Updated Digital Bro Financials

1235

Comments

  • KGB
    KGB Posts: 3,552 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Godzillafan67 said:
    After all, it is really easy to match to spenders to the swappers to see if CS's time investment is worth it.

    Agreed. And yet from a business perspective as Entrailbucket has mentioned countless times, it would make perfect sense to give spenders a discount on swaps. As in if you spend X amount a month you get free swaps, Y amount you get swaps at half HP price and so on. Businesses do this ALL the time for their best customers.

    KGB

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 6,644 Chairperson of the Boards

    @KGB said:

    @Godzillafan67 said:
    After all, it is really easy to match to spenders to the swappers to see if CS's time investment is worth it.

    Agreed. And yet from a business perspective as Entrailbucket has mentioned countless times, it would make perfect sense to give spenders a discount on swaps. As in if you spend X amount a month you get free swaps, Y amount you get swaps at half HP price and so on. Businesses do this ALL the time for their best customers.

    KGB

    And absolutely nobody should have any problem with it! I certainly wouldn't! Yes, it's "unfair," but the spenders are keeping the game alive.

  • ThisisClemFandango
    ThisisClemFandango Posts: 1,029 Chairperson of the Boards

    Eb...oh my sweet summer child.
    You've been here long enough to know that's not how this place works.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 6,644 Chairperson of the Boards

    @ThisisClemFandango said:
    Eb...oh my sweet summer child.
    You've been here long enough to know that's not how this place works.

    I know. I've got no idea how or when these folks convinced themselves everything should be "fair," but I do find it really, really funny.

    Actually if I was the devs I'd turn it into a competition. Top 5% of spenders every month get free cover swaps!

  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,987 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited 11 June 2025, 18:18

    A sliding scale would be perfectly fair. I am seriously confused that the players who did spend didn’t put two and two together to work out the real culprits who ruined this for them. All we hear is “bad Devs” when these freeloaders milked the policy with no or little contributed. I might be wrong but I also suspect this policy existed before saved covers which made even more sense for high spending players to get special treatment. Now though with saved covers, pay real dollars or use your in game resources to get ahead. Can’t afford the in game swap price - buy the HP or play until you can, your 550 will have to wait.

  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,987 Chairperson of the Boards

    @LavaManLee said:
    The vitriol on here about people using a service that the devs provided.

    Scam! Milked the policy! SMH

    To players who paid? Not at all, if anything allI I see is sympathy how they have been screwed over by freeloaders.

  • LavaManLee
    LavaManLee Posts: 1,627 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited 11 June 2025, 18:39

    But who are these freeloaders? I still don't quite know who they are. Are they the F2P players who hoarded for multiple years to unload once for three 550s? Are they someone else? Who, exactly, are people upset with?

    The freeloaders seem like a strawperson that doesn't really exist. Could someone spend no money and use the 550 swap? Sure. But they would only be able to do it, like, once every other year or so. Certainly not taking up CS time very much. And how many are there? Dozens? Maybe a 100 at the most?

    Actually, as I type this, I'm losing track of what the complaint was about CS swaps in the first place. Guess I'll go reread this 5 page thread again. :-)

  • Phumade
    Phumade Posts: 2,560 Chairperson of the Boards

    @LavaManLee said:
    But who are these freeloaders? I still don't quite know who they are. Are they the F2P players who hoarded for multiple years to unload once for three 550s? Are they someone else? Who, exactly, are people upset with?

    The freeloaders seem like a strawperson that doesn't really exist. Could someone spend no money and use the 550 swap? Sure. But they would only be able to do it, like, once every other year or so. Certainly not taking up CS time very much. And how many are there? Dozens? Maybe a 100 at the most?

    Actually, as I type this, I'm losing track of what the complaint was about CS swaps in the first place. Guess I'll go reread this 5 page thread again. :-)

    LOL Your absolutely right. what does FTP really mean here? $0 dollar spend over 10 years and your a 550 player? LOL. The issue here is what justifies an adequate spend and who qualifies for "VIP" treatment. EB said $10K + a year. okay. anyone else wants to float an elastic demand curve?

    My key observation is that no-one cheats via hex-editor, packet interference, i.e. REAL hacks, bugs etc.. Those are routinely sniffed out and reported (or OVER REPORTED).

    As long as we are all clear, people aren't "cheating" via software tooling etc. I don't even want to approach the topic of whether adaptive assistance constitutes "cheating" (Adaptive assistance means screen readers or other software automation). Then its all reasonable ASSUMPTIONS without any verifiable truth like audited financial statements.

    As long as the discussion resolves around Who's worthy and who's not, then I'll added any observations to reinforce people's points as appropriate.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 6,644 Chairperson of the Boards

    @LavaManLee said:
    But who are these freeloaders? I still don't quite know who they are. Are they the F2P players who hoarded for multiple years to unload once for three 550s? Are they someone else? Who, exactly, are people upset with?

