I did just because I keep getting 6*s I don't want at all, I got so sick of the RNG and never pulled a Doom, Corvus, Warlock, HT, Red Mags, Apoc, or CGR that I spent my units on a guaranteed champ I can use with my 5* Warlock and 5* Mags. Previous pulls from July 4th and Cyber Mondays netted me Capww2 twice, Squirrel Girl, Bishop, Sabertooth and Sym Supreme, so no thanks, I am passing on July 4th this time. OG Vision just became my 1st rank 2 6* today!
Hmm. I’d argue that Sym Supreme and Stealth Suit are better rank up options than OG Vision, but I guess it also depends on your 5* roster and needs for specific counters
Hmm. I’d argue that Sym Supreme and Stealth Suit are better rank up options than OG Vision, but I guess it also depends on your 5* roster and needs for specific counters
I suspect a lot of people would agree with you, but everyone values champions (and everything else) differently. Almost every time someone states that an offer is one that no one could possibly want, they imply they know what everyone wants, and the fact is no one knows what everyone wants. Except potentially Kabam, who has the historical sales records to refer to.
I did just because I keep getting 6*s I don't want at all, I got so sick of the RNG and never pulled a Doom, Corvus, Warlock, HT, Red Mags, Apoc, or CGR that I spent my units on a guaranteed champ I can use with my 5* Warlock and 5* Mags. Previous pulls from July 4th and Cyber Mondays netted me Capww2 twice, Squirrel Girl, Bishop, Sabertooth and Sym Supreme, so no thanks, I am passing on July 4th this time. OG Vision just became my 1st rank 2 6* today!
Hmm. I’d argue that Sym Supreme and Stealth Suit are better rank up options than OG Vision, but I guess it also depends on your 5* roster and needs for specific counters
OG Vision allowed me to beat 6.2.2 Sinister today, I used Warlock synergy. I never pulled a 5* Heimdall. Maybe Sym will be considered once I reach Champion. I am taking my time in story.
Hmm. I’d argue that Sym Supreme and Stealth Suit are better rank up options than OG Vision, but I guess it also depends on your 5* roster and needs for specific counters
I suspect a lot of people would agree with you, but everyone values champions (and everything else) differently. Almost every time someone states that an offer is one that no one could possibly want, they imply they know what everyone wants, and the fact is no one knows what everyone wants. Except potentially Kabam, who has the historical sales records to refer to.
That is true, I never like Stealth Spidey, even youtube legends like KT1 finds him too squishy like I do, BG as well isn't a fan. Stealth has his following, but I ain't one of them.
I did just because I keep getting 6*s I don't want at all, I got so sick of the RNG and never pulled a Doom, Corvus, Warlock, HT, Red Mags, Apoc, or CGR that I spent my units on a guaranteed champ I can use with my 5* Warlock and 5* Mags. Previous pulls from July 4th and Cyber Mondays netted me Capww2 twice, Squirrel Girl, Bishop, Sabertooth and Sym Supreme, so no thanks, I am passing on July 4th this time. OG Vision just became my 1st rank 2 6* today!
Bishop is getting buffed and it looks good. Keep ur fingers crossed.
I always wonder what the expectation is when people say these Offers are terrible. A 6* version of a Champ that comes out once or twice a year is not going to be 100 Units.
You’re correct, but I also think the discordance between this offer and past offers is what strikes players.
Personally, I would like a 5* OGV for nothing more than nostalgia and synergies. But bundling him with the 6* offer feels like a wildly off-base value proposition.
Hmm. I’d argue that Sym Supreme and Stealth Suit are better rank up options than OG Vision, but I guess it also depends on your 5* roster and needs for specific counters
I suspect a lot of people would agree with you, but everyone values champions (and everything else) differently. Almost every time someone states that an offer is one that no one could possibly want, they imply they know what everyone wants, and the fact is no one knows what everyone wants. Except potentially Kabam, who has the historical sales records to refer to.
I get your point but there is generally a lot of consensus around offers that i see, that the majority of people in various chats and forum posts etc all agree are not good value. When you compare that to the small amount of people that then voice the opinion that its an offer they like its generally quite simple to form an opinion of the player base using that information. As we all know some offers are better than others. And I'm also sure some offers are released close to others to make one offer much better value and encourage people to compare it to and offer they saw a day or 2 days ago. Its pretty simple marketing. The cost of this vision at this stage of the 6* Cycle i think from all the information I've seen offers poor value in todays market. Had the offer been more appealing to the masses i would suggest that overall with a greater volume of people purchasing, even at a much lower cost, the profit to KABAM would be far greater. And on top of that ONLY offering the 5* along with the 6* and not as seperate depending on needs and budgets etc doesnt really make great marketing sense to me, or for that matter even a SINGLE person ive seen make comment on it
I always wonder what the expectation is when people say these Offers are terrible. A 6* version of a Champ that comes out once or twice a year is not going to be 100 Units.
