Newsletter #8 - Premium change - 2010-03-30

Status
Not open for further replies.

DeletedUser

Guest
...for a large majority of population money mean cash, not a number in banks. Even if we have a bank account, trade online is very hard since we have to send there a certain amount of money (say 1.000 USD, kind of money-that-change-life in my country). So in order to buy TW PA, we deal with black market and pay by cash.

@hIghQue: this is NOT sad stories, as even the poorest TW player can afford internet connection, good computer and time. I stated that I can see the price increasement more clearly then you with credit card and I don't think it worth it

I am not exactly sure, I understand your point. My money is not "just numbers", because I have a credit card. If those numbers are wrong at the beginning of the month, and there is no money for the rent, I will lose my apartment. And what kind of place, is the minimum online transfer 1000$? I am sorry, but with this kind of amount and your talk about involving the black market, I am not sure if you are talking about drugs or about TW. I am sorry, if I am missing something obvious, but it is hard to believe your story.


I know right? Why do these people keep posing feedback in the feedback section? Perhaps you should go over to whatever country it is that these posters are from and just sort it all out. By god man.. show them the way to capitalism, hook them up with some student loans and scholarships along with a country with a solid economy. Then they'll be firmly rooted in the real world too and you won't be bothered by their pesky posts anymore.

I guess, I am in my right to be amused that what I read after one month and 45 pages of post, is the same complaining over the prices, just in different wording? :)

Before you start the big talk about capitalism, student loans and all the other big words, then take a minute to note, that this is about a price increase for an online game. We are not talking a price increase for bread or milk. If you don't want to pay for TW, then that is your choice, and you don't have to listen to my logics. But every word in my post was true, and if you are unable to pay the increase then my logic is fully valid that it is time to stop playing, and you should never have been playing in the first place. I don't want to sound cold, but if you can't afford your daily meals, then you have other worries than paying for premium.
 

CodaAlFine

Still Going Strong
Reaction score
4
However, if you originally posted "tribal wars is ripping us off!" I would have left it alone, posting your opinion is what the forum is for. I could see why it wouldn't be worth it to some. It is misrepresentation of economics and accusing TW of being immoral that I have issues with.

What's the diff? That's my opinion and you claim that you agree I have a right to it. I DO think it's immoral to raise the price by so much at once, and doubt very much that they "needed" to do it.


Do yourself a favor and stop referencing economic principles until you take some business courses.

No, thanks, I can screw things up perfectly well as I am. Or, better still, I much prefer just having what I need rather than having to justify screwing people to get what I want.

The mortgage crisis was NOT perfectly sound economically. They lowered approval standards of people's credit history required to get loans, and charged higher interest to those with lousy credit. It was actually horrible economically, since it didn't properly factor in perhaps the most important part of lending money... RISK. It was not "how the world works", hence leading to a downturn unseen in almost a century.

Well, the people that backed it, that had done their economics degrees, apparently didn't agree with you on that one. And I only brought it in to show you that "the way the world works" is not necessarily good just because it is status quo. You are dodging that because you don't want people to see the problems with your doctrine - inhumanity. What goldmann sachs did was perfectly legal, and so regardless of what you think was the risk, was well within "the way the world works".

You could look at a different example that does not have the risk - cigarette companies. Is it moral to produce and sell that product? Is it good for people or the environment? No - but perfectly legal and a fantastically good economic choice. It is only done to make some people rich while devastating the lives of millions of others - whether they be smokers or tobacco workers or cigarette factory workers or whatever. OK, now you're going to try to sidetrack the debate by talking about people's choice to smoke. Well bud, that is not what we're talking about - and people would not even need to make that choice if the product was not there on the market and being pushed out at people through advertising, to make people rich, in order to choose NOT to use. If the laws of business included the moral factor then the product would not even be permitted. But hey, it makes a lot of money, right?

Your ideals are crooked, you believe everything revolves around the consumer. But it doesn't. It all starts with the seller, as it should.

Well I think you're the one with crooked ideals. How can that work? If there were no consumers, the sellers couldn't sell anything. You would favour a corporation over an individual, when corporations are only created to allow individuals to dodge responsibility for their shonky actions against consumers and the environment? Everything revolving around the seller? No wonder so many people live in poverty! There is no regard for humanity in these principles! I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, because this is where we fundamentally differ, and that's irreconcilable. Neither of us will be able to see the other's point of view...

