means hitting targets on profit margins at a given point in the economic year, and/or a certain share price. Don't think some companies are above massaging performance figures to achieve those targets. I'm not saying Gree are doing that, but I was told by a former insider that at least one of the big British banks that nearly went under in 2008 was doing so to tweak share prices right up to the end in order to land those bonus payments.

Sleazy_P_Martini
03-04-2014, 12:04 AM
who said you have to participate in every event. I just nixed Case Events off the list muself when I realized that they were discriminating on drop rates.
couldn't agree more muself. i skip ltq's altogether, and still remain quite near the top at my level range.

TooFlyRobbie
03-04-2014, 12:13 AM
at TeflonDon

Yes, but for how long? ... $1 dollar, $100 dollars. It doesn't matter you will never be "stronger" than others. What I meant is that the sooner players realize they're losing something, the sooner they'll quit, if it's the majority, it'd be catastrophical for GREE. Everyone values 20$ or 1$, when they (costumers) see they're throwing money but stats never "really" change, they will quit, it's happening now with the current 'mid' gold players, top10-25 players are quitting because of GREE. Free players will never care enough because they sense they haven't lost a thing but time. It is just that. EDIT; Make the players think they need the gold and they will buy it, tell them they don't need it and lower the gold price, they will buy it, but it won't last as everyone has brains and sense of competitivity.

Change the basics back to what they were and your idea would be perfect and all that will happen, that's guaranteed, it's brilliant. But as the game is now, doing that would be like delaying the inevitable. Lets hope they do it.

Jeremy Kyle
03-04-2014, 01:33 AM
Completly agree, however this has been mentioned several times and GREE continue to hike the prices im one of many to now stop spending, im giving it till next war and im done, GREE wont care of course because i only buy a vault every couple of weeks

RealTeflonDon
03-04-2014, 11:31 AM
The short of it is, GREE is pricing themselves out of the mobile gaming market.

murf
03-05-2014, 02:30 PM
Cyrus, Gucci, you two are missing the point of the thread- That, an inclusive pricing scheme would be more profitable for GREE, while making the game more enjoyable for the majority.

As much as we all believe this to be true, what if in fact the opposite is true?

What if, every time GREE ups the cost of the next event, the small percentage of players that are very willing to spend that extra gold more then makes up for the lower end gold spenders that withdraw completely?

This is entirely possible, and is completely disregarded by the community. GREE is in business to make a profit and they might actually see a tick up in revenue every time they increase gold requirements.

The flip side of this is they would be relying on a smaller and smaller amount of players to generate the same revenue, which increases the risk of complete failure at some point. But since mobile game half-lives aren't that great to begin with, maybe this is a risk they are more then ok taking.

xRedfoxx
03-05-2014, 02:37 PM
The best sports teams are generally the ones that can spend the most money on their players. Or have the nicest facilities. The strongest militaries in the world are the ones that spend the most.....money. People that most often get elected are the people that...spend...the...most...money.

Spend what you are comfortable spending and nothing more and live with the consequences. If you want to spend more to be more competitive, get your ars off the couch and get another job to feed your habit.

I've never seen so much b%tching by people that refuse to quit playing......

RealTeflonDon
03-05-2014, 03:52 PM
@RedFoxx- you've completely missed the point of this thread.

@Murf- I considered that for a while before making this thread. However, you can't argue that if a million people were spending $20 per event that GREE would be significantly more profitable. Additionally, the long-term viability would be drastically improved.

I understand there needs to be exclusivity in the game to help maintain the stratification & keep the uber-rich/addicted appeased... That could easily be accomplished even with a pricing scheme that was generally more inclusive for low-income players & those that play casually.

Right now, GREE is just selling their business short by pushing away potential new customers (as well as the free & former gold-spenders) by pricing the game at a level that is far from conducive for the "casual" player- even the serious players who simply cannot justify spending $100 every time there's an event.

Just sort of an after-thought.. I'm aware that there's probably nowhere near 1million people playing CC (actively, at least). There absolutely could have been, though, had the game began with a more inclusive pricing scheme.

Sandukan
03-05-2014, 04:29 PM
You know you don't have to finish every event?
You actually don't have to finish ANY event.

The new rivals list ensures you will only be surrounded by people with similar stats.
Getting higher stats just changes the names you see with zero net effect......unless......