    The freeloaders seem like a strawperson that doesn't really exist. Could someone spend no money and use the 550 swap? Sure. But they would only be able to do it, like, once every other year or so. Certainly not taking up CS time very much. And how many are there? Dozens? Maybe a 100 at the most?

    Actually, as I type this, I'm losing track of what the complaint was about CS swaps in the first place. Guess I'll go reread this 5 page thread again. :-)

    Well, then what's the problem? If it was only massive whales doing the swaps anyway, then they spend enough that they can get the same results from the new system (which is available in game and not from a secret CS menu, and can be used for every character, not just a tiny subset).

  • DAZ0273
    DAZ0273 Posts: 10,987 Chairperson of the Boards

    @LavaManLee said:
    But who are these freeloaders? I still don't quite know who they are. Are they the F2P players who hoarded for multiple years to unload once for three 550s? Are they someone else? Who, exactly, are people upset with?

    The freeloaders seem like a strawperson that doesn't really exist. Could someone spend no money and use the 550 swap? Sure. But they would only be able to do it, like, once every other year or so. Certainly not taking up CS time very much. And how many are there? Dozens? Maybe a 100 at the most?

    Actually, as I type this, I'm losing track of what the complaint was about CS swaps in the first place. Guess I'll go reread this 5 page thread again. :-)

    Yes you do know. Unloading should have only entitled them to what RNG gave them, no? Cover swaps enabled them to instantly 55O against others not in the knowledge that they could get free swaps rather than have to keep going (definitely not me btw). So it is pretty simple no? They could choose a time and place advantageous to them that scored them a big foot up in the game they weren't entitled to. Hoarding is an artificial player concept. Cover swaps were meant for high spending players. Somehow they got fused together, Devs finally said no more.

    As for your CS question - well the Devs clearly made this decision backed by hard evidence and I can only assume there were more freeloaders than legit customers. Why would they hurt their revenue flow otherwise.

    I guess we will never really know.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 6,644 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited 11 June 2025, 22:07

    And all that "work" they did, toiling away in the token mines for years to build a hoard, generated exactly zero revenue for the game. Now they're set up to win everything in the game forever without spending a single cent.

    You might say, "well, if the devs wanted to make money, they should never have allowed this! we're just optimizing the systems they put in place!"

    And YES! Exactly! But guess what? You aren't in control of those systems, and they can change them anytime they want! So it turns out that when they notice lots of players having all the success without spending anything, they might want to stop that, to try to make money again.

    Honestly I think revenues would've fallen relatively soon regardless of this change and the accompanying "boycott." Why would anybody buy stuff unless it helped them win?

  • Phumade
    Phumade Posts: 2,560 Chairperson of the Boards

    @entrailbucket said:
    And all that "work" they did, toiling away in the token mines for years to build a hoard, generated exactly zero revenue for the game. Now they're set up to win everything in the game forever without spending a single cent.

    You might say, "well, if the devs wanted to make money, they should never have allowed this! we're just optimizing the systems they put in place!"

    And YES! Exactly! But guess what? You aren't in control of those systems, and they can change them anytime they want! So it turns out that when they notice lots of players having all the success without spending anything, they might want to stop that, to try to make money again.

    Honestly I think revenues would've fallen relatively soon regardless of this change and the accompanying "boycott." Why would anybody buy stuff unless it helped them win?

    I couldn't resist.

    It seems that early buyers do have a massive advantage. Spenders have long leveraged their "
    investment" to a very very long string of placements, rewards etc... Are we really saying a year 3 whale should still be entitled to VIP treatment in year 10? even if yearly spend is down? Clearly the benefits of spending diminish over time. We all see that. Do you feel that benefit should extend to a specific duration? Happy to hear the disscussion.

    I appreciate you at least putting a dollar value to the threshold.

    Thats not really number that should make anyone blink. Anyone who's worked in high end hospitality knows that number is valid. I can only disclose that I sat in a 4* resort (ritz carlton class) strategy meeting and they sincerely expected a $25,000 spend per family per week per suite.

    All I can offer is the simplicity of the financial statements and say cutting off access to the newest char is probably linked to the decline in revenue. Anything else is simply management speculation/discussion.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 6,644 Chairperson of the Boards

    @Phumade said:

    @entrailbucket said:
    And all that "work" they did, toiling away in the token mines for years to build a hoard, generated exactly zero revenue for the game. Now they're set up to win everything in the game forever without spending a single cent.

    You might say, "well, if the devs wanted to make money, they should never have allowed this! we're just optimizing the systems they put in place!"

    And YES! Exactly! But guess what? You aren't in control of those systems, and they can change them anytime they want! So it turns out that when they notice lots of players having all the success without spending anything, they might want to stop that, to try to make money again.

