Board Thread:Game Discussion/@comment-37524761-20190131084209/@comment-28169398-20190202044802

RandyMc wrote: MoisesGabby wrote: I would be utterly astounded if they haven't done some serious analysis and concluded that, despite what many people assume, reducing prices would not result in more revenue for them. There are so many games I know, including non-EA games, which have similar price structures, it can't be a coincidence. Not saying I like it or understand it either, before someone accuses me of being an FM apologist or EA butt monkey or whatever. Just reasoning that whether we like it or not, these guys probably know what they're doing. They might have thought about it, but until they try it, there's no way to know. Almost everyone on this site said they'd buy gold if it were always $20/1019GC. Common sense pretty much tells you that would be an increase in income.

And they can't base their theory on the once a year sale, because only a select few get that offer. They would have to induce 4 new purchases for every one that they currently get.... That would be a lot.

You would also end up with 5x as much gold in the game.... and even though it generated revenue, if it isn't an increase in what they were already getting, they are no better off and Gold has been devalued yet again, meaning that in order to expand their revenue they have to continue to raise car costs and reduce rewards.

Freemium model was based on tricks and gimmicks to create an artificial sense of need and urgency in the player to incentivize them to spend.

As has been suggested a more constant revenue stream, such as with a subscription based game, would probably work better, where making the game more attractive to new players while pleasing existing players would be what would drive increased revenues. In other words improve the game and more people buy a subscription and play your game.