70 for a 300 flex dot.
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > 70 BUCKS FOR ONE DOT
bhall43
offline
offline
so basically you could go through 3 and a half dots with that 70. your next dot a 200 flex dot. the next a 100 flex dot.
jdbolick
offline
offline
How much money it takes for a full 55 is the much more staggering total, which is why I've never had more than 10-15 dots on my own team at any particular time.
Coutinho
offline
offline
The costs are absurd, given the limited payback in terms of stuff that dot-owners can actually do. You get to train, add SP, upgrade equipment, set tactics, add VP, and boost. None of those things are particularly exciting as a "thing to do" in the game, although each gets you closer to where you want your dot to end up. None of them engage you for very long, either. Apart from that, you get to watch your dot in games, which may or may not be fun, depending on circumstances. All for a very high price, regardless of the flex refund.
Most of the interest in the game actually seems to be in the "free" bits. Co-ordinating/team ownership, and the forums (from brag threads to VPB build discussions, to suggesttions, to banter, and so on). As interest dwindles, there aren't anywhere near enough dots to go round, and still prices remain constant? I don't really get the model. Lower prices would probably lead to more dots being made, as some people would continue to spend around the same amount. Others might rein in spending a bit. Still others might increase spending: if a dot is only costing you a few dollars in total, why not just have that one extra dot. Or another one?
Seems like a fair few people have blown a lot of money on this game in the past. They clearly have money to burn and an addiction. But to the casual user, and even to the "quite addicted" user, the prices are likely to discourage, not encourage further investment and engagement, given what you get out of it. Just my opinion, of course.
No "reduce flex prices" threads allowed.
Most of the interest in the game actually seems to be in the "free" bits. Co-ordinating/team ownership, and the forums (from brag threads to VPB build discussions, to suggesttions, to banter, and so on). As interest dwindles, there aren't anywhere near enough dots to go round, and still prices remain constant? I don't really get the model. Lower prices would probably lead to more dots being made, as some people would continue to spend around the same amount. Others might rein in spending a bit. Still others might increase spending: if a dot is only costing you a few dollars in total, why not just have that one extra dot. Or another one?
Seems like a fair few people have blown a lot of money on this game in the past. They clearly have money to burn and an addiction. But to the casual user, and even to the "quite addicted" user, the prices are likely to discourage, not encourage further investment and engagement, given what you get out of it. Just my opinion, of course.
No "reduce flex prices" threads allowed.
bhall43
offline
offline
Lowering the prices would just end up lowering the % you get back from it. You would be getting less from your investment. I doubt you would see a big upswing in dots because of that.
TehKyou
offline
offline
Originally posted by bhall43
Lowering the prices would just end up lowering the % you get back from it. You would be getting less from your investment. I doubt you would see a big upswing in dots because of that.
Wait what? isn't 70% still 70%?
If total cost of boosting per botdot lifetime (not counting initial 300 cost) was 20. It would mean after 70% refund the dot cost 6 dollars to boost. If it only cost 6 dollars to boost a dotbot in it's lifetime I would be doing 10-15 minimum every few seasons.
Where are we getting the 70% from anyway, who is to say they even give us a refund in GLB2
Lowering the prices would just end up lowering the % you get back from it. You would be getting less from your investment. I doubt you would see a big upswing in dots because of that.
Wait what? isn't 70% still 70%?
If total cost of boosting per botdot lifetime (not counting initial 300 cost) was 20. It would mean after 70% refund the dot cost 6 dollars to boost. If it only cost 6 dollars to boost a dotbot in it's lifetime I would be doing 10-15 minimum every few seasons.
Where are we getting the 70% from anyway, who is to say they even give us a refund in GLB2
Coutinho
offline
offline
Lowering prices wouldn't reduce the % return. It would reduce the hard total of your return, though, it's true. My point was that reducing the overall cost of making dots in some way might well lead to more dots. Perhaps. Who knows? Have they tried it? Do the periodic flex sales increase the amount of flex bought, for example?
And yep, Ownership isn't free, my mistake. It's co-ordinating that would hold the interest though, I'd think, and that is free.
