Our issues we are going to address here:
1. Why 70% flex return is bad.
2. Why 0% flex return is good for users AND Bort
3. Why making the build cycle shorter means dots get more expensive (kinda)
4. Benefits of a general additional cost reduction
5. How to make a subscription model work
I will be leaning on my google sheets analysis here and referencing articular cells at times: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11BfLfPX5TuzxWLs7bzn5t_b9ZUCja64sAjeqLIHdDrg/edit#gid=0
1. Why 70% flex return is bad.
In sheet column (C) you'll see a breakdown of the current GLB model for a 200flex dot. 7300 flex to build, 5030 gets refunded, gives a 2270 net cost. The issue however is that no one who doesn't already have flex will ever want to pay the up-front cost of ~$60-70 for only one dot on a 15 year old browser game.
GLB is awesome and this pricing made sense at one point, but now it is cost prohibitive. So many users have left the game despite the 70% flex retund, so it's stopping people from buying flex as well as not doing anyone any good.
2. Why 0% flex return is good for users AND Bort.
At the end of the day, the only thing that matters with flex points is how much flex a dot costs over time. That "flex spend per month" to build a player and their their career, is what actually "uses" flex and causes more purchases and more $ for Bort.
What this means, is if we play with the flex payment/refund structure while maintaining the flex "burn" per 30 days of a dots life, the same flex is used up requiring more purchases. Cell C19 is the current flex cost of 1 dot per 30 days. D19 is that same cost per 30 days if we instead removed the discount (so initial dot cost is 30% of current with 0% refund. Since these numbers are the same, the dots will "burn" the same amount of net flex each month, but to the user on the front end (when creating a dot) it will feel much cheaper.
This will allow users to create more dots, but what's more is it gives returning players to the game an avenue to justify flex purchases, because 1 200flex dot won't cost them 7200 flex up front and instead can be made from scratch for only 2270 flex.
This is a way to make the game FEEL like a radical price reduction and would lead to more dots and more purchases, benefiting everyone.
3. Why making the build cycle shorter means dots get more expensive (kinda)
As we discussed above, the flex burn per month is really all that matters for actually "using up" flex and necessitating new purchases. The issue is, the shorter we make the build phase (where we traditionally pay) or the longer we make the plateau phase (where we traditionally don't pay), the more expensive the dot needs to be per season of the build phase, to make the cost per 30 days equal...
If we go to a 0% flex return model, both a 3 season build and 5 season plat, as well as a 3 season build and 7 season plat, still seem to be reasonably attainable. Also if we bring down total preseason+season to 48 days rather than 57 days, the shorter dot life helps decrease dot cost.while maintaining flex burn per month (seen in C15:F15 changing, compared to C16:F16 remaining constant)
4. Benefits of a general additional cost reduction
What was discussed in #1 through #3 above are changes in pricing structure that will FEEL to the users like price reductions, but will not be actual price reductions by WGG in an income per month calculation.
I am proposing an additional cost reduction by WGG. This is a 15 year old browser game, and an additional price reduction would promote a ton of good will by your userbase, and can lead to a large amount of activity and building more dots which burn through flex faster and necessitate more purchases and a game that lives on longer. This also makes building more dots more accessible for many.
The proposed cost reduction impact and a proposed new boost model (obv the # of boosts is open to change or interpretation in the new dot build cycle, but the idea is to keep the total flex spend per dot). This can be found in cells B24:F30 depending on whether we want a 5 season plateau or 7 season plateau. Personally I suggest the longer 7 season plateau.
5. How to make a subscription model work.
This can be found in the GREEN sections of the spreadsheet, columns H to L. Cliff notes is, again keeping dot cost per 30 days consistent, the subscription model is actually amazing in that it allows us to spread out dot cost into plateau seasons and once again make dots feel cheaper without changing the flex burn per 30 days which leads to purchases.
Since subscriptions feel SOOO cheap, it'll actually cause the creation of many more dots, and make purchasing a full team of 55 dots very attainable at around 5200 flex per season, which becomes 52,000 flex over a 10 season career. This is a LOT more flex burn than many currently do.
========================
tl;dr
If Bort decides to do #1-5 above, then makes a s100 mass email announcement, GLB would enter a new golden age of activity and fun. There are 4 different things listed which will FEEL to the userbase as price reductions, while 3/4 of them maintain current flex burn per month. Thus if Bort is able to increase dots made, he will be seeing an increase in profit compared to s98 and everyone wins!
========================
Thoughts or questions are welcome.