GQNammmer
03-05-2014, 04:34 PM
Teflon, without any actual aggregate data in regards to gold expenditure from each event in CC, or any relevant data from similar games, all the suggestions you have made is......well simply put it......terrible. Think of it in real life terms. If a company is about to go "under," would they increase their pricing on their goods? I personally would be concerned if events got significantly cheaper.

These games exist for a reason. Without getting into all the technicalities, i will give you a summation as to why The pricing is the way it is. When people are involved in a transaction they need to feel they are better off than they were after the transaction and it needs to be equal or greater than what they've given up in the exchange (in this case, currency). There needs to be a discrepancy between your stats compared to someone else's or else you didnt really gain anything for exchanging your money, lets say $20.00 as you suggested. Your assumptions clearly miss this point and that is, there will never be a pricing point where everyone will be satisfied. You make an assumption that GrEE will generate more revenue if they had events where more players can finish at a more affordable price. But when it gets to that point, whats the benefit for big time spenders to continue playing? And in the long run, whats the point of spending $20.00 on an event when it technically doesnt get you ahead if 80% of the community finishes the event also. You've gained nothing for spending that $20.00 spent because everyone else is at par with you.

This is a quick break down on the flaws with your assumed pricing model. Its not just your opinion but the majority of the CC community.

That is not to say that GReE is perfect. With the new rivals list, getting robbed by people with 15mil attack when you have 23mil defence, losing fights when you have 20% more attack than your rivals defence, all these destroy the feeling of being ahead of your competitors. THIS IS WHERE THE MAJOR FLAW IS. Not pricing

RealTeflonDon
03-05-2014, 04:40 PM
@Sandukan- you've missed the point of the thread.

@GQNammmer- You missed the part where I explained how the stratification could be maintained for the uber-rich/addicted players. Your effort was good, but please try again.

Killesh
03-05-2014, 04:42 PM
So, right now most Job LTQs require a vault or so to complete. Everything else is roughly the same.

That's something like $500-600 for an individual to complete every event in a month. Add in what it costs to be competitive in Wars & complete SLTQs.. Now we're nearing the $1,000+ range. It's simply not affordable, or, justifiable for the overwhelming majority of players.

GREE can continue targeting that small group of addicted & rich players. In turn, their new players will be discouraged by the heinous costs of "playing" the game and more people in general will cease spending, potentially outright quitting.

Or

GREE could target a larger group of players by reducing the prices of gold and/or the gold required to complete events. This would help hook new players, encourage spending from many free players & former gold spenders, and would indubitably increase the population of active players (because now almost everyone can actually play the game in its entirety- instead of being let down numerous times a month).

I know, what a crazy thought, but look at it like this. There's maybe a few thousand players hitting that first tier of the gold bonus program. 6,000*500 = $3mil (of course there are the heavy spenders to add into that & obviously I don't know the exact number of players hitting each tier of the bonus program. Important to note, they're definitely bringing in more than $3mil/mo).

So we have that rough estimate. Now, what if the game were more affordable. What if you had, 100,000*20? Okay, that's only $2mil, but that's ONE event. Multiply that by 5 or 6 & we're talking $10+mil. Now factor in SLTQ events and GREE's probably looking at $20+mil.

I know, crazy!! So why are things the way they are? Is it to help keep players stratified? That could easily be corrected by including more leaderboard events, as well as drastically improving war prizes for the Top 250 teams.

The only downside for players, would be having to readjust IP & player stat requirements. Oh, and the game would be vastly more fun. Wait, that's not a downside.

Anyways, I'm sure there's going to be a lot of TL;DRs & the "shut up or pay ups". I can see why you would want to protect your investments, but, if done properly, the players would still be stratified as they are now, for the most part. Increased emphasis on leaderboard events & War would help to keep all of that in tact.

Food for thought, GREE

Well said! Ridiculous how much they have taken the fun out if the game. Most of my syndicate is done buying gold

GQNammmer
03-05-2014, 04:51 PM
@Sandukan- you've missed the point of the thread.

@GQNammmer- You missed the part where I explained how the stratification could be maintained for the uber-rich/addicted players. Your effort was good, but please try again.

Ok i now see it but you dont mention how. Players set themselves apart by their stats and thats through finishing events. You still did not adresss the fact that you are making assumptions that gree is losing out on money based off of your pricing model without having any aggregate data. Maybe if you could provide a case proving your point to increase your ethos on here but right now, it's pretty going downwards.