No doubt you truly believe that people have a choice whether to be poor or not. That everyone really has an equal chance to "get ahead". If that's the case there is no real further point in this discussion.

@morthy - I realise this is starting to get further and further away from the topic...it's an elaborate way of discussing that I do not believe such a large price rise was necessary - especially one that hits people who can only afford smaller packets at a time, the hardest. That really smacks of profitmongering, and nothing else. I know I have said this many times before, but I feel I must answer these people that seem to think that people who are too poor to afford the increase should not be able to play. OK, so they in fact can't play any more - well congratulations on freezing some of the customers out by raising the smallest packets by the highest margin. Many poorer people used to be able to play by putting in small amounts regularly, and now they can't afford to do that any more. Great. A game that was once known for being very affordable, just had to charge as much as other games do, to make as much profit - never mind the many marginal players who only played because it was a cheap game...

I think this is wrong - OK it's correct economically - you have raised the price by a large enough amount that will still bring in a profit after the expected amount of people quit in annoyance or from not being able to afford it (who cares about them, right?). That's great for you. I just object to this attitude in our world - profit first, humans and planet second (if at all). You probably think I live in some tree-hugging, fluffy bunny dream world - but I don't really care. Greed is not good.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
If you honestly believe that a company making a profit is bad then you're going to have a fairly hard time finding any work in general throughout your life. If a company didn't have any interest in making a profit then they have no reason to exist at all and wouldn't even be providing the option of the desired service. If TW didn't make money it would go bankrupt and wouldn't be able to provide ANYONE with the game that so many enjoy to play, whereas if enough money is made for it to be profitable then many thousands of players will have the opportunity to enjoy it.

If you really think that people shouldn't be interested in making money at all then why don't you just offer to pay for premium for some of the many people that can't afford to. After all, not allowing them to play at the price that they want to is immoral, so who are you to deny them that right by not paying for them? When you try to call BS here, you'll have to explain why Innogames has any more obligation to pay for other people than you, after all they're already paying for many, many thousands of people to play for free, you should chip in and let maybe a few hundred or so players have premium features at no cost to them, right?
 

CodaAlFine

Still Going Strong
Reaction score
4
I already have smart guy.

But why should I have to? I am an individual, I am not seeking to MAKE money out of this like Innogames is. I am just playing a game. Yes, it gets me pissed when people I play with can't afford to play and I help them. Innogames might not have an obligation to play for people, but they also don't have an obligation to fleece people in the lowest income brackets who have been playing for years past. Keeping the price low is not the same as Innogames paying for people to play. Innogames would still make a tidy profit even if they kept the prices low, and you know it. And no, they do NOT "pay" for the free players. If they couldn't afford to do this and make a profit they would not do it. You're not fooling anyone, you know...

No-one has as yet really explained the necessity of raising the lowest packets by such a high margin. The only reason is profit - to try to encourage people to pay for a longer period when there is no certainty that they will be playing for that long. Certainly I would say that if a person had a need to quit and still had months of premium left after buying a larger packet to "save" money, is a total ripoff. That's why nobody has really explained it, because it's really not too savoury...

Of course Innogames has the right to charge whatever they like...but don't come on here trying to tell me that it's done for anything other than pure profit. And don't try to tell me it's fair either, the way that it's been done - just because people continue to pay does not make it fair.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I guess, I am in my right to be amused that what I read after one month and 45 pages of post, is the same complaining over the prices, just in different wording? :)

It'd be a bad guess, you won't find a single post complaining about pricing by me. You may find some complaining about unnecessary features, glitchy updates, and a tendency by the mods to support rulebreak punishment instead of rulebreak prevention when it comes to the wording of the rules.

Oh, and you'll find a bunch of posts that target drama seekers and forum pwners that do so for no good reason. I can understand why someone would be upset about a price change and might want to vent. Why it offends you so much that you think that even I am complaining about prices.. makes absolutely no sense to me. This is a feedback forum. It doesn't need to be rooted in facts or deep economic theory to be feedback.

I mean.. why not just call it the pricing flaming forum if every one that doesn't agree and posts their feedback is going to be told they are a whiner, complainer or some equally degenerated label?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
It'd be a bad guess, you won't find a single post complaining about pricing by me. You may find some complaining about unnecessary features, glitchy updates, and a tendency by the mods to support rulebreak punishment instead of rulebreak prevention when it comes to the wording of the rules.