You’re correct, but I also think the discordance between this offer and past offers is what strikes players.
Personally, I would like a 5* OGV for nothing more than nostalgia and synergies. But bundling him with the 6* offer feels like a wildly off-base value proposition.
Dr. Zola
I believe that has more to do with progression-based Offers. UC was offered him alone.
I know that this first offer just before the 4th July deals is a part of the strategy of kabam to incite players buying units. But what about postponing the Vision offer just after the 4th July offer? In case this last one would be disappointing, the Vision could be a backup.
Regarding this Vision offer, I agree with other players: - I am interested in the 6* version, but not the 5* (that I already have duped) - Why a player would need the 5* when he gets the 6*? - 6k units for the 6* is too expensive for a champion that is not that good (the random power increase...). Moreover, 19,5k units to get it as 6r2 and awakened 20...
Hmm. I’d argue that Sym Supreme and Stealth Suit are better rank up options than OG Vision, but I guess it also depends on your 5* roster and needs for specific counters
I suspect a lot of people would agree with you, but everyone values champions (and everything else) differently. Almost every time someone states that an offer is one that no one could possibly want, they imply they know what everyone wants, and the fact is no one knows what everyone wants. Except potentially Kabam, who has the historical sales records to refer to.
I get your point but there is generally a lot of consensus around offers that i see, that the majority of people in various chats and forum posts etc all agree are not good value. When you compare that to the small amount of people that then voice the opinion that its an offer they like its generally quite simple to form an opinion of the player base using that information.
There's a couple problems with this. First, people are predisposed to complain about what they dislike more than they are to praise what they do like. And you don't hear anything from people who are neutral: no one goes out of their way to say they have no strong opinion.
The bigger problem is that most offers are targeted in a way that I think is obvious, but I've come to discover most people don't think this is obvious. Suppose you have a widget to sell. Five people are willing to pay ten bucks for it, but one guy is willing to pay fifty bucks for it. So you sell it to that guy. That makes sense: you want to sell it to whomever offers you the most for it. But now five guys are mad because not only did they not get the widget, they feel like they've been completely priced out of ever having widgets.
So why not just make more widgets? Well, you can't sell one of them for fifty bucks and then sell five more for ten bucks. The guy who spend fifty will never buy anything from you again. You have to sell all six for ten bucks.
But hey, this is a video game, widgets cost nothing. I mean, it might cost development time to make the first widget, but certainly the next five cost nothing to copy. So why not sell six for ten bucks a piece and make sixty bucks rather than sell one and make fifty bucks? Isn't sixty better than fifty?
It is, if you assume selling those widgets has no negative impact on the game. But they do have a potentially negative impact on the game. Everything you sell dilutes the value of gameplay. If you can just buy it rather than play to earn it, a lot of people will do just that. And then they have a competitive advantage over the people who don't. And if that competitive advantage becomes large enough, the people who don't want to spend, or even those that just want to spend less, will start to decide your game is not worth playing.
Ideally, you would want *everything* to only come from game play, so you encourage people to play the game. But if everything was free, you couldn't make money and the game would fold. You need to sell things to make money, but ideally you want to sell as few things as possible while making as much money as possible.
So if you can sell one thing for fifty bucks or six things for ten bucks, selling one thing for fifty bucks can be a lot better for the game as a whole. Now, this might make those five people mad. But it could also make them happy. Each of those five people looks around and they see four peers who are all in the same boat and one whale. Most of the people in the game look like them, and the rare whale can be ignored. And they see that if they play the game, their peers are unlikely to be able to just drop a couple bucks and gain an advantage over them. Because it takes fifty bucks to gain that advantage, and none of them are willing to spend it. They can all tell themselves that if they play for free and don't spend, *mostly* it is fine, compared to *most* of the people around them.
That's why offers might seem overpriced. They are, to you, because they probably aren't targeted at you. They are targeted at the players willing to spend the most on those things. Offers are like invisible auctions. The players are bidding on those items, and the offers are testing the waters to see how many people are willing to pay that much. If not enough people are, the price comes down. If too many people are, the price goes up (although in practice the price almost never goes up).
Another way to look at this is, if they price things to get your ten bucks, then they are leaving forty bucks on the table from the guy willing to spend fifty, and now only has to spend ten. You are shifting revenue away from the people with presumably a lot of money to spend, and towards the players with less money to spend. Would you rather have rich people spending a lot and poor people playing for free, or rich people and poor people all spending similar amounts of money in the game, because the offers are all designed to be "in reach" of all of them?