EDIT: I apologize for the initial comment. I'm glad you have brought this up and that we are able to have a discussion

RealTeflonDon
03-05-2014, 05:16 PM
How could maintaining the stratification be accomplished? By adding emphasis on leaderboard events (like this upcoming war). When I say "emphasis" I mean, improve the quality of prizes for the higher tiers. Note: This could also mean adding leaderboards to events that have traditionally not included them.

Also, I wouldn't call my presumptions, "assumptions", given that, milking a vastly larger number of players is going to provide more income than going after the relatively small percentage of players willing to spend hundreds of dollars per event cycle.

Not only that, but if done right, GREE would still be milking the top tier of players & everyone down to the bottom- while encouraging new players to spend. A new player or casual player can't sensibly justify spending $100 to complete a single event (unless they've got a money tree in the backyard).

For a new/casual player, the sense of accomplishment is primarily derived from seeing their stats improve, not so much how they measure up to their opponents. Especially considering the rivals list change. Additionally, that full sense of accomplishment isn't achieved without fully completing an event.

As it stands, when that new player spends $100 to finish a single event & sees the stat gain, more often than not, their thought is "well that was a waste" & will refrain from doing so in the future. Whereas, if it were $20, that sense of regret may be non-existent & they may actually be inclined to repeat in the future.


Edit: No need for apologies. I understand that paying players will feel the need to protect their investments. The last thing I'm trying to encourage is to remove the stratification from the game. That's what makes CC the game that it is. I fully understand and accept that players should be able to set themselves apart from the rest of the pack if they put the $$$ in. I also understand and respect that GREE is a business & needs to be profitable to carry on. I'm just trying to explain that GREE could be exponentially more profitable & successful by implementing an inclusive pricing scheme that would actually encourage new/free players to spend, and get former gold spenders back on board.

andyt
03-05-2014, 05:20 PM
maybe this explains their pricing strategy? http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/210814/Dip_in_coin_consumption_sees_Grees_earnings_tumble .php

Sandukan
03-05-2014, 05:23 PM
GREE is not losing a dime.
CC is still making money regardless of the random nonsensical changes being made.
The players adapt.

This game is like a cock-a-roach. Only a nuclear holocaust will end it.

chubbibee
03-05-2014, 05:26 PM
Hey Gree! Put the gold sale back on give people a chance to complete epic boss event. how about last chance sale over 40% off on gold!

RealTeflonDon
03-05-2014, 05:42 PM
@Andy- very interesting read.

@Sandukan- Look at Andy's link & you'll see they are "losing a dime". More than that though, considering they've only tapped in on maybe 25% of their potential demographic by utilizing this exclusive pricing scheme.

GucciMane
03-05-2014, 06:54 PM
As much as we all believe this to be true, what if in fact the opposite is true?
.

Well, the one way to find out is to try!


And try, they haven't.


The only way to test this is to have an event that REQUIRES gold, but a low amount of it (500-750 would be a good starter amount).


Just on one event. Would probably be best as an LTQ. Then compare it with their data on these expensive 1.5-2 vault LTQs currently ongoing. Which is making more profit? A 500-750 gold event is still $25-40 per individual. You could go out and buy a newer used game at that price. Its less important to us as consumers but it doesn't seem like GREE cares about determining.

RealTeflonDon
03-05-2014, 07:12 PM
Gucci, that would be an alright way of collecting data. However, GREE's approach has always been to show the prizes, not what is actually required of the players to complete the event.

It's a carrot on a stick, except the length of the stick is never apparent until you get the carrot (or, when the LTQ jobs/rewards list is posted by another player).

So, doing a cheaper event without making it known that it is cheaper, will not attract as much attention as it would if the requirements were stated prior to the event.

Assuming the prices/requirements were lowered, GREE would indubitably feel the need to decrease the quality of the prizes- potentially dissuading people from participating as well.

Sandukan
03-05-2014, 08:01 PM
@Andy- very interesting read.

@Sandukan- Look at Andy's link & you'll see they are "losing a dime". More than that though, considering they've only tapped in on maybe 25% of their potential demographic by utilizing this exclusive pricing scheme.

You are assuming that GREE's loss in revenue is due to losing CC customers/revenue.
Most of these app games are down in revenue. Still, 3 GREE games are in the top 25 earners (at least on android).

That article is saying GREE is not that concerned and think adding more titles will cover losses.
This game is and will always be about the big spenders.

