One way to determine best guild...

[toogoodformyowngood]

So glad you took the bait because I love a good discussion.

I think you need to take your 1% hat off. You are already pot committed and not going anywhere lol. The people spending money on a game aren't leaving just because they can't spend for one war out of the month. What kind of satisfaction would they get with the thousands they spent already?

If there is nobody to show off to then really there is no incentive to show off right? GREE has had some failed games in the past like Driland where the top got too top heavy and the game became too dissatisfactory for new players. The "middle" falls out in lost hope and lost incentive to continue playing.

Also, fair warning to you, there are only so many stars and armor combinations that exist before they run out of options.

Going to post an interesting war trend on Android that you may not be seeing on the iOS side but it represents a microcosm of the games progress last 3 months. Attachment 5393

At some point, people realize that there is a lost cause and give up. If you provide incentives beyond Guild War being ruled by gem spending, you keep the "middle" which makes up a lot more than what is spent by the top 1% These are the people buying tons of chests to try and keep up, who fall for the chest deals for old armors, the people who are the only spender in their guild to make top 25. The iPhone group are sheltered a bit by volume but the same type of people are playing in Android.

You can see that GREE is increasing the frequency of guild wars already which isn't a good sign for the game.

GREE needs people like the OP to stretch and create ideas. Catering to the top 1% only leads to the game's demise because again, without the right player mix, it will not survive.

Looking forward to your response!

lol, your argument is invalid.

top 1% is committed to paying for the game is a fallacy, in fact most of the top players are the one most likely to retire because there is basically not much left to do in the game for them. they will only look forward to guild wars.

And honestly if u ask yourself, you are a Company you will have to cater to your customers which are the paying players for the f2p players. it doesnt matter if the p2p is only 1% because that's where your money is coming from.

Should GREE cater to f2p players, they actually do quite a good job of doing that by making quite a lot of epic armors fuseable.

f2p players dont really matter because they will always be there. people come and go but they will not be missed.

"If there is nobody to show off to then really there is no incentive to show off right? GREE has had some failed games in the past like Driland where the top got too top heavy and the game became too dissatisfactory for new players. The "middle" falls out in lost hope and lost incentive to continue playing."

Your 2nd paragraph is also invalid because there will always be someone to show off to as there is always an abundance of f2p players, the problem is that most p2p players just leave cuz they are bored.

Most games have shelf lives and actually it doesnt matter if the game dies. there can always be a knd 2. Maybe a improved version of the original so is that a bad thing?

Truth to be told the game already went past it's shelf life. The original game was probably positioned to be last maybe about 3-6 months before becoming obsolete. You can see how limited the original content of the game is. but the thing is that knd has become so profitable that the management has decided to prolong the life of the game and investing more into the game.

"Also, fair warning to you, there are only so many stars and armor combinations that exist before they run out of options."

You can always make new elements or 6/7 star amours, new capes. new stats, new things can always be invented so it's not a problem. It will just get to a point that the programming is too old and they will just simply make knd 2 and port everyone over, better graphics etc. So it's not a problem.

"You can see that GREE is increasing the frequency of guild wars already which isn't a good sign for the game. "

it could be a double edge sword. but as a whole. they will be more epic armors to spread around. down point is burnout occurs alot quicker and players will retire quicker as well as it'll be more expensive to maintain being in a top 10 guild because most top 10 guilds almost always go for every epic armor out there. always it will always balance out to an equilibrium.

Anyways, even if the game dies. What does it matter, people will always find another game.

and the developers might remake the game. K n D 2.

So no big deal. Chill out yo.

[TheDoctorSB]

Nothing in life is even and nothing in life is easy. If you want to be the top then you spend money. It is as simple as that. There is no trophy for second place and Gree gives prizes all the way down to last place!

