Originally Posted by
Dardy
This update feels overcooked to me, and very misdirected. There are three reasons for this (among many others).
1. Poor targeting of profit sources
The first issue with the update is it seeks to extract cash from people who simply do not have it. In this sense, it is misguided.
Ok, so profit is the main focus. But profit comes from several sources, ranging from the big-spending whales, down to infrequent buyers of monthly cards or other low-end purchases. While we do not know numbers, I would not be surprised if a greater number of coaches within the lower half of $'s spent.
Where a coach sits on the scale of $'s spent will influence their spending discretion, ie when they buy, what they buy, and how often they buy. The more money a coach has or is wiling to spend, the less discretion.
One issue with this update is that it targets the lower-spending, higher-discretion group by raising the threshold for free/low-cash participation in a basic element of the game. This group will not shift to spending more. Often, because they cannot afford to.
The update could have targeted the high-spenders by introducing a discrete element of pay-to-gain training, like it has with the training book, without a reduction in training effectiveness across the board. High-spenders will pay for the benefit of this feature, mid-low range spenders will not.
2. Required Spend for Basic Game Mechanics
The second issue with the update is it seeks to incentivise spend from a basic game mechanic at an early stage.
The game can, and I would argue should, contain spending avenues to satisfy all spending types. This is achieved by: (1) having things available for different budgets; and (2) having different aspects of the game more or less spending incentives than others. The issue with the update is it affects the second point, with more spending incentive placed on an area that previously had a high-level of cash-free playability.
To retain lower spending/non-spending customers, fundamental aspects of the game need to function at a base-level without spending. Training was one of these aspects.
As many have noted, the update has commoditised one of the last relatively cash-free parts of the game. It has also not done so subtly. The more areas that require cash, and the earlier cash is required, the less "free" the initial game becomes.
Say I am a new player to the game. How many aspects of the game do I come across where money is not required and, how many aspects do I come across where money is not seemingly required instantly. The issue with the update is that the spend on training is in your face, and early on. There are few fundamentals of the game for players to develop an interest for 'free', before eventually being incentivised to spend when they realise there is a progression ceiling.
3. No Noticeable Gain or Permanent Benefit from Spend
The third issue with the update is that it seeks to incentivise spending on a immaterial game mechanic, training.
Most things you buy in the game give you a benefit or gain of some sort. Some things, like tokens, are easy enough to grasp. They are an in-game asset and we know what they translate to (ie we know how to use them and what we get from using them). Other things that can be obtained through spend, like Playstyles, special abilities, and player stats, confer a permanent (or semi-permanent) improvement, the benefit of which was can grasp fairly easily.
For example, we largely see the effects of higher player stats. We also - because the developers recognise the problem if we do not - 'see the effects' of playstyles and special abilities. But, the fact that the game shows us the special abilities and playstyles 'in action' reflects the issue - unless we 'see them' how do we know they do anything.
This is one problem with the training update. How does someone 'see' the results of their spend. In comparison to the things mentioned above, there is minimal noticeable gain from improved training. It may benefit things, but how is that made clear in a game scenario. On top of this, the gain is temporary.
So, the result of the update is that a coach is asked to spend money on temporary 'gain', without real evidence of any 'gain' being shown. in short, a poor mechanic to target for player spend.
66Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote