Warrior General Games

Originally posted by SteveMax58
You say better value. Let me ask you this...how much did you spend on flex last month? Or at least the last time you spent.

You dont have to say how much but then consider if the amount of flex you received was tripled...but, with no recycle to it. How bad a value would you perceive it to be?

Probably not as great of value to me as it wouldn't have kept me around this long. I probably would have actually spent less as I wouldn't have started new ventures behind my older ones without the thought that I was getting that return investment back.

Yes, would rather recycle my initial 20,000 flex.

Making flex purchases cheaper isn't necessarily going to make people spend just as much money or more. I know I would just spend less money if the purchases were cheaper.

Granted I haven't had to buy flex in over a year with all the players I have made.

Originally posted by bhall43
Probably not as great of value to me as it wouldn't have kept me around this long. I probably would have actually spent less as I wouldn't have started new ventures behind my older ones without the thought that I was getting that return investment back.

Originally posted by Phantom Of The Opera
Yes, would rather recycle my initial 20,000 flex.

If you are both indicative of the majority user base then I think that proves that GLB should have gone the ad-supported model and lowered flex costs at some point to maintain more users.

But I respectfully disagree that you are both indicative of what a majority of paying customers would do in that same scenario because you could play the game the same either way. You are just lowering the upfront investment to try & hook more customers in & get them to play the game the way a lot of the top shelf users do (who obv spend more than the avg user).

Adding more games is fine but thats not mutually exclusive with a flex model change.

It's interesting, but given a choice, I prefer to get a 70% recycle.

Originally posted by Phantom Of The Opera
It's interesting, but given a choice, I prefer to get a 70% recycle.

Can you explain why you prefer to pay more upfront for something that you could choose to spend less on if the game is not fun for you?

Not trying to be ass but I find that fascinating. Or maybe I'm not articulating the concept well enough.

Well the game is fun for me. To me it isn't really that much money to me at this time in my life.

Originally posted by SteveMax58
If you are both indicative of the majority user base then I think that proves that GLB should have gone the ad-supported model and lowered flex costs at some point to maintain more users.

But I respectfully disagree that you are both indicative of what a majority of paying customers would do in that same scenario because you could play the game the same either way. You are just lowering the upfront investment to try & hook more customers in & get them to play the game the way a lot of the top shelf users do (who obv spend more than the avg user).

Adding more games is fine but thats not mutually exclusive with a flex model change.

You have to engage and retain users in some way for that to be a good model. The current structure of GLB isn't going to do that to a degree in which that makes any practical sense. Also keep in mind that this game had plenty of users over that time period that had the wallet for this game. Flex pricing really isn't the deal it is cracked up to be. Sure when you think about having an entire team of players it is, but to me if someone really has that kind of interest in this game to build that many players, they would have done so under this cost already. Unless we were merely talking about peewee leagues.

Originally posted by SteveMax58
Can you explain why you prefer to pay more upfront for something that you could choose to spend less on if the game is not fun for you?

Not trying to be ass but I find that fascinating. Or maybe I'm not articulating the concept well enough.

Well except you aren't spending less in the end.

Originally posted by Phantom Of The Opera
Well the game is fun for me. To me it isn't really that much money to me at this time in my life.

Bingo...which is why you are here and so am I. As is bhall and others.

Whats missing from this conversation is the customer that didn't have the upfront cash to enjoy the game the same way that we enjoy it...which is having more dots to play with for your dollar. We all have some limitation as to our investment in a game like this. The only thing I'm pointing out is that I believe users have more fun when they have more dots. and will spend more if thats the norm, rather than recycling a couple of dots over the course of 3-4 years. As thats what it takes to truly use your recycled value.

Originally posted by bhall43
Well except you aren't spending less in the end.

And thats the point. You dont want people who love the game to spend less...you want more people who love the game (period) and as a result you have more revenue. Giving people the ability to play the game the way those of us users who are still around do, means there is more likelihood that more users stick around longer.

Originally posted by SteveMax58
And thats the point. You dont want people who love the game to spend less...you want more people who love the game (period) and as a result you have more revenue. Giving people the ability to play the game the way those of us users who are still around do, means there is more likelihood that more users stick around longer.

I get what you are saying. But you are just talking about the upfront cost and making assumptions about the retention. Like I said before, if there were users who were actually wanting to make an entire team and go from 0 to 79 that had revenue, they likely did so. The people who weren't spending much money on this game because it was too expensive most likely weren't going to spend more money on this game if it was cheaper and frankly, neither would have I.

Now something I think a lot of us can agree on is that WR's probably should have their price lowered to 200 flex at the very least.

This was very enjoyable to me: http://goallineblitz.com/game/replay.pl?game_id=2338756&pbp_id=4936481