The world is not fair. People with money will spend it and get bigger and better things then people that don't have money. Learn to deal with it or your life will be a very sad one if you can not even deal with the facts of money on a small little game..... smh

The guild that buys the most gems and spends the most gems.... wins. How is that fact that hard to understand and gree will not give up their money maker just to please a guild that does not want to spend as much as the top ranked guild.

[toogoodformyowngood]

Nothing in life is even and nothing in life is easy. If you want to be the top then you spend money. It is as simple as that. There is no trophy for second place and Gree gives prizes all the way down to last place!

The world is not fair. People with money will spend it and get bigger and better things then people that don't have money. Learn to deal with it or your life will be a very sad one if you can not even deal with the facts of money on a small little game..... smh

The guild that buys the most gems and spends the most gems.... wins. How is that fact that hard to understand and gree will not give up their money maker just to please a guild that does not want to spend as much as the top ranked guild.

facts of life.

[Dianish]

Its a trend to spend...

I bet everything would have been different if people actually was strong enough not to get tempted to buy gems. So far all top guilds have done is to support Gree - Gree is not the issue. You are Its that simple.

[busteroaf]

Back to the original concept here. KnD is a P2W game sure, but the players that pay represent less than 1% maybe 2% of the total volume of players in KnD (and maybe 50% of the players who talk on the forum giving a false appearance of majority). Eventually free players will leave if there are no incentives for them to stay and when the majority of players leave, KnD dies and then the P2W players leave and GREE loses money. So the next time you criticize someone who has a helpful idea that actually is appealing to the MAJORITY (not the 1%) I think you should give him a break.

At some point, people realize that there is a lost cause and give up. If you provide incentives beyond Guild War being ruled by gem spending, you keep the "middle" which makes up a lot more than what is spent by the top 1% These are the people buying tons of chests to try and keep up, who fall for the chest deals for old armors, the people who are the only spender in their guild to make top 25. The iPhone group are sheltered a bit by volume but the same type of people are playing in Android.

So let me get this straight now.

In your first statement, you say that the spenders make up 1-2% of the total population of the game. That is what you said correct?

In your next response, there is now the "middle", and they spend more is spent by the top 1%.

So, the % of players that makes up the population is only 1-2%, but the middle spend more than the top 1%. Are the spenders only 1-2% of the population, or does this "middle" group consist of spenders too? Because if that is so, then your original statement is invalid, and there is no sense in arguing with you because you clearly can't make up your mind, or process your thoughts clearly enough for anyone to understand you to make an argument.

But again, you glanced over my question about losing which 1% of the population kills the game off quicker. Losing the bottom 1%, or the spending top 1% (which clearly isn't 1% anymore with your second statement).

Also, as to me being committed... I wasn't aware that I wouldn't be able to find the game fun anymore and have stopped buying gems, and am using my last 900 to help out a bunch of level 60-90's get some war rewards, rather than do like some and have one big last hurrah and spend 5k gems and get the best epic only to go back to f2p.

Nope, but I won't stop buying gems, I'm too addicted. This guy clearly knows my spending habits better than I do.

Also, I'll refrain from listing the various people who are quitting/have already quit that were big name spenders. You clearly have a better pulse on the spending situation in this game.

[JStarbux]

@ the person saying I was whining about spending. Um, you didn't even read my post at all so try again when you put some thought behind your generic statements. I haven't spent any real money on this game so I have nothing to lose when it fails.

@buster...

