-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
DeletedUser
This shows a total lack of comprehension. Apparently you missed the constant flow of events and new features. Those are hardly just "on-going maintenance".
Umm...did you miss the new Settlements feature? Or not hear about the new age coming soon? This game has been constantly expanding since its inception.
DeletedUser10080
I get it. You are increasing the price on a virtual commodity that costs virtually nothing to produce.
Economics 101 would tell you that increasing prices lowers demand. Good job. I imagine that most diamond purchasers have a fixed budget, not a constant demand for diamonds. They will either spend the same amount of money and work with less diamonds or they will feel they are not getting value and decrease their diamond budget.
Honestly, I am all for the price increase. I already don't buy diamonds (and now definitely won't) so I see this as a BIG plus for me. I won't have to play at as much of a disadvantage against diamond (paying) players. They will not be buying the diamond buildings that I have to earn. They will be buying fewer expansions, fewer BP's and FP's, and fewer bonuses in the events. The playing field will be leveled for non-paying players and the payers will lose their advantage over us cheapskates.
Thank you Inno for unintended consequences!
Economics 101 would tell you that increasing prices lowers demand. Good job. I imagine that most diamond purchasers have a fixed budget, not a constant demand for diamonds. They will either spend the same amount of money and work with less diamonds or they will feel they are not getting value and decrease their diamond budget.
Honestly, I am all for the price increase. I already don't buy diamonds (and now definitely won't) so I see this as a BIG plus for me. I won't have to play at as much of a disadvantage against diamond (paying) players. They will not be buying the diamond buildings that I have to earn. They will be buying fewer expansions, fewer BP's and FP's, and fewer bonuses in the events. The playing field will be leveled for non-paying players and the payers will lose their advantage over us cheapskates.
Thank you Inno for unintended consequences!
DeletedUser
So you're trying to sell us the story that your buying impulse has never been affected by the fact that you know the microtransactions are less sensible than an occasional larger purchase, but now it will be? Seriously? You've always bought the little packages without thinking, even though you admit that you knew they were less cost-efficient, but now you're going to reverse years of habit because...they're still less cost-efficient? That sounds like the smoker that said they'd stop smoking if cigarettes went over a dollar a pack...no, I'm really going to quit if they go over $2 a pack...really, I mean it this time, I'm going to quit if they go over...
People that buy the smaller packages buy out of habit and convenience, not value. People that buy the larger packages do exactly the opposite, they weigh the options and take the option with the most value. People who buy out of habit and convenience, psychologically speaking, won't let this change affect their purchasing habits. Even though they will complain and threaten to quit, most of them won't.
DeletedUser35474
guess I have a month to find a new game to play
DeletedUser
Economics 101 also tells you that income must pay expenses, and if it doesn't then changes have to be made. This is such a change. I'm guessing that you would rather not see them stop the practice of developing new features, working on bugs, maintaining their servers and other equipment, paying their employees, right?
And I would imagine that those operating with a budget for game purchases are in the minority. I mean, most younger people don't even keep a register for their checking accounts anymore. I constantly see people offered receipts for their debit card purchases saying no. If they're not even going to worry about keeping track of how much money they have in the bank, why would they all of a sudden get budget conscious about game purchases?
Actually, those "whales" that buy all those event buildings and stuff are the ones buying the larger packages, which aren't affected by the change. You don't get all those premium buildings buying one $50 Diamond package.
Godly Luke
Well-Known Member
What is with you people and a DEPENDENCE on diamonds? I don't understand. I have one brain cell left. Your killing me Smalls.
DeletedUser40154
It's not about trying to "sell [you] the story." No one is trying to convince you of the inherent rationale of the impulse buyer's mindset. In fact, the impulse buyer's mindset is distinctly irrational, which is why it operates on the perception of value in the moment instead of the reality of value in the long term. Even those who are aware of it--like smokers who know they have an addiction, as in your example--are susceptible to it, often knowingly and resignedly. It's not about saying "this somehow makes more sense." It's about evaluating from a psychological perspective how this will impact impulse buyers' behavior based not on rational assessment, but on subjective perception in the moment of impulse. Providing a more logical foundation for decision-making doesn't mean the impulse buyer will adopt it, and much of "pay to win" markets that use limited fictional currency exchanged for real-world currency are built on this principle of flawed choices based on equally flawed perceptions and the momentary emotional need to gratify an impulse yet also convince oneself one is also, in the moment, trying to curb it. It is the direct aim of games that require production on an ever-increasing scale with ever-increasing time and resource investment; to capitalize on the human need for impulse gratification to motivate purchases of currency that allow for immediate satisfaction.
I have an impulse buyer's mindset. I know it. I indulge it. And I know that while it may not make logical sense, the shift in market pricing will affect how I perceive the value of what I buy based on subjective feelings versus objective analysis of cost-benefit, and will lower that value to the point where it stops being worth it and I drift off to something else that delivers the entertainment I want on the budget I allow for these things.
(Also apologies for the frequent edits. English is not my first language, and I frequently think one English word, type a similar looking/sounding one, and only realize it after I post.)
