(04-02-2013 03:40 AM)CombatEX Wrote: I like GreatGonzales' idea of a kickstarter if it allows OML to keep map rotation and seasons going. Of course, this could also be used to attempt to fund a new team if enough people want it. I'm personally opposed to a new team for ranked play (a new team for friendlies would be great!), but if most people do want one, not much I can do about it =)
I'd like an automated Season system once every 2 months or so if possible. It seems like Seasons have been somewhat forgotten. Even better would be if OML can rotate in new maps to replace the least popular old ones, though this would be going above and beyond. I understand that this does take time and money so a kickstarter could be used for this (funding additional 'content'/map rotation as well as keeping the servers running).
(04-01-2013 02:34 PM)connor34911 Wrote: (04-01-2013 02:08 PM)Phillip Wrote: Yes, they should have charged $1million for the uber pack. Then they would have well over a $10 billion dollars. Bwahaha... Perhaps you don't understand money
Lets try this. Selling 4 users at $6 is .... $24. If you make the price $4 and find you then sell 8 over the same time span... $32. It's basic Econ. Supply demand. Artificial scarcity.
Uhh yeah. Trust me I get money better than you. Obviously decreasing the price hasn't worked for them. Traditional supply and demand doesn't apply here.
When you have a dedicated user base you have inelastic demand. It means changing the price has no/little effect on the demand.
I'll let you look up a more detailed definition because it seems like you need a lesson
How can you presume to make such a statement - "Trust me I get money better than you" - when all you have to go on is a couple sentences that Phillip posted? Possibly he was speaking in simple terms as he does not know how familiar you are with technical terms. Conversely he could just not know much as you suppose, but you assume a lot given very little to go on.
You also assert that decreasing the price hasn't worked for them. So what? That doesn't mean that the lower price point wasn't an improvement. You don't have any data. How can you say that it wasn't an improvement over the higher price point? The lower price now could just be a matter of too little too late in terms of making up the production costs, but could still have been beneficial. OML hasn't released this information. You also contend that Outwitters has a dedicated userbase and as a result there is inelastic demand. The problem with that statement is that these individuals (dedicated users) have already bought the Uber pack so they aren't relevant when it comes to the demand driving subsequent sales. Rather, we should look at the people who have not bought the Uber pack which is OML's target market.
Combatex, did you read his comment? Doesn't seem like you did.
You are right though. I don't have data. If you read my posts on my thread you'll see that I am saying the business model was bad for the start. Without the data I still stand by my statement that the demand is inelastic. I hiiiiighly doubt that the user base is growing at a pace fast fast enough to see the benefits of halving the price of the uber pack. I think it's more likely that a smaller number of users will join, love the game, then buy the uber pack with less regard for the price.
Raising the price of the uber pack may not have a huge benefit now, but keeping it at 3 dollars is just perpetuating a poor decision.
with dakdak97 and boyoxneder
