3 ms·
If it is a simple solution, then there likely is a simple work around. In this case, large companies with multiple games can have cross game promotions. Also,
by SkyBelow 8y ago
If it is a simple solution, then there likely is a simple work around.
In this case, large companies with multiple games can have cross game promotions. Also, $50/game/month is still a very larger amount of money for many people and doesn't resolve the issue of kids being allowed to gamble.
- chipperyman573 8y agoSure, Blizzard does this a lot with their games. The idea behind it is more that it prevents whales, destroying the business model... the kids spending $100/mo are nothing compared to the people who spend literally tens of thousands of dollars on these games every month. That's who they're targeting.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago> Also, $50/game/month is still a very larger amount of money for many people and doesn't resolve the issue of kids being allowed to gamble. The business model for these games is that 99% of players spend negligible amounts, and 1% spend hundreds or thousands; the minnows are a loss leader to get to the whales. Restricting spending to $50 or $100/month would destroy games like this entirely. (Which I'm fine with, personally.)
- SkyBelow 8y agoIt would destroy the current whale business model, but it might still result in going after big spenders in other fashions by getting more games for them to play a shorter time each and it might result in them modifying the feedback loop to get more people spending the maximum allowed. Also, are the minnows really loss leaders or just not as profitable?