DeletedUser36752
Nope - getting charged the last few times in NC too, both on mobile and desktop. The first few times there was no sales tax, then one day there was.
DeletedUser36752
So my view is this - you can play this game with without the diamonds. It just takes some patience. That being said, it's obvious that the best deal will be found with the $79.99 package. Yes, that is pricey, but if you find yourself buying even just 1 package a month at $19.99, this would cover you for more than 6 months given the bonus diamonds. I don't necessarily like it, but the reality is that someone is still creating awesome little buildings and decorations for events, and there are multiple servers to keep running/serviced/replaced/etc, these things require technical support. The game is not free. The game is only free for everyone who never buys diamonds. Those who buy diamonds are the ones that pay the bills and keep the lights on.
DeletedUser
I understand that English is not your first language (you do better than a lot of native English speakers, by the way), but these two statements directly contradict one another. The impulse buyer will more than likely be temporarily annoyed/upset/outraged (pick your level
), but if the impulse buyer keeps playing, he will still impulse buy. Psychological fact of life.DeletedUser35603
the SCOTUS has ruled that states can charge taxes on the internet. it varies from state to state as to how much and when it takes effect. you can find your state here: https://www.salestaxinstitute.com/resources/remote-seller-nexus-chart some states charge sales taxes. Florida does not. but, my point is that why does a German based company feel obligated to charge sales taxes from states at all? what would happen if this German based game decided that they were not going to charge sales taxes from the state of Alabama? do they think they would be hauled into court for doing so? why would they be subject to any state and its tax laws? like i said, the internet is not owned by any one state...or any one government.
DeletedUser40155
It seems that your realignment will only re-line your pockets with more cash. Just saying!
DeletedUser35603
So I go into a store, lets say WalMart. I see a TV I would like to have and its price is $500.00. I think it may be too expensive for me right now and I will come back in a few weeks to see if its selling cheaper. I mean, that stands to reason, right? I come back 3 weeks later and the same TV is now selling for $600.00. Am I MORE likely to buy this TV than before? Stands to reason that if I thought $500.00 was too expensive, then I probably would think $600.00 is too expensive. So, I leave, come back a month later and the TV is 700.00. Whoa...then its 800, 900, 1,000. Each time, the price goes up. The maker of the TV says what Inno says: we need to make more money to pay our employees, pay our bills, pay our costs, blah, blah. so, we have to keep raising our prices. Well, economics 101 tells ya this isnt the way to sell your products. Rather, why dont you LOWER your prices and increase your sales as an alternative to making more money? Here is the bottom line: Inno can keep raising their diamond packages (or giving us less for the same price). But, when they see me NOT buying their diamond packages, they can charge me 100% sales taxes, makes no diff. Raising their prices will result in LESS sales, not more...and me not buying their diamonds packages will result in 0 profits.
DeletedUser40154
I understand that English is not your first language (you do better than a lot of native English speakers, by the way), but these two statements directly contradict one another. The impulse buyer will more than likely be temporarily annoyed/upset/outraged (pick your level
The statements don't contradict each other at all. Each predicates itself on the irrationality and emotionally-driven nature of the impulse buyer's mindset in the moment of impulse rather than in non-purchase moments of anticipation prior or in post-purchase hindsight, focusing on perception of subjective value at the point of sale versus objective value in the long term based on cost-benefit. I'm saying this as someone who makes a living understanding psychologically driven consumer profiles; I only have a living wage because I continuously analyze how pricing and availability affect consumers on both a conscious rational decision-making level and subconscious or impulsive irrational decision-making level. It's not a psychological fact of life or games like the ones INNO produces would collapse.
You're thinking of the true addict, not the impulse buyer. True addicts are the ones who pour thousands of dollars into games like these to the point where quitting would feel like "losing" on the same ego-driven level that motivates them to spend so much in the first place, and those are an entirely different consumer profile altogether. Impulse buyers are more analogous to casuals in MMORPGs who will buy things in the cash shop because after working all week they don't want their game to feel like work, either. And these are the players who are a.) the primary revenue-generating player base for companies like INNO, and b.) the ones most likely to be split into two separate consumer groups who will either stay because eh, whatever, sure it's annoying for a bit but it's not worth getting upset about, the whole "toad in the frying pan" metaphor where if you turn the heat/financial imbalance up slowly enough, they won't feel it until it hits break point. The other half will wander away, because of one core tenet of this market:
Games like FoE are a dime a dozen.
There are a ton of competitors out there, and they will find these impulse buyers the same way FoE did, through random ad or word of mouth, etc. And because of the nature of the impulse buyer, these shiny new things will appear to offer more value than this game that suddenly doesn't have the same luster when it's not as easy to achieve instant gratification for the same cost and effort. And they will be lured away by the ease of startup in the new game that's currently at the short beginning of its expanding time + cost cycles, until that game loses its intrinsic value on an emotional (vs. financial and subjective level, but still also impacted by feelings tied to financial investment) level and the impulse buyer moves on to something else.
