BuzzerBeater Forums

BB England > Helping BB-England Grow

Helping BB-England Grow

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
30702.2 in reply to 30702.1
Date: 6/5/2008 5:01:20 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
387387
Hi,

I've been playing BB for a while and I am thinking about upgrading to supporter. Having clicked on the link and checked the prices, it's overpriced by $10 a year.
Compare your annual subscriptions to games like battrick and maxithlon - then tell me $40 is market price in the UK - it isn't.

I suggest you charge country-specific rates (based on IP, not country chosen, obviously).

When I can play for £15 a year, or about that, I'll sign up :-)

Last edited by Elmacca at 6/5/2008 5:02:43 PM

This Post:
00
30702.3 in reply to 30702.2
Date: 6/6/2008 3:26:04 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
00
I guess it depends on people... 10$ is 5£ these days, or 2 pints or 1/2 a decent cocktail in London...

I'm probably older than the average BB player (got a job and all) so perhaps the target audience cares. Personally the 10$ make no difference to me... The quality of the game does!

//elboss

From: Elmacca

This Post:
11
30702.4 in reply to 30702.3
Date: 6/10/2008 5:37:43 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
387387
Well, enjoy paying £4.50 for a magners in the city, I'll settle for paying £3.25 in the suburbs.

My point is not that $39.99 is expensive, although it might be in some countries like Slovakia, but that it is a premium to the going rate for online sports sims.

BB is a good game - but it's not better than Battrick, for instance, in my opinion and I am not prepared to pay over the odds for it.

This Post:
00
30702.6 in reply to 30702.5
Date: 6/18/2008 3:33:47 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
387387
For what it is worth, I've certainly been impressed with the current raft of improvements and if they continue to come online, may revise my position about the fee being value in relation to other games' membership packages.

This Post:
00
30702.8 in reply to 30702.7
Date: 6/19/2008 1:50:09 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
387387
I don't imagine this is new, but I would argue that teams who TIE at home and lose should suffer a quite strong adverse fan reaction - both in merchandising and ticket sales. If they win on TIE, fair enough, no harm done, but home teams have a duty to their fans to entertain - and win!
The adverse effect could be partially offset by high level PR staff members. I would suggest the full effect lasts three subsequent home games then is reduced by a third for each of three more home games.
If a team loses at home three times in a season while TIE, the adverse effect should last for the rest of the season and it should hit next season's season ticket sales (with high level PRs again having a mitigating effect).

From: Asasasa

This Post:
00
30702.9 in reply to 30702.8
Date: 6/19/2008 11:45:36 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
22
That would be very cruel to newcomers, who hope just to avoid relegation and TIE the best teams in the league. If this was put in place, they would suffer a lot financially.

From: Elmacca

This Post:
00
30702.10 in reply to 30702.9
Date: 6/20/2008 4:17:08 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
387387
I disagree. Given the number of bots at the lower levels, you are talking about one, maybe two games where TIE at home isn't an option for a new team. I think the pros far outweigh the cons there.

This Post:
00
30702.11 in reply to 30702.10
Date: 6/20/2008 4:23:16 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
304304
It's not going to happen.

NO ONE at this table ordered a rum & Coke
Charles: Penn has some good people
A CT? Really?
Any two will do
Any three for me
Any four will score
Any five are live