Castle Clash: Guild Royale Today: 30    Total Posts: 1186616


Create Thread

[Chat (Android)] Too many problems

Close [Copy link] 13/4181

Posted on 10/18/16 4:12:38 PM | Show thread starter's posts only


Posted on 10/18/16 4:37:13 PM | Show thread starter's posts only

"The average revenue per paying user for Game of War: Fire Age is $549.69. That’s more than $270 ahead of the second highest ARPPU: Com2Us’ Summoners War, which rakes in an average of $272.41 per year from its spending players. The third highest earning game is Big Fish’s Casion Free Slots at $232.67.

Some of the leading names are lower in the list than you might expect. King’s highest ARPPU is Candy Crush Soda Saga at $66.24, followed by the original Candy Crush at $61.49. 

Supercell, meanwhile, fares well with Boom Beach’s ARPPU at $117.91 and Clash of Clans at  $112.99. However, the very similar Castle Clash by is outperforming both with an average spend of $202.26."

This is how companies work. They take into account user base growth, as well as average revenue per user. If they feel either one is showing a worrying trend, they WILL try to find a problem. If there are complaints, but both are still on the upward swing, they will still take notice of problems and complaints but only target the most chronic issues.

I work as a financial analyst, and we look at a number of different things when we put out our reports for companies such as FB, TWTR or AMZN, etc. And no company will bend over backwards and "spend" to address a problem that is not actually affecting revenue.

They will only do so if the bottom line is being hit. 

So to say that IGG does not care is wrong. It does care, but it is also a business and has to be run as such.

f2p and flying!
Join Mutilator!!!
Posted on 10/18/16 5:03:29 PM | Show thread starter's posts only

Nerds will argue otherwise 'til they are blue in the face, and naturally mods will ding you for saying so, but the fact is this: CC is a gambling app packaged under a rudimentary player interface. 

The worst thing one can do is mistake CC for a video game in the traditional sense. 

That misapprehension leads players such as TS to the deluded conclusion that they should "have a say in the product." But imagine, for example, making that argument to a Vegas blackjack dealer. Ridiculous, right? And here, it's even worse because it is a long-foregone conclusion that IGG alters their gambling odds at the pleasure of bean-counters. There's only the thinnest veneer of fairness and predictability here. And certainly, mass complaints in aggregate where the bottom line is implicated will bring about minor interface changes. But that's a lot of squeeze for just a little juice. 

In sum: TS, rethink your understanding of IGG and CC and the role of the gambler-player (you and I) in the larger scheme of digital gambling and microtransactions. Where, frankly, not even console gaming is safe. If you don't like the conclusion, then stop gambling and/or stop playing. You should not spend one more cent until you've got your head straight on the subject.

The battles are so bloody because the stakes are so low.
Posted on 10/18/16 8:11:38 PM | Show thread starter's posts only


Moderator of Clash of Desert
Had another mod job before....
as mod in the Castle Clash forum
FL unmute me pls