What do You think about this?
See, this is how things are supposed to work, but will it actually go down like that? Nah, it'll somehow just get worse and they'll find a way to blame it on the consumer.
Comment has been collapsed.
F
Oh well, and when I was considering to subscribe for a month. Thanks for saved money again, IGN.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Welp, if they make this change I'll probably cancel my subscription. The 10$ one wouldn't be worth it and the 20$ one would be too expensive for me (heck, I'm even considering canceling this 12$ sub).
Comment has been collapsed.
I only buy the monthly when the early unlock is something that I feel is worth $12 on its own. If they made this change, I'd just change that threshold to $10, and never get the $20 tier.
Comment has been collapsed.
I kind of like the idea of being able to select which games you want from a larger list.
Comment has been collapsed.
Me too. This seems to be an unpopular opinion cause people are being skeptical as usual.
I'm subscribed to the monthly for the surprise indie games, I haven't once activated an early reveal. If they made this change I would probably get the premium plan.
Comment has been collapsed.
You'd still be gambling on 4 games out of 10 (since they're still "hidden" games), so your overall rate of desirable games wouldn't change all that much, and your amount of total games wouldn't increase (in fact, 4 is a reduction of the current bonus games), yet you'd be paying double. It's definitely a downgrade of the current subscription arrangement, meant to offer a slight increase in user choice as an excuse to heavily ramp up pricing.
Anything related to quality changes is pure conjecture (not to mention subjective in nature), and no different than the uncertainty we have for future months under the current subscription plan, so we can't factor that into our evaluations.
There are actually alternative considerations linked in the later images, however, so it's not as though they aren't considering other arrangements.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would hate to choose 4 games out of 10 good games that I don't have, and what if 5-6 are on my wishlist? I think it's a terrible option for GBA/hoarders.
Besides, look closer: now you have 6-7 games for $12, would you really prefer to have 6-7 games for $20 just because you get to choose 4 of them out of a pool of 10? For me it makes no financial sense. even if I get a dupe, I can always trade it or save it for someone's birthday, the alternative definitely isn't worth $8 for me.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't mind if the unlocks where choosable, same amount as now, same price.
But that's probably not going to happen :/
Comment has been collapsed.
If the price goes up for what I get right now, I'll just quit as soon as my year of sub ends.
Comment has been collapsed.
sooo.... right now I am getting 6-8 games for 12$/month and I am supposed to be getting either 3-5 games for 10$ or 5-7 for 20$. So I either pay 2$ (16%) less and get 40% less games, or I pay 8$ (66%) more to get the same number of games I am getting right now? Am I the only one missing point beside 'we want to make more money with less effort'?
Comment has been collapsed.
sorry, just noticed your comment, but even if we get 3 early unlocks (also worth consideration that they can count a DLC as separate unlock), so 'best case scenario' it means we would be getting up to 5 games for 10$ (so 40% drop for 16% price drop) or we get 7 games for 20$ (same amount of games we get now for 66% price rise). Only thing that seems now in this whole survey is ability to pick your hidden games (4 out of 10), but imho it's hell not worth 66% price rise. So anyway no matter what we get worse offer per dollar (unless they really improve quality and value of separate games, but I doubt it as nowhere in survey do they ask what kind of games people want, so it's easy to assume quality/value of games would remain the same).
Comment has been collapsed.
prob. it's harder to get good games for same money.
Comment has been collapsed.
Humble was able to manage it - a company that we all here knew, but that in the larger scope was not that big. Most of gamers never heard of Humble. And now they want us to believe, that IGN, probably the biggest moloch in gaming media, company having deals with countless studios suddenly cannot find good games cause it's too hard? Not going to believe it. Seems much more like attempt at profit optimization.
Comment has been collapsed.
Seems we ended up with same conclusions, sorry but I didn't notice topic you linked, recently had less and less time for SG, so I jump into forums just once or twice a day, this topic was prolly higher than the one linked ;p But hey, at least I brought something more to discussion, as it seems noone else pointed out how ridicullous the new system is compared to previous one monetary based considering actual % of price changes ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
I wasn't saying anything but that I agreed, it does look like profit optimization.