    Honestly I think revenues would've fallen relatively soon regardless of this change and the accompanying "boycott." Why would anybody buy stuff unless it helped them win?

    I couldn't resist.

    It seems that early buyers do have a massive advantage. Spenders have long leveraged their "
    investment" to a very very long string of placements, rewards etc... Are we really saying a year 3 whale should still be entitled to VIP treatment in year 10? even if yearly spend is down? Clearly the benefits of spending diminish over time. We all see that. Do you feel that benefit should extend to a specific duration? Happy to hear the disscussion.

    I appreciate you at least putting a dollar value to the threshold.

    Thats not really number that should make anyone blink. Anyone who's worked in high end hospitality knows that number is valid. I can only disclose that I sat in a 4* resort (ritz carlton class) strategy meeting and they sincerely expected a $25,000 spend per family per week per suite.

    All I can offer is the simplicity of the financial statements and say cutting off access to the newest char is probably linked to the decline in revenue. Anything else is simply management speculation/discussion.

    Thinking about it, I think some percentage based threshold is better because it'd be more realistic and also hopefully tougher to game. It'd also create competition among the whales.

    So why not give VIP customer service to the top 5% of spenders over the past 12 months, and reevaluate that list monthly? Keep it rolling so you can lose your status if you stop spending, but make it a large enough window that players can't just drop in and out.

  • Borstock
    Borstock Posts: 2,931 Chairperson of the Boards

    Sets a real bad precedent. I'd be very against that.

  • KGB
    KGB Posts: 3,552 Chairperson of the Boards
    edited 12 June 2025, 00:08

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Phumade said:

    @entrailbucket said:
    And all that "work" they did, toiling away in the token mines for years to build a hoard, generated exactly zero revenue for the game. Now they're set up to win everything in the game forever without spending a single cent.

    You might say, "well, if the devs wanted to make money, they should never have allowed this! we're just optimizing the systems they put in place!"

    And YES! Exactly! But guess what? You aren't in control of those systems, and they can change them anytime they want! So it turns out that when they notice lots of players having all the success without spending anything, they might want to stop that, to try to make money again.

    Honestly I think revenues would've fallen relatively soon regardless of this change and the accompanying "boycott." Why would anybody buy stuff unless it helped them win?

    I couldn't resist.

    It seems that early buyers do have a massive advantage. Spenders have long leveraged their "
    investment" to a very very long string of placements, rewards etc... Are we really saying a year 3 whale should still be entitled to VIP treatment in year 10? even if yearly spend is down? Clearly the benefits of spending diminish over time. We all see that. Do you feel that benefit should extend to a specific duration? Happy to hear the disscussion.

    I appreciate you at least putting a dollar value to the threshold.

    Thats not really number that should make anyone blink. Anyone who's worked in high end hospitality knows that number is valid. I can only disclose that I sat in a 4* resort (ritz carlton class) strategy meeting and they sincerely expected a $25,000 spend per family per week per suite.

    All I can offer is the simplicity of the financial statements and say cutting off access to the newest char is probably linked to the decline in revenue. Anything else is simply management speculation/discussion.

    Thinking about it, I think some percentage based threshold is better because it'd be more realistic and also hopefully tougher to game. It'd also create competition among the whales.

    So why not give VIP customer service to the top 5% of spenders over the past 12 months, and reevaluate that list monthly? Keep it rolling so you can lose your status if you stop spending, but make it a large enough window that players can't just drop in and out.

    You think top 5% of spenders are whales? That would make for an awful lot of whales / big spenders? I would think the number of players dropping serious money (5K+) is far less than 5% of the spenders.

    BTW, I also think 10K a year isn't much. That's only 833 a month or 200 a week or $28 a day. I guarantee there are plenty of people in every day life who drop that much a day on cigarettes or Starbucks coffee etc. If MPQ is your only 'habit' it's not that unreasonable an amount to spend in a year (I easily spend 3K a year playing beer league hockey 2x a week for example).

    KGB

  • Borstock
    Borstock Posts: 2,931 Chairperson of the Boards

    @KGB said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Phumade said:

    @entrailbucket said:
    And all that "work" they did, toiling away in the token mines for years to build a hoard, generated exactly zero revenue for the game. Now they're set up to win everything in the game forever without spending a single cent.

    You might say, "well, if the devs wanted to make money, they should never have allowed this! we're just optimizing the systems they put in place!"

    And YES! Exactly! But guess what? You aren't in control of those systems, and they can change them anytime they want! So it turns out that when they notice lots of players having all the success without spending anything, they might want to stop that, to try to make money again.

    Honestly I think revenues would've fallen relatively soon regardless of this change and the accompanying "boycott." Why would anybody buy stuff unless it helped them win?

    I couldn't resist.

