Board Thread:Game Discussion/@comment-28169398-20171015224354/@comment-28169398-20171016035159

SM Racer wrote: I think FM has never grasped the concept of price elasticity of demand when it comes to GC, as I strongly suspect they'd increase their revenue for GCsales if they lowered their prices. In fact it's so blatant that there's probably something else going on - they've prioritized ad sales over GC sales, and they've priced GC to discourage sales of that product, thereby "encouraging" all their players to log in a view ads for GC everyday. The EA overlords must pay FM on ad views, not GC revenue. There is only one problem as I see it with this arguement, and that is that ads are capped at 20 a day at most. At the current cost of the game, it would take you 21 YEARS of watching ads daily to bank that amount of.

The way Sirebel described it makes sense in that they only get paid per person for 1 distinct ad seen. So even if I watch the same Candy Crush Saga ad 100 times in a day, FM/EA only gets to charge that back once. So there is likely diminishing returns between unlimited ads and bandwidth... and also the potential to use bots to run up the ad clicks.