Comment has been collapsed.
pretty much yes, horrendous one at top of that, usually when yyou are thinking of profit optimization tyou're thinking about few, up to X-teen percent, here we are looking at 66% increase at the cost of nothing (choosing 4 out of 10 is no loss for them especially as they are the ones moderating the 10, they may simply choose the 10 in the way that makes them sure no matter what combo you choose they will be earning the same, doubt there would be a case of 2-3 AAA games to choose from everyone would jump to and 7 cheaper titles).
Comment has been collapsed.
Like I said in the other thread, I dislike hopping onto a "hate-wagon" of any sort over this sort of thing, but after finishing the survey, it was hard to see it as anything but "hey, we want to know how much we can get away with."
I'd be inclined to be more lenient on my judgement if they'd perhaps emphasized more the quality of what we'd be getting for that higher price, but there was no indication of any quality increase (if there was, I'm sure someone will correct me), just "what's the most you will pay for this many games? Okay, how about this many? This many?"
Not being the only one who sees it this way now pushes me into the category "expect the worst, but hope for the best," but I won't be holding my breath.
EDIT: I feel an edit is necessary - I think it'll probably still be a great deal regardless, and I'd have no problem paying a little more for the Monthly, but the way they're going about it rubs me the wrong way.
Comment has been collapsed.
@EDIT: I am not as optimistic. I believe it will still be a good deal, they surely will want to keep it better than competition, so i's going to be better than everything (or almost everything) you can get from Fanatic, GMG, other bunde-sites and keystores. But it's probably not going to be as good as it used to be. Because why wasting potential profits on something that is way better than competition while you can get away from being just a bit better than competition. After all you're still at the top, while you lower your expenses neccessary to be there.
Off topic, just thought of one major thingy - what about people who purchased all the 1 year promos they were hyping last year with all bonus credit etc. They were selling 1 year subscriptions based on old rules - 5-6+ games, 120$ value, no choose-what-you-want, none of other schemes they are now surveying.If they would now change how monthly works it would be against what they promised when people subscribed. And you can still subscribe for a year, so they should not be able to change the rules along the way so long as there still at least one subscriber who purchased product they were advertising at the time.
Comment has been collapsed.
(your edit) Yep, that's why I got out of the business world. Everything's about the bottom line and the dollars. I expect nothing less from most companies, so I'm rarely disappointed.
That whole subscription thing is another can of worms entirely. I have no idea how they're going to sort that out, nor was it even alluded to in the survey. That's a bit concerning, but again, I'll wait and see what comes out the other end. I haven't seen anything other than the survey (and I've been looking a bit here and there), so it's hard to say exactly where this is going. I tend to agree with you, though - it's not looking terribly bright.
At any rate, the monthlies all end up in the weeklies anyway, right? (damn that cursed optimism lmao) ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Ahhh the 20$ tier, the good ol' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoy_effect
Yep, it's just a decoy to drag away the attention from the "nerf" of the "standard" monthly
Comment has been collapsed.
first time I hear aboput it (thou I never worked in marketing, pricing or anything like that ;p so understandable),m but intresting read and seems to fit perfectly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice thanks and I have E business master degree ... should be ashamed :( !
Comment has been collapsed.
Seems like most of those options are going to hit consumers a bit harder in the wallet and maybe not offer the kinds of changes that would justify those increases (or decreases.) To be fair, I cant honestly come up with a change to the system that wouldnt create problems for either the consumer, the developers, Humble, or the people who catalogue what items appear in the bundles.
When you have weekly bundles that sometimes rival the Monthly bundle by targeting certain interest groups, and give you better control of how you're spending your funds its tricky to justify the Monthly bundle gamble at the cost of ~2 non-gamble weekly bundles of your choice. Unless you just like being surprised once a month and not having to make choices. In which case its the perfect bundle for those people, as long as they have varied interests and are not filling up their playlist with other bundles in between.
And of course increasing the price of the bundle for non-subscribers and allowing them to buy it after it dropped would encourage people not to subscribe and just take the wait-and-see approach. So thats probably not the way that Humble wants to go either since they ultimately want to lock as many people in as possible. Would be great for the consumer though if they missed a bundle they really wanted, but might cut into subscriptions pretty heavily. Honestly though I'm neither a fan of subscriptions nor gambles.
Giving the subscriber:
-
Choices from a list would be nice, but would create cataloguing problems, inconsistency in overall bundle quality, and decreased Dev revenue for unselected titles. Choice is great but the additional research, redemption deadlines, and choice paralysis might cause additional headaches for many, though some would benefit by the selection opportunity too.
