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.