There are other concerns, balance concerns, progress concerns, marketing concerns, but this is actually the *primary* driver of how offers are valued. Everything is supposed to look overpriced to some people and underpriced to other people, and generally speaking the offers tend to skew upward to minimize the amount of stuff that floods into the game from spending, and to shift spending towards the people willing to spend the most.
I always wonder what the expectation is when people say these Offers are terrible. A 6* version of a Champ that comes out once or twice a year is not going to be 100 Units.
You’re correct, but I also think the discordance between this offer and past offers is what strikes players.
Personally, I would like a 5* OGV for nothing more than nostalgia and synergies. But bundling him with the 6* offer feels like a wildly off-base value proposition.
Dr. Zola
I believe that has more to do with progression-based Offers. UC was offered him alone.
Really? Interesting. I wasn’t aware Uncollected had a 5* Vision offer. Seems even more squirrelly then.
(I still wouldn’t buy it—rather spend on other things in game).
Currently, 50% chance of getting it. Problem is, it will push the 5-Star sig higher. What is the reasonable units cost to get a class AG (no selector)?
Ah ... finally I decided to skip it. Could not see how to obtain 6-Star sig stones at a reasonable pace.
The 5-Star version was key to my IG progression and I was really glad to get him then.
Hmm. I’d argue that Sym Supreme and Stealth Suit are better rank up options than OG Vision, but I guess it also depends on your 5* roster and needs for specific counters
I suspect a lot of people would agree with you, but everyone values champions (and everything else) differently. Almost every time someone states that an offer is one that no one could possibly want, they imply they know what everyone wants, and the fact is no one knows what everyone wants. Except potentially Kabam, who has the historical sales records to refer to.
I get your point but there is generally a lot of consensus around offers that i see, that the majority of people in various chats and forum posts etc all agree are not good value. When you compare that to the small amount of people that then voice the opinion that its an offer they like its generally quite simple to form an opinion of the player base using that information.
There's a couple problems with this. First, people are predisposed to complain about what they dislike more than they are to praise what they do like. And you don't hear anything from people who are neutral: no one goes out of their way to say they have no strong opinion.
The bigger problem is that most offers are targeted in a way that I think is obvious, but I've come to discover most people don't think this is obvious. Suppose you have a widget to sell. Five people are willing to pay ten bucks for it, but one guy is willing to pay fifty bucks for it. So you sell it to that guy. That makes sense: you want to sell it to whomever offers you the most for it. But now five guys are mad because not only did they not get the widget, they feel like they've been completely priced out of ever having widgets.
So why not just make more widgets? Well, you can't sell one of them for fifty bucks and then sell five more for ten bucks. The guy who spend fifty will never buy anything from you again. You have to sell all six for ten bucks.
But hey, this is a video game, widgets cost nothing. I mean, it might cost development time to make the first widget, but certainly the next five cost nothing to copy. So why not sell six for ten bucks a piece and make sixty bucks rather than sell one and make fifty bucks? Isn't sixty better than fifty?
It is, if you assume selling those widgets has no negative impact on the game. But they do have a potentially negative impact on the game. Everything you sell dilutes the value of gameplay. If you can just buy it rather than play to earn it, a lot of people will do just that. And then they have a competitive advantage over the people who don't. And if that competitive advantage becomes large enough, the people who don't want to spend, or even those that just want to spend less, will start to decide your game is not worth playing.
Ideally, you would want *everything* to only come from game play, so you encourage people to play the game. But if everything was free, you couldn't make money and the game would fold. You need to sell things to make money, but ideally you want to sell as few things as possible while making as much money as possible.
So if you can sell one thing for fifty bucks or six things for ten bucks, selling one thing for fifty bucks can be a lot better for the game as a whole. Now, this might make those five people mad. But it could also make them happy. Each of those five people looks around and they see four peers who are all in the same boat and one whale. Most of the people in the game look like them, and the rare whale can be ignored. And they see that if they play the game, their peers are unlikely to be able to just drop a couple bucks and gain an advantage over them. Because it takes fifty bucks to gain that advantage, and none of them are willing to spend it. They can all tell themselves that if they play for free and don't spend, *mostly* it is fine, compared to *most* of the people around them.
That's why offers might seem overpriced. They are, to you, because they probably aren't targeted at you. They are targeted at the players willing to spend the most on those things. Offers are like invisible auctions. The players are bidding on those items, and the offers are testing the waters to see how many people are willing to pay that much. If not enough people are, the price comes down. If too many people are, the price goes up (although in practice the price almost never goes up).
Another way to look at this is, if they price things to get your ten bucks, then they are leaving forty bucks on the table from the guy willing to spend fifty, and now only has to spend ten. You are shifting revenue away from the people with presumably a lot of money to spend, and towards the players with less money to spend. Would you rather have rich people spending a lot and poor people playing for free, or rich people and poor people all spending similar amounts of money in the game, because the offers are all designed to be "in reach" of all of them?