Oh, and you'll find a bunch of posts that target drama seekers and forum pwners that do so for no good reason. I can understand why someone would be upset about a price change and might want to vent. Why it offends you so much that you think that even I am complaining about prices.. makes absolutely no sense to me. This is a feedback forum. It doesn't need to be rooted in facts or deep economic theory to be feedback.

I mean.. why not just call it the pricing flaming forum if every one that doesn't agree and posts their feedback is going to be told they are a whiner, complainer or some equally degenerated label?

I am not sure, what exactly makes you think, that I "accuse" you of complaining about pricing :)

I simply posted:
Are you guys still discussing this :)

You replied being all annoyed:
I know right? Why do these people keep posing feedback in the feedback section? Perhaps you should go over to whatever country it is that these posters are from and just sort it all out.

And I just clarified, the reason I was amused:
I guess, I am in my right to be amused that what I read after one month and 45 pages of post, is the same complaining over the prices, just in different wording? :)

As you mention this is a forum for feedback. But just because people are not required to be well funded in economics or business plans to post, it doesn't mean that noone is allowed to ask questions, when people state things they have no clue about. As I already mentioned, people are free to complain about the new prices, and even "threaten" with, that they will stop buying premium.

But you see many posts going into details with the economy behind TW, and also players claiming that they could afford premium before, but now they are unable to pay premium. There are posts saying "their money is real", and my money is "just numbers". I don't see how you can fight for all the other players' right to post their feedback, while I alone should shut up.

If you think my logic is flawed, you should address that. I am not trying to put degenerate labels on people. I don't think it is a shame, that I can't afford a car. I don't think people should be ashamed, if they can't afford TW. But if 1-2$ extra a month would break my budget, then I would be saving up that money, in case I would need to buy a new light bulb. Am I a bad person, for suggesting people that they spend their money wisely instead of sitting in the dark, because they bought premium?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

A humble player

Guest
I already have smart guy.

But why should I have to? I am an individual, I am not seeking to MAKE money out of this like Innogames is. I am just playing a game. Yes, it gets me pissed when people I play with can't afford to play and I help them. Innogames might not have an obligation to play for people, but they also don't have an obligation to fleece people in the lowest income brackets who have been playing for years past. Keeping the price low is not the same as Innogames paying for people to play. Innogames would still make a tidy profit even if they kept the prices low, and you know it. And no, they do NOT "pay" for the free players. If they couldn't afford to do this and make a profit they would not do it. You're not fooling anyone, you know...

No-one has as yet really explained the necessity of raising the lowest packets by such a high margin. The only reason is profit - to try to encourage people to pay for a longer period when there is no certainty that they will be playing for that long. Certainly I would say that if a person had a need to quit and still had months of premium left after buying a larger packet to "save" money, is a total ripoff. That's why nobody has really explained it, because it's really not too savoury...

Of course Innogames has the right to charge whatever they like...but don't come on here trying to tell me that it's done for anything other than pure profit. And don't try to tell me it's fair either, the way that it's been done - just because people continue to pay does not make it fair.

Ah, but if as you say there is no reason for innogames to need/make/have money, why do you need to have/make money? Why don't you donate all of your money to innogames, to help pay for premium for some players who cannot afford it. They do pay for the free players. If innogames made TW a P2P game, they would not have to charge as much for premium, simply because the lower server stress, need for employees, etc. would be lower. If they could remove more than half of their servers and cover all of their players, they could open up more worlds, try new things etc. They could hold servers in a backroom until needed, meaning they don't need to buy more, thus saving money.
And you have no idea the fiscal position innogames is in. Unless you are a European economics expert, with a focus on germany, I doubt you have any idea as to what is going on (that said, neither do I), but saying "you are lying about needing to raise the prices" without proof is just plain ignorant.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I am not sure, what exactly makes you think, that I "accuse" you of complaining about pricing :)

Because you quoted me directly and replied with this, it wasn't exactly a subtle statement that could be misinterpreted as something else:

I guess, I am in my right to be amused that what I read after one month and 45 pages of post, is the same complaining over the prices, just in different wording? :)



I don't see how you can fight for all the other players' right to post their feedback, while I alone should shut up.