Free and light gold players have these forums to complain and commiserate though. That is charitable of them.

RealTeflonDon
03-05-2014, 08:09 PM
How the loss in revenue came about is irrelevant... a loss is a loss & I'm explaining exactly how they could fix that.

GQNammmer
03-05-2014, 09:31 PM
How could maintaining the stratification be accomplished? By adding emphasis on leaderboard events (like this upcoming war). When I say "emphasis" I mean, improve the quality of prizes for the higher tiers. Note: This could also mean adding leaderboards to events that have traditionally not included them.

Also, I wouldn't call my presumptions, "assumptions", given that, milking a vastly larger number of players is going to provide more income than going after the relatively small percentage of players willing to spend hundreds of dollars per event cycle.

Not only that, but if done right, GREE would still be milking the top tier of players & everyone down to the bottom- while encouraging new players to spend. A new player or casual player can't sensibly justify spending $100 to complete a single event (unless they've got a money tree in the backyard).

For a new/casual player, the sense of accomplishment is primarily derived from seeing their stats improve, not so much how they measure up to their opponents. Especially considering the rivals list change. Additionally, that full sense of accomplishment isn't achieved without fully completing an event.

As it stands, when that new player spends $100 to finish a single event & sees the stat gain, more often than not, their thought is "well that was a waste" & will refrain from doing so in the future. Whereas, if it were $20, that sense of regret may be non-existent & they may actually be inclined to repeat in the future.


Edit: No need for apologies. I understand that paying players will feel the need to protect their investments. The last thing I'm trying to encourage is to remove the stratification from the game. That's what makes CC the game that it is. I fully understand and accept that players should be able to set themselves apart from the rest of the pack if they put the $$$ in. I also understand and respect that GREE is a business & needs to be profitable to carry on. I'm just trying to explain that GREE could be exponentially more profitable & successful by implementing an inclusive pricing scheme that would actually encourage new/free players to spend, and get former gold spenders back on board.

Again, you're under the assumption that $20.00 (again, just using this number as a reference since it's been mentioned a lot) is going to entice so many players to finish an event that it would create more revenue than the current model. You have no data to back up your theory. I'm also trying to understand how you can come up with your logic or are you just throwing out arbitrary numbers.

Another topic that hasn't been mentioned is the way the game is structured. With CC, it's get higher stats so you can pummel your opponents and protect yourself from getting pummeled. There's no strategy to it. Due to the ToS, I cannot mention other games. But the other successful games who have more micro transactions have a different structure. Their gameplay entices people pay to have a nice decoration in their "hood" and/or People pay to mass their armies faster than their opponents.

LTQ items are there for exclusivity in regards to how the CC play style is. If everyone can get it, the exclusivity is gone. Take a look at BMW vehicles and their owners. Why does BMW charge what they charge and why do people pay what they pay? Why doesn't BMW charge a lower price to capture a larger market? Why do people who buy BMWs not buy say, a Toyota or Ford?

There are events that actually don't cost very much to finish but people still do not end up finishing them. Let's take a look at raid bosses and epic bosses. If everyone in a syndicate of 60 members were to contribute let's say, $40.00, the raid boss would be pretty easy to take down. Is this how it works in practice? Maybe only for teams in top 10 or 25. But anything below those syndicates it's usually a handful of large gold spenders who will finish the event for the syndicate assuming the syndicate even finishes the event.

And now let's look at the epic boss event. When GREE decimated the boss health so that everyone and their mother could defeat the boss, people rejoiced. Who were these people? I can almost guarantee you the majority of them were FREE players. And what happened when Gree all of the sudden jacked up the health for this event. Complete and utter whining and crying all over the forums. But if these "regular (free)" players had spent $30.00-$40.00, they would've finished the event, gained huge stats, and a unique modifier that isn't offered on a regular basis.

And before you say it's easy for me to say these things when I'm a gold spender, I can assure you that although I have spent on this game, it is far lower than what others pay. I started playing this game back in January of 2012 and in total I've spent less than $1600 and my stats are 26mil attack/20mil def. That's about $60.00 per month if you average it out.