-
Credit for unwanted games would take 3-5 months (or 8-12 games) to get enough to trade in for a single ~$15 title you wanted and would lead to people less frequently trying new games that they were unsure about and just dumping them for instant credit instead. Would also reduce gifting and trading which could be good or bad depending on where you stand.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are ways to improve the system, without screwing anyone, but it seems main goal here is to boost income heavilly, and in this case customers are always gonna get screwed. As for examples - they could simply keep current system and introduce ability to choose bonus games for let's say 2$ - you get same amount of games, but you can choose games of your liking. or other proposition - get one bonus much newer game for 5-10$ extra, but as an option, something comparable to Tier 3 in usual bundles. All these things would keep current value around the same, yet would give them options to make extra profit. But it seems they are checking whether they can boost profit a lot while lowering the value. A lot of people are not good at analytics, and if enough of them check 'yes, bring it on!' it may be profitable to sell basically the same thing for 20$ to lower amount of people than it is to sell it for 12$ to less people.
Comment has been collapsed.
So basically the 10 would give us pretty much what we're getting right now, except less. And the 20 would just be a choice out of a list that might only include games already bundled 20 times or DLC? Oh yeah, great improvement. They should just close the damn thing and call it a day.
Comment has been collapsed.
same =/= less ;p 10 would give us 40% less than what we're getting now for only 16% smaller price, 20 would be giving us exactly the same what we're getting now (plus eventually ability to choose 4 hidden games from predefined pool), but we would be getting this choice ability at the cost of 66% price increase. So basically every choice there is is screwing customers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ain't that always the case? Heh. Whenever a brand is telling me they are "tailoring their service to my needs", I check my pockets for lost cash.
Comment has been collapsed.
And even for 20$ they will continue including in bundles games without DLC's and season pass. ┬─┬ ノ (º _ º ノ)
Comment has been collapsed.
I like the idea of being able to go back and get games from months you didn't subscribe for, that's something I've been wanting since Humble Monthly started.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm all for Option 5 "don't change anything". 12$, 1-3 unlocks, 7-8 games, Trove and 10% off the store.
Comment has been collapsed.
what about people like me who already bought 2 anual plan till 2020 cause the 20$ wallet deal .....
Comment has been collapsed.
I was thinking the same, I already bought an anual plan till 2019 and if I don't get a refund or get the "Premium" they want to do, I don't know what's going to happen, I'd probably start reporting them.
Comment has been collapsed.
This looks pretty bad.
This is an effort to gauge customer reaction to a decrease in service. These type of exploratory surveys are typically used in tandem with price increases.
The survey even looks like one of those corporate downsizing surveys, I truly doubt anything good will come of this... =/
Comment has been collapsed.
Not only do not they not accept gift cards/virtual card, now they do this! Sorry but I say good bye to humble monthly for good if this is true. I was already paying extra tax for Visa card since no paypal in my country and HB monthlies don't accept gift cards. Well played IGN :v
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe they increase the value of the monthly too? I mean its easy to say you get 1 game less for 2$ more or something like that. But if the other games are the same amount as the monthly before, you`ll lose nothing. Ok I dont think that they will do it this way, but its possible.
Comment has been collapsed.
Looking at the screenshots there is only one read to be made, they are going to raise prices or drop the quality of their merchandise or maybe both. It depends on what picture you look at. Gimme da coins boy! I want it all and i want it now! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFDcoX7s6rE
Comment has been collapsed.
Subbed from the second month and didn't get it either. Feel kinda neglected.
Comment has been collapsed.
Same here except for pausing for a single month, and regretting it.
I still have to think they sent surveys to all "types" of customers, including long-time subscribers.
But I've yet to see such a customer say, "I've been subbed since the beginning and got the survey!"
Comment has been collapsed.
So HB sent a survey to selected users. Take a peek
Basically this could mean that subscription would be divided into few options with different prices, Humble Trove and 10% discount only for premium, and ability to change hidden games into HB store funds. I'm actually worried about the changes, quality might go down, and prices go higher.
Also, I'm sorry if there was a thread about it already, let me know about it and I'll just delete this one, cause I didn't see or know.
Comment has been collapsed.