1) You've confirmed that people are already unhappy and have quit. So clearly something needs to change right? Guess my graphs I posted are holding true. KnD is on its way out.
2) You yourself have lost incentive in spending in this game and claim you won't buy anymore. Or so you say until the next war because you are in a guild that requires spending. Thus in itself validates the fact you are pot committed.
3) You failed to understand the logic that I equated the spending the top 1% of people do compared to the large portion the middle makes up. The 1% are addicted and will spend anyway but when you lose the middle, you lose enough revenue that you can't rely on the top 1%. Again, my graphs demonstrated that initially the concentration of high spenders were spread across 10 guilds in Android and they have slipped to just 3 guilds with an extreme bunch at the very top.
4) Yes I did answer your question by providing evidence that the top 1% does not make up the necessary player mix to keep a game going. If there is no hope for the middle, the middle leaves and eventually the game dies.
5) There is no reason to validate your inquiry on the bottom 1% because there is no such thing as a bottom 1% of spenders. The number of people not spending on a game usually out numbers the spenders so the quantity of people who have spent $0 is much greater than 1%
6) You've attempted to say that I'm suggesting KnD developers cater to Free to Play when nothing I've suggested hasn't allowed spending to be included. So really you need to get your thoughts together not me.

Maybe I caught you in a night off?

[TheDoctorSB]

Back to the original concept here. KnD is a P2W game sure, but the players that pay represent less than 1% maybe 2% of the total volume of players in KnD (and maybe 50% of the players who talk on the forum giving a false appearance of majority). Eventually free players will leave if there are no incentives for them to stay and when the majority of players leave, KnD dies and then the P2W players leave and GREE loses money. So the next time you criticize someone who has a helpful idea that actually is appealing to the MAJORITY (not the 1%) I think you should give him a break.

Oh not another 1%... Do you even know who the people you are cutting down? They are the ones that FINANCE this game. The ones that keep the game mainly f2p for all them 90% that do not even bother to pay a damn cent. The other 9% is your "middle" class. The ones that spend some money, buy some gems.

This damn argument did not work with occupy wall street... what makes you think it will fly here? I mean the main problem here is this game is a PAY TO WIN, like you stated. Yet you say that the others, the ones that pay, like me, $3 bucks here, $10 bucks there for a few gems once in a great while, should get the same treatment as the people paying a few $1000 a war just to take first place?

Also I mainly play this game for free, I have seen many incentives that make the game fun. Sure I am not in Death Knights on the Android side of things, but who the hell cares. This liberal thinking of everyone should get what the 1% gets is not only on the boarder of insanity, but just never going to happen. It is like saying, I am on welfare and I deserve free handouts even though I do nothing but sit on my butt. Sorry that is not how life works in the real world, at least not yet. In a game like this you are lucky you get epics to play with and that you even have the chance to get the plus armors.

So my end of this debate is, if you are not going to pay to be the best in a game that is p2w, you have no right to demand or even expect to get what the people paying thousands get. This is coming from someone that is in the 2-99% and I am glad someone else is shelling out a crap load of money to support this game and keep it mainly free for me.

[toogoodformyowngood]

@ the person saying I was whining about spending. Um, you didn't even read my post at all so try again when you put some thought behind your generic statements. I haven't spent any real money on this game so I have nothing to lose when it fails.

@buster...

1) You've confirmed that people are already unhappy and have quit. So clearly something needs to change right? Guess my graphs I posted are holding true. KnD is on its way out.
2) You yourself have lost incentive in spending in this game and claim you won't buy anymore. Or so you say until the next war because you are in a guild that requires spending. Thus in itself validates the fact you are pot committed.
3) You failed to understand the logic that I equated the spending the top 1% of people do compared to the large portion the middle makes up. The 1% are addicted and will spend anyway but when you lose the middle, you lose enough revenue that you can't rely on the top 1%. Again, my graphs demonstrated that initially the concentration of high spenders were spread across 10 guilds in Android and they have slipped to just 3 guilds with an extreme bunch at the very top.
4) Yes I did answer your question by providing evidence that the top 1% does not make up the necessary player mix to keep a game going. If there is no hope for the middle, the middle leaves and eventually the game dies.
5) There is no reason to validate your inquiry on the bottom 1% because there is no such thing as a bottom 1% of spenders. The number of people not spending on a game usually out numbers the spenders so the quantity of people who have spent $0 is much greater than 1%
6) You've attempted to say that I'm suggesting KnD developers cater to Free to Play when nothing I've suggested hasn't allowed spending to be included. So really you need to get your thoughts together not me.