TZora
03-05-2014, 10:08 PM
Again, you're under the assumption that $20.00 (again, just using this number as a reference since it's been mentioned a lot) is going to entice so many players to finish an event that it would create more revenue than the current model. You have no data to back up your theory. I'm also trying to understand how you can come up with your logic or are you just throwing out arbitrary numbers.

hi gqn :) you are challenging his statements without any data too. what makes you think he is wrong? there are many people who would love to buy gold but can't because not everyone can afford to drop $99 for gold. secondly, you need multiple vaults to complete an event. if the price of gold was $20 a treasury, hell i would've spent hundreds by now without even knowing the total money spent. i'm happy that gree gold is so expensive that i'm not at all lured to throw so much money for so little gold which is not enough to even complete single event. please gree, do not listen to anyone at all, make gold more expensive. my money looks better in my pocket :)

i'm 100% sure, gree's biggest challenge is to understand which market to tap into. they must've spend hundreds of hours around meetings to decide whether they should tap into the "not-so-wealthy" group of people or should they tap into the "high spending" group. i guess, 20% is the free playing community in CC, 70% is the low spending community and maybe 10% is the high spending community.

so gree were to decide, should they tap into the 70% low spending or the 10% high spending? they planned to go with the later. that is the reason 70% ppl are banging their head against the wall. even some of the people in the high spending community are now falling into the low spending 70% because of extended gold requirements for completing events and staying ahead of the competition.

just my thoughts and some rough figures i thought of the top of my head, don't quote me over these figures.

GQNammmer
03-05-2014, 10:23 PM
hi gqn :) you are challenging his statements without any data too. what makes you think he is wrong? there are many people who would love to buy gold but can't because not everyone can afford to drop $99 for gold. secondly, you need multiple vaults to complete an event. if the price of gold was $20 a treasury, hell i would've spent hundreds by now without even knowing the total money spent. i'm happy that gree gold is so expensive that i'm not at all lured to throw so much money for so little gold which is not enough to even complete single event. please gree, do not listen to anyone at all, make gold more expensive. my money looks better in my pocket :)

He is the one providing a theory so it's on his onus to provide cases or solid evidence to back up his theory. In ANY academic, it is up to the person who came up with the theory to prove their theory to a board or panel. Members of this panel will come up with scenarios to refute the theory and if the theory provider cannot come up with some sort of evidence that supports their theory, the theory is squashed.

Lets not take academic into consideration. Have you worked in a corporation where you have an idea and had a strong sensation that if the company followed your idea, it would all of the sudden make more money? How would you approach them? Would your case be much stronger and more convincing if you provided proof that your idea would be successful?

And then theres Pareto's principle aka the 80-20 rule. There is EMPIRICAL data stating that many firms follow this rule.

RealTeflonDon
03-05-2014, 10:25 PM
I don't know what part of, ~$100 per event is unjustifiable for the typical new player of the game (and the majority of players in the game) is hard to understand.. But, that's where the majority of my logic is derived from.

$20 a few times a month is easier to look at on a bank/credit card statement than a bunch of $100 transactions. Simply put, $20 worth of gold won't finish anything in this game.


And again, exclusivity/stratification can be maintained by rewarding those that are dropping a couple $100 a week by putting more emphasis on Leaderboard events & adding Leaderboards to events that traditionally haven't included them. For instance, Raid Bosses could have a leaderboard for the Top "X" teams who have either killed the most bosses or dealt the most damage. Job events could have a leaderboard for the teams that collect a certain number of items from the final target..

There's so many ways that GREE could make this game more profitable. Tapping into the remaining ~80% of free players & enticing them to spend by making the game affordable would be a good start.


Edit: If I had historical data straight from GREE, I could show you exactly how this common sense principle would net GREE larger profit margins. Unfortunately I don't think they'd send that kind of info to me.

GQNammmer
03-05-2014, 10:42 PM
Hey tZ, didnt mean to just quote your first paragraph. It appears you edited your post right after i started to respond to your initial post :)

You are correct in that it does seem that GREE makes changes and decisions based on the top percentile of players but at the same time, why is it that GREE continues to release content costing as much as it does? It is because there is a large enough consumer base paying to finish these events. I will also like to refer you to where i mentioned raid bosses and epic bosses cost relatively cheap. Even at that pricing point, do the majority of 60 player syndicates have the end prize? Will the majoirty of players have the final prize on this epic boss?

RealTeflonDon
03-05-2014, 10:50 PM
If there's a large enough portion of the customer base finishing those kind of events, then make it more affordable for the majority to complete & then slap a leaderboard onto it & let the big money players hash it out after its been completed...

