User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > 70 BUCKS FOR ONE DOT
Page:
 
Team Nucleus
Draft Man
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Landry Skins
Id want that to be the case. More competition, more activity is more fun.

I started in Season 1


100% agree
 
JBStar23
Norris Cole
offline
Link
 
Why is buying a team late in the season so much better than during the offseason?

Buy it on D38 and it's what 425 flex for the rest of that season and the next plus 400 to renew?

So 1st two seasons are 825 versus 1000 if you buy it regularly.


Fix the flex GLB ?
 
Landry Skins
Skinny Laundry
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by JBStar23
Why is buying a team late in the season so much better than during the offseason?

Buy it on D38 and it's what 425 flex for the rest of that season and the next plus 400 to renew?

So 1st two seasons are 825 versus 1000 if you buy it regularly.


Fix the flex GLB ?


shhhh
 
JBStar23
Norris Cole
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Landry Skins
shhhh


Cut it down to 425 for the 1st season
 
Team Nucleus
Draft Man
offline
Link
 
never mind mis-read
Edited by Team Nucleus on Oct 27, 2013 16:15:13
Edited by Team Nucleus on Oct 27, 2013 16:14:34
 
bhall43
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by TehKyou
Why would they drop the refund %?


better question is why wouldnt they? at this point the interest likely isnt to let you leech off flex for 3 years as this game is out of beta and there are multiple games at hand now and down the line. they want more flex bought.
 
Bill Jack
offline
Link
 
Why not lower cost of dots. GLB used to rent server time and probably still does, so hasn't that cost come down in 5 years in comparison to processing and storage?

Not saying GLB should entirely forego reaping the benefits of cheaper computing, but if there was some cost reduction in the price of players, more would be made which would help slow the player count decline or possibly reverse it.

Here's my proposal for player cost:
QB / HB = 200
OL / DL / K / P = 50
All else = 100

 
Coutinho
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by bhall43
better question is why wouldnt they? at this point the interest likely isnt to let you leech off flex for 3 years as this game is out of beta and there are multiple games at hand now and down the line. they want more flex bought.


So hang on a minute. Now everyone has paid for years to play a beta product with all the flaws that implies, and once it's out of beta they want to move us on to new games (in beta) to pay for them at full price, until they are out of beta, and so on? GLB has lost so many users, and like the little old woman who lived in a shoe, it doesn't know what to do. Apart from try and get us along on a new beta product?

Weird.

When a product's appeal diminishes, you generally reduce the price, right? Or, inevitably, you sell less. The problem is, they're tied into this idea of flex being usable across several of their games. Which, as you say, would make it less attractive to them to reduce the cost of flex points. And so GLB1 is stuck in decline. It can't be discounted, because flex for GLB1 can also be spent in the new shiny games, and they want people spending good money there. They've created a problem for themselves, have they not?

A lot of people don't seem to enamoured with GLB2. But they aren't going to spend too much more money on flex for GLB1 when it's looking like attention is focussed on other games, the userbase is diminishing, and it's bloody expensive for what amounts to seeing a dot move around a screen and generate a stats card.

I'm just not sure that's a very good way to retain customers, if you plan to stick around for the long term.
 
Team Nucleus
Draft Man
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Bill Jack
Why not lower cost of dots. GLB used to rent server time and probably still does, so hasn't that cost come down in 5 years in comparison to processing and storage?

Not saying GLB should entirely forego reaping the benefits of cheaper computing, but if there was some cost reduction in the price of players, more would be made which would help slow the player count decline or possibly reverse it.

Here's my proposal for player cost:
QB / HB = 200
OL / DL / K / P = 50
All else = 100



Makes to much sense........NGTH
 
Landry Skins
Skinny Laundry
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Coutinho
So hang on a minute. Now everyone has paid for years to play a beta product with all the flaws that implies, and once it's out of beta they want to move us on to new games (in beta) to pay for them at full price, until they are out of beta, and so on? GLB has lost so many users, and like the little old woman who lived in a shoe, it doesn't know what to do. Apart from try and get us along on a new beta product?

Weird.

When a product's appeal diminishes, you generally reduce the price, right? Or, inevitably, you sell less. The problem is, they're tied into this idea of flex being usable across several of their games. Which, as you say, would make it less attractive to them to reduce the cost of flex points. And so GLB1 is stuck in decline. It can't be discounted, because flex for GLB1 can also be spent in the new shiny games, and they want people spending good money there. They've created a problem for themselves, have they not?