And yep, Ownership isn't free, my mistake. It's co-ordinating that would hold the interest though, I'd think, and that is free.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by TehKyou
Wait what? isn't 70% still 70%?
If total cost of boosting per botdot lifetime (not counting initial 300 cost) was 20. It would mean after 70% refund the dot cost 6 dollars to boost. If it only cost 6 dollars to boost a dotbot in it's lifetime I would be doing 10-15 minimum every few seasons.
Where are we getting the 70% from anyway, who is to say they even give us a refund in GLB2
They are talking about GLB1. You get a 70% refund in GLB1. If they were to reduce the prices of a dot they aren't going to keep the same refund for it. They would lower that refund. Hence GLB2 where the prices are ultimately lowered but your refund is dropped to 30%.
Wait what? isn't 70% still 70%?
If total cost of boosting per botdot lifetime (not counting initial 300 cost) was 20. It would mean after 70% refund the dot cost 6 dollars to boost. If it only cost 6 dollars to boost a dotbot in it's lifetime I would be doing 10-15 minimum every few seasons.
Where are we getting the 70% from anyway, who is to say they even give us a refund in GLB2
They are talking about GLB1. You get a 70% refund in GLB1. If they were to reduce the prices of a dot they aren't going to keep the same refund for it. They would lower that refund. Hence GLB2 where the prices are ultimately lowered but your refund is dropped to 30%.
TehKyou
offline
offline
OK, so GLB1
You don't know that they would lower the refund. It's the same amount of profit for them either way. In fact they'd probably get more due to the increase in dots would probably increase the number of the additional custom EQ upgrades that don't get refunded.
I have an amount that I was spending on a fairly consistent basis regardless, the only difference is the amount of dots I can create based on my reserve flex.
You don't know that they would lower the refund. It's the same amount of profit for them either way. In fact they'd probably get more due to the increase in dots would probably increase the number of the additional custom EQ upgrades that don't get refunded.
I have an amount that I was spending on a fairly consistent basis regardless, the only difference is the amount of dots I can create based on my reserve flex.
Edited by TehKyou on Oct 27, 2013 13:47:11
bhall43
offline
offline
Lowering the prices isn't going to make people spend more. They spend what they do because that is what they spend. Sure it will equate to a couple more dots out of their spending but that is about it. It isn't the same amount of profit for them. It actually is a lower profit for them.
Coutinho
offline
offline
But reducing flex prices per dot and reducing refunds won't encourage more dots being made, will it? Doesn't it amount to the same thing as you had before, give or take a bit, just packaged in a different way?
If the userbase of GLB1 is dwindling, then high prices must be a factor, surely? A dwindling userbase means less dots. Which means a less enjoyable set of forums and less competition. Which means a further dwindling of the userbase. At some point there has to be a new incentive to buy flex and an acceptance that cost is a factor in making dots, and an attempt to arrest that spiral of decline.
Just seems like implementing reduced flex prices for a period would be at worst a temporary failed experiment, and at best a fairly easy way to get people building dots again in bigger numbers, rejuvenating the game, at least for a while.
If the userbase of GLB1 is dwindling, then high prices must be a factor, surely? A dwindling userbase means less dots. Which means a less enjoyable set of forums and less competition. Which means a further dwindling of the userbase. At some point there has to be a new incentive to buy flex and an acceptance that cost is a factor in making dots, and an attempt to arrest that spiral of decline.
Just seems like implementing reduced flex prices for a period would be at worst a temporary failed experiment, and at best a fairly easy way to get people building dots again in bigger numbers, rejuvenating the game, at least for a while.
Originally posted by bhall43
Lowering the prices isn't going to make people spend more. They spend what they do because that is what they spend. Sure it will equate to a couple more dots out of their spending but that is about it. It isn't the same amount of profit for them. It actually is a lower profit for them.
This sucks for the customers that like to create multiple players....
This new setup decreases the amount of players those customers are able to have.
Lowering the prices isn't going to make people spend more. They spend what they do because that is what they spend. Sure it will equate to a couple more dots out of their spending but that is about it. It isn't the same amount of profit for them. It actually is a lower profit for them.
This sucks for the customers that like to create multiple players....
This new setup decreases the amount of players those customers are able to have.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