Maybe because they are giving feedback on topic? I didn't see where the title was 'Feedback on other players opinions of price change'. Have you even stated whether you like or dislike the price change? That would imply that this issue has affected you and you're not just here to satisfy some need for conflict.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Because you quoted me directly and replied with this, it wasn't exactly a subtle statement that could be misinterpreted as something else:

I quoted your post, because it was in that post you were "going crazy" over my simple comment, with people still discussing it. And I even put a smiley, to emphasize that it was not a very serious comment. I am sorry, if you can't follow the context in more than two posts at a time.

Maybe because they are giving feedback on topic? I didn't see where the title was 'Feedback on other players opinions of price change'. Have you even stated whether you like or dislike the price change? That would imply that this issue has affected you and you're not just here to satisfy some need for conflict.

It seems we are having a different view on, what this section is for. If this was supposed to be pure user feedback, then there is no point in making the posts publicly available and making it possible for everyone to comment on the posts. As there are other sections of this forum, that exactly provide the feature that players can post, and no other regular players can read or comment on their posts, I do find it not plausible that your view on how this section is to be used is entirely correct.

I am not here to satisfy some need for conflict. But I don't see any problem in commenting, when I don't understand the logics behind certain posts, or their content is pure speculations. I have stated my opinion already before the price changes were implemented. I do not find the price increase unreasonable or unfair, and I find most of the people arguing otherwise to have a flawed reasoning. It may be, that you are right and that I am not supposed to comment on people stating that they can afford their rent, their internet connection, electricity/water bills, their computer and 2$ a month, but 3-4$ a month would break their economy. But so far, it doesn't seem that any moderator has been warning people for commenting on other players statements.
 

gamaleden

Guest
No need to post more they will not change it as the past . it will stay like this .
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Im afraid for that Gamaleden, than premium is way too expensive for me
 

Lethal Legend

Guest
I am not going to comment on the "fair" aspect of the rises, many have already done that.

What I have noticed is the drop in numbers of players; now around 236,000 accounts down from I think 350,000 ish. I guess many are different worlds etc however are there figures available for how mnay premium users have gone and not just the free players?

Every business has to balance the price between getting enough cutsom and the price, not sure how this will work out if too many decide the small hike has gone up to much. Many on here are reasonably young and possibly a little jump in price to far. As less people play, less targets and farms etc for those coughing up - is there a number that would make new worlds or even existing ones too slow and spread?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I already have smart guy.

But why should I have to? I am an individual, I am not seeking to MAKE money out of this like Innogames is.
Wait, so because Innogames is running a business to make money they aren't allowed to make money, while someone like you who doesn't care about how much money they have shouldn't be subjected to paying for prices you think are too high. I'm just going to let you think about that one for another few minutes to try to let the hypocrisy sink in. Since you probably won't see it I'll explain it to you anyway. If you aren't seeking to make money then why should you care about paying more, and if Innogames is seeking to make money why shouldn't they charge what they feel is proper for the service they are providing?
I am just playing a game. Yes, it gets me pissed when people I play with can't afford to play and I help them. Innogames might not have an obligation to play for people, but they also don't have an obligation to fleece people in the lowest income brackets who have been playing for years past. Keeping the price low is not the same as Innogames paying for people to play. Innogames would still make a tidy profit even if they kept the prices low, and you know it.
Well, not knowing the details of Innogame's financials I don't know that, no. I would guess based on what I do know that they couldn't survive charging what you think they should.
And no, they do NOT "pay" for the free players. If they couldn't afford to do this and make a profit they would not do it. You're not fooling anyone, you know...
Yes, they do pay for the free players, as evidenced by the fact that the free players don't have to pay and yet they still receive services. Innogames feels that the benefits of allowing players to play a slightly limited version of the game for free provides enough benefits for it to be worth the cost. That is also obvious; if it wasn't worthwhile then the option wouldn't be there. (Again, trivial economics.) Are you saying that it's wrong for Innogames to benefit off of allowing people to play their games for free?