A lot of people don't seem to enamoured with GLB2. But they aren't going to spend too much more money on flex for GLB1 when it's looking like attention is focussed on other games, the userbase is diminishing, and it's bloody expensive for what amounts to seeing a dot move around a screen and generate a stats card.

I'm just not sure that's a very good way to retain customers, if you plan to stick around for the long term.


 
Team Nucleus
Draft Man
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Coutinho
So hang on a minute. Now everyone has paid for years to play a beta product with all the flaws that implies, and once it's out of beta they want to move us on to new games (in beta) to pay for them at full price, until they are out of beta, and so on? GLB has lost so many users, and like the little old woman who lived in a shoe, it doesn't know what to do. Apart from try and get us along on a new beta product?

Weird.

When a product's appeal diminishes, you generally reduce the price, right? Or, inevitably, you sell less. The problem is, they're tied into this idea of flex being usable across several of their games. Which, as you say, would make it less attractive to them to reduce the cost of flex points. And so GLB1 is stuck in decline. It can't be discounted, because flex for GLB1 can also be spent in the new shiny games, and they want people spending good money there. They've created a problem for themselves, have they not?

A lot of people don't seem to enamoured with GLB2. But they aren't going to spend too much more money on flex for GLB1 when it's looking like attention is focussed on other games, the userbase is diminishing, and it's bloody expensive for what amounts to seeing a dot move around a screen and generate a stats card.

I'm just not sure that's a very good way to retain customers, if you plan to stick around for the long term.


Very well said and true
Edited by Team Nucleus on Oct 27, 2013 17:16:00
 
bhall43
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Coutinho
So hang on a minute. Now everyone has paid for years to play a beta product with all the flaws that implies, and once it's out of beta they want to move us on to new games (in beta) to pay for them at full price, until they are out of beta, and so on? GLB has lost so many users, and like the little old woman who lived in a shoe, it doesn't know what to do. Apart from try and get us along on a new beta product?

Weird.

When a product's appeal diminishes, you generally reduce the price, right? Or, inevitably, you sell less. The problem is, they're tied into this idea of flex being usable across several of their games. Which, as you say, would make it less attractive to them to reduce the cost of flex points. And so GLB1 is stuck in decline. It can't be discounted, because flex for GLB1 can also be spent in the new shiny games, and they want people spending good money there. They've created a problem for themselves, have they not?

A lot of people don't seem to enamoured with GLB2. But they aren't going to spend too much more money on flex for GLB1 when it's looking like attention is focussed on other games, the userbase is diminishing, and it's bloody expensive for what amounts to seeing a dot move around a screen and generate a stats card.

I'm just not sure that's a very good way to retain customers, if you plan to stick around for the long term.


the cost of flex points wont change so that isnt even worth debating.

are they trying to move you into other games? absolutely. they want you to play every game they make.

as far as thoughts pn glb2...its absolutely irrelevant at this point as well over 95% of the userbase in glb1 hasnt touched it yet and it still is changing daily.
 
Team Nucleus
Draft Man
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by bhall43
the cost of flex points wont change so that isnt even worth debating.

are they trying to move you into other games? absolutely. they want you to play every game they make.

as far as thoughts pn glb2...its absolutely irrelevant at this point as well over 95% of the userbase in glb1 hasnt touched it yet and it still is changing daily.


1st of all without changing the cost of flex points...nobody will be playing those other games....just food for thought
 
bhall43
offline
Link
 
well that isnt even remotely true so i really dont care to debate it.
 
Coutinho
offline
Link
 
The thread might as well be locked, really, then. It was about costs of playing the game, and if that's not a subject on which the management want to hear users' opinions (I'm sure they've heard plenty though ) then it's pointless. Their game, their decisions, all fine by me. I'm far from convinced that they are right about it though. Perhaps their bank balances say they are.

More generally, the point about tying flex to all games stands. It doesn't allow them to regenerate GLB1. It suggests that it will be allowed to decline, ever more rapidly. Because what's left to get people spending on it again? I like GLB1. I think it's fairly entertaining, as far as it goes. But it's less entertaining with less people around, that's for sure. And allowing it to degenerate doesn't exactly fill me with excitement about the future of other products they come out with. Especially when - regardless of whether I've used it yet - the new game is a variant on the first one, with similar cost structures in the end, and is unlikely to carry all of the remaining users of GLB1 into it.

 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.