Maybe I caught you in a night off?

lol. i gotta agree with buster that your arguments are really have no logic to support itself.

you should really read his rebuttal correctly before attempting to "make" any further arguments.

"3) You failed to understand the logic that I equated the spending the top 1% of people do compared to the large portion the middle makes up. The 1% are addicted and will spend anyway but when you lose the middle, you lose enough revenue that you can't rely on the top 1%. Again, my graphs demonstrated that initially the concentration of high spenders were spread across 10 guilds in Android and they have slipped to just 3 guilds with an extreme bunch at the very top."

1. Please re-read your previous statements. You were segregating between p2p and f2p players and now you are combining the spenders and non spenders between the 1% and the
middle portion". So is this middle portion spenders as well then there should have already been considered in the p2p players. As such, there is no consistency in your arguments,

And I believe that the closer percentage of spenders is probably about 30-40%, with the top 5-10% being heavy spenders. So your 1-2% figure which you probably plucked from the air really seem distant, with spenders being defined as anyone who spends, and heavy spenders as ppl who buy at least 800 gems.

Please see below your the extract of your original statement.

"Back to the original concept here. KnD is a P2W game sure, but the players that pay represent less than 1% maybe 2% of the total volume of players in KnD (and maybe 50% of the players who talk on the forum giving a false appearance of majority)."


2. You are right about one thing, things need to change. Things are changing but not as fast as some of us would like.

3. KnD is not on it's way out instead it's on a upside trend currently. Some older players are on their way out but not the the game. I don't have the stats but you can definitely see the number of 5 star ratings and the number of players in the game has increased dramatically over the past few months. Every game has people leaving and new ppl joining as long as the number of new players coming in are much higher than the players going out ur pretty much fine. (Assuming the demographics of spenders is the same for the players coming in).

4. Quote your other statement below has a slippery slope fallacy, there are no facts supporting the below "theory" and you have already made a conclusion with no supporting arguments/evidence. There is no evidence supporting that the game is dying, just because some ppl on the forums complain doesn't mean the game is dying. Middle leaves and eventually the game dies, how long is that time frame of eventually 3-5 years, your statement will be irrelevant as nobody would care by that time.

"Yes I did answer your question by providing evidence that the top 1% does not make up the necessary player mix to keep a game going. If there is no hope for the middle, the middle leaves and eventually the game dies. "

Lol, they are so many fallacies in your argument that I don't think it will be good to waste anymore time arguing with you. In the court of law, it would have probably been thrown out the window already. So many assumptions, so little facts, no evidence, too many false conclusions and too many inconsistency in your arguments.

Conclusion: Buster you should just stop wasting your time replying, but well maybe u find it fun.

Guess JStarbux is probably bored too, that's why he wants to "argue" but seriously bro, shape up. put up some "proper" arguments as this seems really one sided with buster owning your ass. One sided battles are boring. Looking forward to your reply.

Have fun guys.

[Eunuchorn]

This isn't an mmo.

Don't expect Gree to treat it like one.

[TheDoctorSB]

lol. i gotta agree with buster that your arguments are really have no logic to support itself.

you should really read his rebuttal correctly before attempting to "make" any further arguments.

"3) You failed to understand the logic that I equated the spending the top 1% of people do compared to the large portion the middle makes up. The 1% are addicted and will spend anyway but when you lose the middle, you lose enough revenue that you can't rely on the top 1%. Again, my graphs demonstrated that initially the concentration of high spenders were spread across 10 guilds in Android and they have slipped to just 3 guilds with an extreme bunch at the very top."

1. Please re-read your previous statements. You were segregating between p2p and f2p players and now you are combining the spenders and non spenders between the 1% and the
middle portion". So is this middle portion spenders as well then there should have already been considered in the p2p players. As such, there is no consistency in your arguments,

And I believe that the closer percentage of spenders is probably about 30-40%, with the top 5-10% being heavy spenders. So your 1-2% figure which you probably plucked from the air really seem distant, with spenders being defined as anyone who spends, and heavy spenders as ppl who buy at least 800 gems.