No-one has as yet really explained the necessity of raising the lowest packets by such a high margin. The only reason is profit - to try to encourage people to pay for a longer period when there is no certainty that they will be playing for that long. Certainly I would say that if a person had a need to quit and still had months of premium left after buying a larger packet to "save" money, is a total ripoff. That's why nobody has really explained it, because it's really not too savoury...
Actually it has been explained many times. Certain payment methods, such as SMS, have a very large cost to them, and as such the rates for using those payment methods need to be higher in order to cover those costs. The amount of money that is actually received by Innogames is significantly less than what is actually payed by you. In contrast, other payment methods are much cheaper, and the reason for them being cheaper is related in part to the fact that the transactions are for larger sums of money, and since the cost of these transactions are cheaper the savings are passed on to you, the costumer, in the form of better rates for those payment methods.

Of course Innogames has the right to charge whatever they like...but don't come on here trying to tell me that it's done for anything other than pure profit. And don't try to tell me it's fair either, the way that it's been done - just because people continue to pay does not make it fair.
Of course it's for profit. That's how capitalism works. The purpose of virtually all companies (and individuals for that matter) is to maximize profit. If you didn't care about your own profit then you wouldn't have a problem with price increases in the first place. It is precisely because you care significantly about your "profit" that you have a problem with a price increase.
 

CodaAlFine

Still Going Strong
Reaction score
4
Wait, so because Innogames is running a business to make money they aren't allowed to make money, while someone like you who doesn't care about how much money they have shouldn't be subjected to paying for prices you think are too high. I'm just going to let you think about that one for another few minutes to try to let the hypocrisy sink in. Since you probably won't see it I'll explain it to you anyway. If you aren't seeking to make money then why should you care about paying more, and if Innogames is seeking to make money why shouldn't they charge what they feel is proper for the service they are providing?

Except you're forgetting that if I don't care about having a lot of money, then obviously I am not going to have much - and I am probably more likely to want to spend it carefully on the things I need, rather than making some guy in a suit rich to the point of not even being able to use all his money...

Well, not knowing the details of Innogame's financials I don't know that, no. I would guess based on what I do know that they couldn't survive charging what you think they should.

Well believing in them is why you work for them I guess. But I'd bet they COULD survive; just they couldn't be rich charging that much. There is a difference.

Yes, they do pay for the free players, as evidenced by the fact that the free players don't have to pay and yet they still receive services. Innogames feels that the benefits of allowing players to play a slightly limited version of the game for free provides enough benefits for it to be worth the cost. That is also obvious; if it wasn't worthwhile then the option wouldn't be there. (Again, trivial economics.) Are you saying that it's wrong for Innogames to benefit off of allowing people to play their games for free?

No, I was not. Where did I say that? And no, they don't PAY for the free players - the advertisers and premium players do. Otherwise, it would not be free. If they had to actually PAY for it, they wouldn't do it, would they? duh...

Actually it has been explained many times. Certain payment methods, such as SMS, have a very large cost to them, and as such the rates for using those payment methods need to be higher in order to cover those costs. The amount of money that is actually received by Innogames is significantly less than what is actually payed by you. In contrast, other payment methods are much cheaper, and the reason for them being cheaper is related in part to the fact that the transactions are for larger sums of money, and since the cost of these transactions are cheaper the savings are passed on to you, the costumer, in the form of better rates for those payment methods.

No, I wasn't talking about that. Where do I say SMS? Yes, the SMS system sucks from what I can tell, but as it's not Innogames making it that way it would have been futile for me to bring that up. I was talking about the fact that smaller parcels of premium points are charged at a higher rate - the method is irrelevant. That means that anyone who cannot afford to buy a large chunk of premium at a time is being charged a higher price than those who can afford to outlay more money at a time. This is hitting the poorest players hardest.

Any reason to do this other than trying to get even more money out of people, has not been explained. That's because there isn't one. The reasons for doing it are as I said - so that people who CAN afford to will buy more points at once, to be charged at a lower rate, but Innogames wins because the person has handed over more money. They win over again if the person happens to quit before they use all their points. Then they are actually getting money for nothing. That is also part of the plan. And when players can't afford to buy larger numbers of points at a time, they buy at a higher rate, so Innogames win again. The fact is that Innogames don't care one iota about the players that can't afford to buy more than a month's worth, or 2 week's worth, or whatever, at a time. They only care that they get more money. Yet if they catered more to those customers they would have a larger customer base - including a lot more casual players. Which also equals more money. But instead they have factored these lost players into the increase to make sure they still increase their profits even though they are going to lose players over this. That's the classy way to screw people - screw them so much so that even after the ones who refuse to be screwed walk away, you are still ahead![/QUOTE]


Of course it's for profit. That's how capitalism works. The purpose of virtually all companies (and individuals for that matter) is to maximize profit. If you didn't care about your own profit then you wouldn't have a problem with price increases in the first place. It is precisely because you care significantly about your "profit" that you have a problem with a price increase.