=

So..Much...Profit

TooFlyRobbie
03-05-2014, 11:03 PM
Yes, Tzora. But the main cause of players gold players quitting is because gold now has no value at all and its evident. And yes it would be less beneficial for the circus in the long run to lower the prices at this point. They literally had their chance to fool the "middle class" players and they missed it.

This is what's going to happen: The clown's best shot now would be to leave this game as it is and create a new game, with all the good features this game never had. A large portion of players would leave this game and download the "new" game because they feel/realize their buck is not being valued and they still want a piece of CC. New costumers (a lot of new costumers and money), GREE fools everyone again, even more if they lower prices This is how this gaming companies work, specially the ones that promote "legal kompu-gacha", either way there will always be a way in which you'll end up paying the market's full price with GREE. Just a reminder, this game is over. Just laugh at the juicy stuff they offer, you can't get stronger no matter how much you pay or paid anyways, unless it is/was tenths of thousands. sit tight and wait, free play.

TZora
03-06-2014, 05:45 AM
i like this thread and the way we're all communicating/discussing .. really hope that gree gives even half ear to all that being discussed. gqn, i understand and agree with what you are saying about the "proof" or proper explanation with examples, agree with ya dear.

for the events and all that, i've said this earlier, will say it again. gree has a habit of blowing things out of proportion, with a focus to make a FAT profit in each event. too much concentration on statistics and little attention to what majority of customers want. something is still holding the community together and i wouldn't be surprised at all if someone says, "gree creates rivalries to engage people". i'm dead sure, that is the case. otherwise, there's no way people would stick to this app after all that they've gone through. there's a hell lot of psychology being discussed/played behind the scenes.

events can be better organized so that "nobody" feels like a loser. nobody "should" feel like a loser in a game, ffs it is supposed to be fun, not a pain in the -bleep- ... for example, collect 10/15/20 events .. there should be some sort of assurity that you spend xxx gold and you will definitely get the xxx prize. even better, collect 20 in 1 day and you get the main prize + special prize 1 for completing in 1 day. that will take care of all the 10% on top. then, collect 20 in 2 days, you will get the main prize + special prize 2 for completing in 2 days. that will take care of the rest 70% moderate spenders. anyone who completes the event in the final 3 days should get the main prize only. also, the top 250/25/1 can be integrated within this model. in the end, everyone should be a winner. don't worry gree, your profits will NOT blow out of proportion, your profits will only grow. for the raid boss event, same .. the events should be doable OR remove the "free app" part out of your games gree, it only makes you look like a thief.

by the way, at the corporate level, they have their decisions to make. should we aim for a long term or should we just decide beforehand "time and duration" for this app? i believe, gree doesn't have any long term interest in any particular app. they're like, "make a quick buck out of this app as long as we can" and raise more such apps so that if one is through it's lifespan, we concentrate more on the second, then third, then fourth, then fifth and so on.

they have NO INTEREST in dragging this app for a long time, not like they have any plans to keep going for years on just one app. i'm amazed how this game has gone this far, seriously amazed. they engaged us by creating rivalries. as to who they used, let's not get into that part.

anyway, the best answer to this company is to play their games and not spend a dime .. that's what i'm doing and no matter how hard they try, i will not spend money. nope! maaaaaaaaay be i will if a treasury of gold costs $10? maybe .. maybe not :p

RealTeflonDon
10-03-2014, 12:56 PM
Fewd fur thot GREE

Dipstik
10-03-2014, 02:55 PM
I'm just digging in until they sell this app to someone else :)

fan139
10-03-2014, 06:01 PM
So i read this thread and got curious so i had a look at gree's financials and from what i can see not only must they be pissing off customers but also share holders. With a direct link here to there data projections for this year http://corp.gree.net/global/investor-relations/
if you open the first excel spread sheet you will see their operating margins have dropped hugely as have their ROCE and their dividends, perhaps its time gree listened to what the consumers want to not only make us happy and to spend money i also think that would make your shareholders very very very happy. Just food for through Gree

Plus those goodwill figures you have in their, any brand you buy out you will probably ruin and thereforth ruin the value that it holds so you may want to have those adjusted.

And on a side not off the financials i couldn't help but chuckle at this - taken directly from the company's mission statement.
'Build a great company to offer the best services.'
if you want to offer the best services i suggest having your tech guy looking into these bugs and and increase the size of your customer service team