Please see below your the extract of your original statement.

"Back to the original concept here. KnD is a P2W game sure, but the players that pay represent less than 1% maybe 2% of the total volume of players in KnD (and maybe 50% of the players who talk on the forum giving a false appearance of majority)."


2. You are right about one thing, things need to change. Things are changing but not as fast as some of us would like.

3. KnD is not on it's way out instead it's on a upside trend currently. Some older players are on their way out but not the the game. I don't have the stats but you can definitely see the number of 5 star ratings and the number of players in the game has increased dramatically over the past few months. Every game has people leaving and new ppl joining as long as the number of new players coming in are much higher than the players going out ur pretty much fine. (Assuming the demographics of spenders is the same for the players coming in).

4. Quote your other statement below has a slippery slope fallacy, there are no facts supporting the below "theory" and you have already made a conclusion with no supporting arguments/evidence. There is no evidence supporting that the game is dying, just because some ppl on the forums complain doesn't mean the game is dying. Middle leaves and eventually the game dies, how long is that time frame of eventually 3-5 years, your statement will be irrelevant as nobody would care by that time.

"Yes I did answer your question by providing evidence that the top 1% does not make up the necessary player mix to keep a game going. If there is no hope for the middle, the middle leaves and eventually the game dies. "

Lol, they are so many fallacies in your argument that I don't think it will be good to waste anymore time arguing with you. In the court of law, it would have probably been thrown out the window already. So many assumptions, so little facts, no evidence, too many false conclusions and too many inconsistency in your arguments.

Conclusion: Buster you should just stop wasting your time replying, but well maybe u find it fun.

Guess JStarbux is probably bored too, that's why he wants to "argue" but seriously bro, shape up. put up some "proper" arguments as this seems really one sided with buster owning your ass. One sided battles are boring. Looking forward to your reply.

Have fun guys.

Bravo! Well said. However with the mind set he was trying to argue with us with is a very nasty mindset in the United States we call a liberal or as they are starting to come out as, socialists....

I am also done with him because I KNOW he will come back with "thoughts he things are facts" when in fact he has no numbers and has no idea what he is even talking about. It is just something liberals do is take their "opinions" as facts and well in the real world, they are opinions and nothing more lol.

[Sifu]

There is a simple thought experiment common in finance classes:
As a bank owner, would you rather have a $1,000,000 depositor or one million $1 depositors?

That is the simple point JStarbux is making. The "middle" he is referring to is the massive majority who spend only a few bucks to a few bucks a month. Regardless what your egos want you to believe, THOSE are the most important players.

1. Less volatility in income. You "whales" make it impossible for them to forecast their income. They LOVE having you. They HATE when they have to try to rely on you. You are a beautiful boost when you decide to go after something, but they can't rely on you or they fall on their face eventually if you don't like one of their prizes.

2. More stability in game population, which is what advertisers REQUIRE. If all the "whales" left, we have been guestimating 1-5% of the population would be gone? Sure, that amount might account for 50% of overall spending, but they still have 95% of the player-base left who can recruit friends. Look at any of the articles recently on the income of this game. Gree can happily run this game at 50% of its current income. Lose a huge chunck of that 95% however...and the game feels dead from low population and the spenders have even less incentive to stay because they don't have enough opponents to dominate. They will move on to other more populated games.

JStarbux is talking solid theory in game design which has been seen a lot now.

[TheDoctorSB]

This isn't an mmo.

Don't expect Gree to treat it like one.

Well technically, by the definition of an mmo, it could be considered as one. It is an online game where you interact with a lot of people, however in a non-direct way and not in an open world. However no way in hell should Gree treat KnD as anything like World of Warcrap or Diafail. That form of mmo is on the way out because of very poor management.