    It seems that early buyers do have a massive advantage. Spenders have long leveraged their "
    investment" to a very very long string of placements, rewards etc... Are we really saying a year 3 whale should still be entitled to VIP treatment in year 10? even if yearly spend is down? Clearly the benefits of spending diminish over time. We all see that. Do you feel that benefit should extend to a specific duration? Happy to hear the disscussion.

    I appreciate you at least putting a dollar value to the threshold.

    Thats not really number that should make anyone blink. Anyone who's worked in high end hospitality knows that number is valid. I can only disclose that I sat in a 4* resort (ritz carlton class) strategy meeting and they sincerely expected a $25,000 spend per family per week per suite.

    All I can offer is the simplicity of the financial statements and say cutting off access to the newest char is probably linked to the decline in revenue. Anything else is simply management speculation/discussion.

    Thinking about it, I think some percentage based threshold is better because it'd be more realistic and also hopefully tougher to game. It'd also create competition among the whales.

    So why not give VIP customer service to the top 5% of spenders over the past 12 months, and reevaluate that list monthly? Keep it rolling so you can lose your status if you stop spending, but make it a large enough window that players can't just drop in and out.

    You think top 5% of spenders are whales? That would make for an awful lot of whales / big spenders? I would think the number of players dropping serious money (5K+) is far less than 5% of the spenders.

    BTW, I also think 10K a year isn't much. That's only 833 a month or 200 a week or $28 a day. I guarantee there are plenty of people in every day life who drop that much a day on cigarettes or Starbucks coffee etc. If MPQ is your only 'habit' it's not that unreasonable an amount to spend in a year (I easily spend 3K a year playing beer league hockey 2x a week for example).

    KGB

    I live a very different existence from these people.

  • entrailbucket
    entrailbucket Posts: 6,644 Chairperson of the Boards

    @KGB said:

    @entrailbucket said:

    @Phumade said:

    @entrailbucket said:
    And all that "work" they did, toiling away in the token mines for years to build a hoard, generated exactly zero revenue for the game. Now they're set up to win everything in the game forever without spending a single cent.

    You might say, "well, if the devs wanted to make money, they should never have allowed this! we're just optimizing the systems they put in place!"

    And YES! Exactly! But guess what? You aren't in control of those systems, and they can change them anytime they want! So it turns out that when they notice lots of players having all the success without spending anything, they might want to stop that, to try to make money again.

    Honestly I think revenues would've fallen relatively soon regardless of this change and the accompanying "boycott." Why would anybody buy stuff unless it helped them win?

    I couldn't resist.

    It seems that early buyers do have a massive advantage. Spenders have long leveraged their "
    investment" to a very very long string of placements, rewards etc... Are we really saying a year 3 whale should still be entitled to VIP treatment in year 10? even if yearly spend is down? Clearly the benefits of spending diminish over time. We all see that. Do you feel that benefit should extend to a specific duration? Happy to hear the disscussion.

    I appreciate you at least putting a dollar value to the threshold.

    Thats not really number that should make anyone blink. Anyone who's worked in high end hospitality knows that number is valid. I can only disclose that I sat in a 4* resort (ritz carlton class) strategy meeting and they sincerely expected a $25,000 spend per family per week per suite.

    All I can offer is the simplicity of the financial statements and say cutting off access to the newest char is probably linked to the decline in revenue. Anything else is simply management speculation/discussion.

    Thinking about it, I think some percentage based threshold is better because it'd be more realistic and also hopefully tougher to game. It'd also create competition among the whales.

    So why not give VIP customer service to the top 5% of spenders over the past 12 months, and reevaluate that list monthly? Keep it rolling so you can lose your status if you stop spending, but make it a large enough window that players can't just drop in and out.

    You think top 5% of spenders are whales? That would make for an awful lot of whales / big spenders? I would think the number of players dropping serious money (5K+) is far less than 5% of the spenders.

    BTW, I also think 10K a year isn't much. That's only 833 a month or 200 a week or $28 a day. I guarantee there are plenty of people in every day life who drop that much a day on cigarettes or Starbucks coffee etc. If MPQ is your only 'habit' it's not that unreasonable an amount to spend in a year (I easily spend 3K a year playing beer league hockey 2x a week for example).

    KGB

    I didn't put enough thought into it! You're probably right, and that threshold is too low. I'd definitely keep it percentage based though.

  • Chrynos1989
    Chrynos1989 Posts: 423 Mover and Shaker

    Other games did it with VIP spending tiers, I played one once where you got tier 1 for spending 100$ in total, giving you one free pull/token/whatever, spending 300$ gave you tier 2, that was tier 1 Bonus + something additional, tier 3 was 600$ which gave you tier 2 bonuses +:additional inventory space, and so on and so on…

    I‘m pretty sure devs can retroactively see what you spent and give you tier 324 or whatever a whale would get, including free swaps

Categories