I would guess that either:
a.) INNO may not change the prices at all, but may keep the promise to over our heads long enough to motivate a rush in diamond purchases at the price tiers that are planned to change, resulting in a significant revenue swell; once that revenue swell dies off INNO will announce that after listening to player feedback, they won't make the changes after all. Players, relieved, will stay and will feel as though both their consumer dollars are valued and that they're getting the value they pay for. INNO keeps its cash sink. (Honestly, not likely. This is a tactic that has been used by some companies, but it relies too much on the predictability of subjective behavior easily influenced by community conversation on unpredictable tangents, and it's really more fringe speculation than anything at all likely to happen.)
b.) INNO is preparing an ad push to attract new players as old ones die out; one thing I've noticed as I play is players deleting because they can't get enough people in their taverns or can't connect with enough people, and accounts going fallow. That's inevitable in any game with a lifespan as long as FoE and varying levels of player interest and commitment; players fade in and fade out. But if INNO sees a deficit of committed players which in turn is affecting the playability of the game in a community environment, then it's necessary to make the push to attract new players. What's critical is to raise the prices before new players are drawn into the game, so that once the initial wooing period of adoption bonuses and discounts has passed to ensure the player has made enough of an investment to feel it would be a loss to quit mid-progression, those prices aren't "raised" to the new players. They're accepted as the existing baseline, having not known the previous pricing schema. The revenue from these new players accepting the new price scheme as the default and investing into it at cost (especially since a percentage of them will always be high-rolling addicts and an even larger percentage will always be microtransaction impulse buyers who make up the majority cash flow) will more than make up for the loss of players disgruntled by the new pricing and who would have slowed their spend anyway, making it an acceptable loss scenario. (Much more likely and frequently a tactic used when games with long running periods see a lull in typical player churn.)
What is not involved here, however, is INNO really caring about how individual players feel as a whole. Of course they want to keep their general player base happy, but it's motivated largely out of a desire for profit, and not out of any actual personal investment in your feelings. (With some notable exceptions, I'm sure. No doubt many of the devs who put hard work into making this game enjoyable and coming up with unique events, etc. feel a personal connection to the players and want them to have a good time. But those devs have to answer to the bean counters, and the bean counters are less invested in you and more invested in what gets you to spend the most money in a sustainable way that involves both long-term incremental revenue streams and short-term burst revenue streams.)
I wish consumers made rational purchases, honestly. It would make my life a lot easier. *laughs* But there are too many factors involving income levels, psychological conditioning from availability or lack thereof of readily disposable income, free time, personal preferences for entertainment value and enjoyability metrics, individual biases, etc. An impulse buyer on a tight budget will tell themselves they can't afford 99c on a book by a self-published author they've never heard of, for example, but then spend $9.99 on a book by a favorite author that they literally cannot afford although the 99c book actually was within their budget, because the book by the favorite author is something they want (plus if the $9.99 book is a publisher book it carries with it a higher percentage that quality expectations will be met)--and desire overrides practicality and rational purchasing decisions the majority of the time.
Uh. Wow, I didn't mean for this to get that long. Sorry. Like I said, this is kind of my job, and even if it frustrates me I also enjoy it, so I get a little talkative when breaking down consumer profiles and purchasing scenarios.
But anyway. As for me, as an impulse buyer...this is a casual game where I can throw away a little disposable income for a minor dopamine rush at completing an era during a couple of days off, but my emotional profile isn't invested enough in the game to create the sort of long-term loyalty where I feel it would be too much of a loss of time and money invested to wander away from what I've already built. They provided their entertainment value in the moment and now they're static pixels standing as a legacy to fun I had in the past. So it's very likely that I'll wander off as I have from other games in the past, moving on with no hard feelings because the perception of value in the purchases I make here has changed my enjoyment of the game, and no longer made it quite as worth remembering to check in or keep up with my timed obligations.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser35603
I dont have any questions about your price changes, only the wisdom in charging for a VIRTUAL product you produce out of thin air...and the wisdom to know why you should be worried about sales taxes from a state in a country you are not even under the jurisdiction thereof...
RazorbackPirate
Well-Known Member
So, nothing's changed for you. Got it. You didn't buy diamonds before, you still wont buy diamonds now. Re: your analogy ... Maybe Walmart has diamonds on sale.
DeletedUser30900
Don't get me wrong, but the reason you can't afford the TV is 90% on yourself and 10% on the Walmart
stop being broke or nearly broke.DeletedUser35026
Just you basic greedy bastards. and that's not fun.
stevegp
New Member
In the announcement, it is stated "We are reviewing the products provided in our Cash Shops (both Mobile and Browser) on a regular basis and must decide whether any changes are necessary based on the current market and currency situation." Later, it is stated, "...they are necessary to ensure all the packages we offer remain balanced, and align with one another." What do either of these statements mean? What in the 'current market and currency situation' forces the price increase? But the second question is the real kicker. balanced and aligned? I would love to hear an explanation as to what that even means. These are virtual products, they have no intrinsic value. I've seen public reports of record growth for InnoGames in 2018, so you're not hurting for revenues. I wonder if I've bought my last diamond.