I never said I objected to profit in itself - I said I understood that. But I am objecting to HOW MUCH profit and IN WHAT WAY. Profit is one thing - that is how to survive...you have to sell something at a price that brings you enough money after your costs, to survive...but pure greed is yet another thing. That is where your profit is so damn high that you could easily feed a small nation with it, but instead you spend it on cars, holidays, whatever. Do you know that in my country a CEO's yearly wage is 20 TIMES that of unemployment? That means that 20 people could live off what that one person gets. Now if you doubled that unemployment figure so that you arrive at a wage that would be very comfortable - that is still 10 TIMES. And a CEO is not necessarily worth 20 unemployed people or 10 wage earners. Their salary is a prestige thing, a symbol of their position in the pecking order, rather than representative of their value to society.

If I cared all that much about my own "profit" I would just leave the game. I am also concerned with this issue in general. If I wasn't I would have stopped even reading this thread, let alone posting in it. I care that I see people leaving because they're not able to afford this. I care that I see the scale of prices that is so much higher for the smaller parcels of points. I care about all the issues I am raising, not just about how it affects me, which is actually very little. But if I don't speak out then the voices of the objectors would be drowned by all the ones that don't seem to think there should be any kind of accountability in this world, or any morality. People are being taught not to object...they are being taught that all's fair in the name of capitalism. But that's not so...
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I never said I objected to profit in itself - I said I understood that. But I am objecting to HOW MUCH profit and IN WHAT WAY. Profit is one thing - that is how to survive...you have to sell something at a price that brings you enough money after your costs, to survive...but pure greed is yet another thing. That is where your profit is so damn high that you could easily feed a small nation with it, but instead you spend it on cars, holidays, whatever. Do you know that in my country a CEO's yearly wage is 20 TIMES that of unemployment? That means that 20 people could live off what that one person gets. Now if you doubled that unemployment figure so that you arrive at a wage that would be very comfortable - that is still 10 TIMES. And a CEO is not necessarily worth 20 unemployed people or 10 wage earners. Their salary is a prestige thing, a symbol of their position in the pecking order, rather than representative of their value to society.

If I cared all that much about my own "profit" I would just leave the game. I am also concerned with this issue in general. If I wasn't I would have stopped even reading this thread, let alone posting in it. I care that I see people leaving because they're not able to afford this. I care that I see the scale of prices that is so much higher for the smaller parcels of points. I care about all the issues I am raising, not just about how it affects me, which is actually very little. But if I don't speak out then the voices of the objectors would be drowned by all the ones that don't seem to think there should be any kind of accountability in this world, or any morality. People are being taught not to object...they are being taught that all's fair in the name of capitalism. But that's not so...

Jesus, how many times does your baseless sense of morality have to be shot down before you stop talking. Innogames is not some greedy multi-national company outsourcing labor to foreign children for pennies just to line a CEO's profit, stop trying to paint that picture. Innogames is a mere fraction of what those companies are. Your entire rant was, yet again, irrelevent.

You have a problem with "HOW MUCH" and "IN WHAT WAY". So let's focus on that: Raising prices is the simplest way of battling increasing costs. Are they supposed to keep prices the same forever until they are no longer able to afford running it? Of course not. Or would you prefer they fire some people to save YOU a few dollars a month? If so, then throw your pretend morality out the window. Eventually prices had to be raised, and after years of unchanged prices they finally have. The only one greedy here is you.

Your other complaint is "how much" profit they are making now. Profit equals revenue minus cost. So please, tell me ... what are their revenue and costs? How much have their costs gone up in the last 4 years while they've left prices unchanged? You don't have a damn clue. Neither do I. Don't act as if your argument holds any water, when you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Again, tribal wars is not a neccesity like food, shelter or clothing. It is a game. If people think its worth playing casually, then play for free. If you like the game enough to play it seriously, and to try to compete with the best, then pay for it. If its not worth the money to you, then don't spend it. But no one is ENTITLED to playing it. How can it be immoral to raise prices when nobody needs it in the first place? There are billions of other ways to entertain yourself.