Just remember MMO just means Massive Multiplayer Online Game. Just means a lot of people world wide play this game. It is not the same class of MMO as WoW and Diablo is not in the same class as WoW or KnG but they are all MMO's.

[TheDoctorSB]

There is a simple thought experiment common in finance classes:
As a bank owner, would you rather have a $1,000,000 depositor or one million $1 depositors?

That is the simple point JStarbux is making. The "middle" he is referring to is the massive majority who spend only a few bucks to a few bucks a month. Regardless what your egos want you to believe, THOSE are the most important players.

1. Less volatility in income. You "whales" make it impossible for them to forecast their income. They LOVE having you. They HATE when they have to try to rely on you. You are a beautiful boost when you decide to go after something, but they can't rely on you or they fall on their face eventually if you don't like one of their prizes.

2. More stability in game population, which is what advertisers REQUIRE. If all the "whales" left, we have been guestimating 1-5% of the population would be gone? Sure, that amount might account for 50% of overall spending, but they still have 95% of the player-base left who can recruit friends. Look at any of the articles recently on the income of this game. Gree can happily run this game at 50% of its current income. Lose a huge chunck of that 95% however...and the game feels dead from low population and the spenders have even less incentive to stay because they don't have enough opponents to dominate. They will move on to other more populated games.

JStarbux is talking solid theory in game design which has been seen a lot now.

Also look at it this way, Would gree like to have them guys that spurge a crap ton of money at one time in one war, or that other group of players that take 5 or 6 months and will get bored and leave before they ever pay as much as that splurge spender did in one war?

See that is where the argument can be turned around. I bet anything that people in Death Knights per month must spend at least a few thousand bucks PER WAR. I am lucky if I paid gree that in a YEAR. So who would Gree rather have? That person dropping $2000 to 3000 a month. Sure that other group can add up but I bet there is less middle players than both you and JStarbux think. I maybe spend $10 max per month. That would take 2000 to 3000 people like me to pay as much as ONE person and Death Knights BLEW the hell out of the second ranked guild. I would say Death Knights paid like $10k easy between all their players IN ONE WAR. Now that is a guess but for the amount of points they put up, I can not say I am not close.

So no, Gree wants these people splurging thousands a month and guilds splurging 10k or so a war over us small f2p/sometimes p2w players.

[busteroaf]

@ the person saying I was whining about spending. Um, you didn't even read my post at all so try again when you put some thought behind your generic statements. I haven't spent any real money on this game so I have nothing to lose when it fails.

@buster...

1) You've confirmed that people are already unhappy and have quit. So clearly something needs to change right? Guess my graphs I posted are holding true. KnD is on its way out.
2) You yourself have lost incentive in spending in this game and claim you won't buy anymore. Or so you say until the next war because you are in a guild that requires spending. Thus in itself validates the fact you are pot committed.
3) You failed to understand the logic that I equated the spending the top 1% of people do compared to the large portion the middle makes up. The 1% are addicted and will spend anyway but when you lose the middle, you lose enough revenue that you can't rely on the top 1%. Again, my graphs demonstrated that initially the concentration of high spenders were spread across 10 guilds in Android and they have slipped to just 3 guilds with an extreme bunch at the very top.
4) Yes I did answer your question by providing evidence that the top 1% does not make up the necessary player mix to keep a game going. If there is no hope for the middle, the middle leaves and eventually the game dies.
5) There is no reason to validate your inquiry on the bottom 1% because there is no such thing as a bottom 1% of spenders. The number of people not spending on a game usually out numbers the spenders so the quantity of people who have spent $0 is much greater than 1%
6) You've attempted to say that I'm suggesting KnD developers cater to Free to Play when nothing I've suggested hasn't allowed spending to be included. So really you need to get your thoughts together not me.

Maybe I caught you in a night off?