There are other concerns, balance concerns, progress concerns, marketing concerns, but this is actually the *primary* driver of how offers are valued. Everything is supposed to look overpriced to some people and underpriced to other people, and generally speaking the offers tend to skew upward to minimize the amount of stuff that floods into the game from spending, and to shift spending towards the people willing to spend the most.
More People having 6* OG Vision does absolutely nothing to imbalance the game. And when the vast majority of people all say the same thing its pretty easy to draw a conclusion of the value based on that. And when you say they arent targeted at me i have a huge 6* roster and i spend A LOT on the game. Im exactly who this offer is targeted for because he is an exclusive champ. And at the current moment its bad value. Especially considering a few weeks ago it was announced that we could get a 6* Scarlet Witch Sigil for around $50-$60. Sometimes instead of over analysing things just call it for what it is. And the majority of people know its bad value.
Comments
No way I’d do this deal.
Personally, I would like a 5* OGV for nothing more than nostalgia and synergies. But bundling him with the 6* offer feels like a wildly off-base value proposition.
Dr. Zola
Regarding this Vision offer, I agree with other players:
- I am interested in the 6* version, but not the 5* (that I already have duped)
- Why a player would need the 5* when he gets the 6*?
- 6k units for the 6* is too expensive for a champion that is not that good (the random power increase...). Moreover, 19,5k units to get it as 6r2 and awakened 20...
The bigger problem is that most offers are targeted in a way that I think is obvious, but I've come to discover most people don't think this is obvious. Suppose you have a widget to sell. Five people are willing to pay ten bucks for it, but one guy is willing to pay fifty bucks for it. So you sell it to that guy. That makes sense: you want to sell it to whomever offers you the most for it. But now five guys are mad because not only did they not get the widget, they feel like they've been completely priced out of ever having widgets.
So why not just make more widgets? Well, you can't sell one of them for fifty bucks and then sell five more for ten bucks. The guy who spend fifty will never buy anything from you again. You have to sell all six for ten bucks.
But hey, this is a video game, widgets cost nothing. I mean, it might cost development time to make the first widget, but certainly the next five cost nothing to copy. So why not sell six for ten bucks a piece and make sixty bucks rather than sell one and make fifty bucks? Isn't sixty better than fifty?
It is, if you assume selling those widgets has no negative impact on the game. But they do have a potentially negative impact on the game. Everything you sell dilutes the value of gameplay. If you can just buy it rather than play to earn it, a lot of people will do just that. And then they have a competitive advantage over the people who don't. And if that competitive advantage becomes large enough, the people who don't want to spend, or even those that just want to spend less, will start to decide your game is not worth playing.
Ideally, you would want *everything* to only come from game play, so you encourage people to play the game. But if everything was free, you couldn't make money and the game would fold. You need to sell things to make money, but ideally you want to sell as few things as possible while making as much money as possible.
So if you can sell one thing for fifty bucks or six things for ten bucks, selling one thing for fifty bucks can be a lot better for the game as a whole. Now, this might make those five people mad. But it could also make them happy. Each of those five people looks around and they see four peers who are all in the same boat and one whale. Most of the people in the game look like them, and the rare whale can be ignored. And they see that if they play the game, their peers are unlikely to be able to just drop a couple bucks and gain an advantage over them. Because it takes fifty bucks to gain that advantage, and none of them are willing to spend it. They can all tell themselves that if they play for free and don't spend, *mostly* it is fine, compared to *most* of the people around them.
That's why offers might seem overpriced. They are, to you, because they probably aren't targeted at you. They are targeted at the players willing to spend the most on those things. Offers are like invisible auctions. The players are bidding on those items, and the offers are testing the waters to see how many people are willing to pay that much. If not enough people are, the price comes down. If too many people are, the price goes up (although in practice the price almost never goes up).
Another way to look at this is, if they price things to get your ten bucks, then they are leaving forty bucks on the table from the guy willing to spend fifty, and now only has to spend ten. You are shifting revenue away from the people with presumably a lot of money to spend, and towards the players with less money to spend. Would you rather have rich people spending a lot and poor people playing for free, or rich people and poor people all spending similar amounts of money in the game, because the offers are all designed to be "in reach" of all of them?
There are other concerns, balance concerns, progress concerns, marketing concerns, but this is actually the *primary* driver of how offers are valued. Everything is supposed to look overpriced to some people and underpriced to other people, and generally speaking the offers tend to skew upward to minimize the amount of stuff that floods into the game from spending, and to shift spending towards the people willing to spend the most.
(I still wouldn’t buy it—rather spend on other things in game).
Dr. Zola
The 5-Star version was key to my IG progression and I was really glad to get him then.