...

The only legitimate complaint I have read here was the discontinued availability of purchasing a certain amount of premium points via SMS. I never pay that way, but it seems people are saying they no longer offer a month's worth this way, when they used to allow it.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
No, I wasn't talking about that. Where do I say SMS? Yes, the SMS system sucks from what I can tell, but as it's not Innogames making it that way it would have been futile for me to bring that up. I was talking about the fact that smaller parcels of premium points are charged at a higher rate - the method is irrelevant. That means that anyone who cannot afford to buy a large chunk of premium at a time is being charged a higher price than those who can afford to outlay more money at a time. This is hitting the poorest players hardest.

Any reason to do this other than trying to get even more money out of people, has not been explained. That's because there isn't one. The reasons for doing it are as I said - so that people who CAN afford to will buy more points at once, to be charged at a lower rate, but Innogames wins because the person has handed over more money. They win over again if the person happens to quit before they use all their points. Then they are actually getting money for nothing. That is also part of the plan. And when players can't afford to buy larger numbers of points at a time, they buy at a higher rate, so Innogames win again. The fact is that Innogames don't care one iota about the players that can't afford to buy more than a month's worth, or 2 week's worth, or whatever, at a time. They only care that they get more money. Yet if they catered more to those customers they would have a larger customer base - including a lot more casual players. Which also equals more money. But instead they have factored these lost players into the increase to make sure they still increase their profits even though they are going to lose players over this. That's the classy way to screw people - screw them so much so that even after the ones who refuse to be screwed walk away, you are still ahead!

Yes, why they raised prices has been explained, over and over again. Costs don't stay the same for years and years. If their costs go up, so do ours. Thats not greed, its the only way they can ensure long term survival of their company. Google the word "inflation" for a quick lesson, even though much more than that goes into the equation.

As for charging more per point in smaller packages, that is the case with almost everything. The average price for a 24 pack of bottled water is what, $6? Somewhere around there. If you go into that same store and buy 1 bottle of water, you think they should just give it for 25 cents? NO! Your lucky if you get it for $1. You get cheaper costs per unit if you buy in bulk. The same logic applies here. They are willing to give a cheaper rate to those who promise them long-term business.
 

DeletedUser37592

Guest
Maybe I'm just nuts....but seems to me like once upon a time, I used to get to have an equal amount of premium points available for each world I was playing. Example: I buy a months premium, and I get a month's premium in EACH world I am playing.

Now, it seems that when I buy a month of premium, I get a month's premium in ONE world...so, if I want to play multiple worlds, I have to pay for premium seperately for EACH of them.

I noticed this after starting W50 today.

ANybody else notice this? or is there something I am just not understanding?

And yes...this IS a price increase for a lot of us. Especially those of us who have lost our jobs and are now on greatly reduced fixed incomes. Which means we have more time to play.....but less reason, because if you can't afford premium? Past about 50 villages, this game is nearly unplayable.
 
Last edited:

CodaAlFine

Still Going Strong
Reaction score
4
This hits kids worst probably - many kids rely on their parents to pay for their premium...how many parents will comply when their kid says "you know that game you say is making me fall behind in my schoolwork? Well now you have to pay nearly double for it than what you did last month"
 

DeletedUser37592

Guest
Wonder if I can save any money by paying in Euros? Seeing as the Euro has just tanked on the exchange rate with dollars?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Maybe I'm just nuts....but seems to me like once upon a time, I used to get to have an equal amount of premium points available for each world I was playing. Example: I buy a months premium, and I get a month's premium in EACH world I am playing.

Now, it seems that when I buy a month of premium, I get a month's premium in ONE world...so, if I want to play multiple worlds, I have to pay for premium seperately for EACH of them.

I noticed this after starting W50 today.

ANybody else notice this? or is there something I am just not understanding?

And yes...this IS a price increase for a lot of us. Especially those of us who have lost our jobs and are now on greatly reduced fixed incomes. Which means we have more time to play.....but less reason, because if you can't afford premium? Past about 50 villages, this game is nearly unplayable.

You have always had to pay for premium in each world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top