You clearly aren't understanding my posts, nor are you even understanding your own. Notice that you're the only one talking in circles? Are you Mark reincarnated? I'm only going to bother replying to two of your statements, because I honestly don't care about the others at this point.

2) Actually, no. I'm not spending anymore. If you actually knew me or had any contact with me on Line, like many here could verify, I left any major chat rooms dealing with KnD outside of a general chat and my current guild chat. Also, please, tell my how my guild requires spending. Do you even know what guild I'm in? What are the requirements? Apparently not, so please stop acting like you know anything about me and my habits.

5) I'm glad you can realize there is no bottom 1% of the zero spenders. You can do basic math. Congrats!

The point was taking your original statement and its 1-2% number. If that was the entirety of spenders like you referenced, (again, please look it up, you said it yourself) and you took them away, you'd then have NO INCOME. Now reverse that and take away 1-2% of the game population that are $0 spenders. Losing one is more devastating to the game than losing the other.

Clearly the amount of spenders in this game is over 1-2%, we know that. I was just using your numbers against you. Like someone else mentioned, you could run this game with 50% of the profit they are making. Do you think Gree would rather lose those that comprise 50% of their profit, or the same amount of players that spend $0?

Off night? No.

Clearly I'm just having Eun withdrawl.

[toogoodformyowngood]

There is a simple thought experiment common in finance classes:
As a bank owner, would you rather have a $1,000,000 depositor or one million $1 depositors?

That is the simple point JStarbux is making. The "middle" he is referring to is the massive majority who spend only a few bucks to a few bucks a month. Regardless what your egos want you to believe, THOSE are the most important players.

1. Less volatility in income. You "whales" make it impossible for them to forecast their income. They LOVE having you. They HATE when they have to try to rely on you. You are a beautiful boost when you decide to go after something, but they can't rely on you or they fall on their face eventually if you don't like one of their prizes.

2. More stability in game population, which is what advertisers REQUIRE. If all the "whales" left, we have been guestimating 1-5% of the population would be gone? Sure, that amount might account for 50% of overall spending, but they still have 95% of the player-base left who can recruit friends. Look at any of the articles recently on the income of this game. Gree can happily run this game at 50% of its current income. Lose a huge chunck of that 95% however...and the game feels dead from low population and the spenders have even less incentive to stay because they don't have enough opponents to dominate. They will move on to other more populated games.

JStarbux is talking solid theory in game design which has been seen a lot now.

Actually there has been research that says that most companies values the top customers. As the cost of serving this customers are alot lower. The cost of serving 1 million people who just deposit 1 dollar in your bank costs alot more than serving one customer that deposits 1 million dollars. They actually perform cost/benefit analysis on the customers. Citibank has also implemented such measures to reduce the retail customers by having a high maintenance limit and higher fees etc for retail customers.

And if you actually look at cafedecoy graphs and charts, KnD is very heavy weighted on the heavy spenders as such the top 5-10 percent of the population of spenders could probably contribute up to 80-90% of the revenue for the Company. In such situations catering to the needs of the heavy spenders is the most important. I think GREE is trying but probably not as fast as we will like. It's not about egos its about the facts, if the graphs wasn't so heavily weighted to heavy spenders then maybe. The logic is people who buy chest or spend during GW is GREE real customers not the others than actually spend like 10 -50 dollars a year. And its a just a player demographic so it has nothing to do with Ego's.

Anyways some ordinary spenders will become large spenders too. So it's not really a static demographic, its more of a dynamic thing and lol. what you talk about volatility in the income is all due to the major spenders. Ugly epic less spending, bad ass epic major spending rather than volatility due to player spending habits. You can look at the charts that cafe decoy made. It is also influenced by incentives such as discounts.

Most of the income GREE makes comes from direct income which does not come from advertisers. Maybe at the most 5-10% might come from that, so that is of little importance.


Conclusion: JStarbux is talking solid theory in game design. I don't think so.

Pawned?