1. Why 70% flex return is bad.
2. Why 0% flex return is good for users AND Bort
3. Why making the build cycle shorter means dots get more expensive (kinda)
4. Benefits of a general additional cost reduction
5. How to make a subscription model work
I will be leaning on my google sheets analysis here and referencing articular cells at times: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11BfLfPX5TuzxWLs7bzn5t_b9ZUCja64sAjeqLIHdDrg/edit#gid=0
1. Why 70% flex return is bad.
In sheet column (C) you'll see a breakdown of the current GLB model for a 200flex dot. 7300 flex to build, 5030 gets refunded, gives a 2270 net cost. The issue however is that no one who doesn't already have flex will ever want to pay the up-front cost of ~$60-70 for only one dot on a 15 year old browser game.
GLB is awesome and this pricing made sense at one point, but now it is cost prohibitive. So many users have left the game despite the 70% flex retund, so it's stopping people from buying flex as well as not doing anyone any good.
2. Why 0% flex return is good for users AND Bort.
At the end of the day, the only thing that matters with flex points is how much flex a dot costs over time. That "flex spend per month" to build a player and their their career, is what actually "uses" flex and causes more purchases and more $ for Bort.
What this means, is if we play with the flex payment/refund structure while maintaining the flex "burn" per 30 days of a dots life, the same flex is used up requiring more purchases. Cell C19 is the current flex cost of 1 dot per 30 days. D19 is that same cost per 30 days if we instead removed the discount (so initial dot cost is 30% of current with 0% refund. Since these numbers are the same, the dots will "burn" the same amount of net flex each month, but to the user on the front end (when creating a dot) it will feel much cheaper.
This will allow users to create more dots, but what's more is it gives returning players to the game an avenue to justify flex purchases, because 1 200flex dot won't cost them 7200 flex up front and instead can be made from scratch for only 2270 flex.
This is a way to make the game FEEL like a radical price reduction and would lead to more dots and more purchases, benefiting everyone.
3. Why making the build cycle shorter means dots get more expensive (kinda)
As we discussed above, the flex burn per month is really all that matters for actually "using up" flex and necessitating new purchases. The issue is, the shorter we make the build phase (where we traditionally pay) or the longer we make the plateau phase (where we traditionally don't pay), the more expensive the dot needs to be per season of the build phase, to make the cost per 30 days equal...
If we go to a 0% flex return model, both a 3 season build and 5 season plat, as well as a 3 season build and 7 season plat, still seem to be reasonably attainable. Also if we bring down total preseason+season to 48 days rather than 57 days, the shorter dot life helps decrease dot cost.while maintaining flex burn per month (seen in C15:F15 changing, compared to C16:F16 remaining constant)
4. Benefits of a general additional cost reduction
What was discussed in #1 through #3 above are changes in pricing structure that will FEEL to the users like price reductions, but will not be actual price reductions by WGG in an income per month calculation.
I am proposing an additional cost reduction by WGG. This is a 15 year old browser game, and an additional price reduction would promote a ton of good will by your userbase, and can lead to a large amount of activity and building more dots which burn through flex faster and necessitate more purchases and a game that lives on longer. This also makes building more dots more accessible for many.
The proposed cost reduction impact and a proposed new boost model (obv the # of boosts is open to change or interpretation in the new dot build cycle, but the idea is to keep the total flex spend per dot). This can be found in cells B24:F30 depending on whether we want a 5 season plateau or 7 season plateau. Personally I suggest the longer 7 season plateau.
5. How to make a subscription model work.
This can be found in the GREEN sections of the spreadsheet, columns H to L. Cliff notes is, again keeping dot cost per 30 days consistent, the subscription model is actually amazing in that it allows us to spread out dot cost into plateau seasons and once again make dots feel cheaper without changing the flex burn per 30 days which leads to purchases.
Since subscriptions feel SOOO cheap, it'll actually cause the creation of many more dots, and make purchasing a full team of 55 dots very attainable at around 5200 flex per season, which becomes 52,000 flex over a 10 season career. This is a LOT more flex burn than many currently do.
========================
tl;dr
If Bort decides to do #1-5 above, then makes a s100 mass email announcement, GLB would enter a new golden age of activity and fun. There are 4 different things listed which will FEEL to the userbase as price reductions, while 3/4 of them maintain current flex burn per month. Thus if Bort is able to increase dots made, he will be seeing an increase in profit compared to s98 and everyone wins!
========================
Thoughts or questions are welcome.