Jump to content

Recommended Posts


Posted

I hadn't set a price. Dividing the required effort by zero didn't lead to a reasonable number.

Dividing by one still won't be cheap.

Posted
8 hours ago, rloew said:

I hadn't set a price. Dividing the required effort by zero didn't lead to a reasonable number.

Dividing by one still won't be cheap.

What about drawing  a ball from a BINGO sack? :dubbio:

jaclaz

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, i430VX said:

I would be interested as long as it's at a reasonable price. 

Well, you will need to provide a range for "reasonable", my previous suggestion would have led to a random price between 1 and 100, what is your reasonable range? (so that we can remove some numbered balls from the sack ;))

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
Posted
8 minutes ago, jaclaz said:

Well, you will need to provide a range for "reasonable", my previous suggestion would have led to a random price between 1 and 100, what is your reasonable range? (so that we can remove some numbered balls from the sack ;))

jaclaz

Seeing as for me this would just be a convenience, I would say $10-$20. but for some people it might be more significant and they would pay more.

Posted
7 hours ago, jaclaz said:

What about drawing  a ball from a BINGO sack? :dubbio:

jaclaz

That would give a random number between 1 and 75 with an average of 38.

I see the denominator is now two.

I will look into what is needed.

Posted (edited)

Another way would be to put the target price at (say) 50 US$ (please not the stupid 49.99) BUT play head/tails with a coin on each purchase.

On average you will get 25 bucks ...

This way there is the added vaue of the entertainment provided by the gambling ...

jaclaz 

Edited by jaclaz
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, jaclaz said:

Another way would be to put the target price at (say) 50 US$ (please not the stupid 49.99) BUT play head/tails with a coin on each purchase.

On average you will get 25 bucks ...

This way there is the added vaue of the entertainment provided by the gambling ...

jaclaz 

That would require everyone to send $50 and have a 50% chance of getting a refund (minus fees).

Who would be interested in doing that?

Edited by rloew
Posted
20 hours ago, rloew said:

That would require everyone to send $50 and have a 50% chance of getting a refund (minus fees).

Who would be interested in doing that?

You could put it differently, making it a bundle-gamble choice :w00t:.

The user is asked 50 US$ for the LBA48 fix, with the possibility to flip the (virtual) coin and have - if he/she wins - a license for another of your programs/tools included without additional expense.

jaclaz

Posted

True. But I don't have any product at that price point. Store credit would be simpler.

I don't see any gamblers on this thread so I think I will stick with more conventional pricing strategies.

Posted
7 hours ago, rloew said:

True. But I don't have any product at that price point. Store credit would be simpler.

Yes, that would be fine.

7 hours ago, rloew said:

I don't see any gamblers on this thread so I think I will stick with more conventional pricing strategies.

Well, you will need some SEO and marketing :w00t: :ph34r: to make the thingy "visible", unfortunately the whole intended audience (presumably made of both gamblers and non gamblers) is not very large, basically only people that want to install 2K on a bigger than 128 GB disk AND that for some reasons don't want to or cannot use the Registry edit AND that read this thread on MSFN AND that are willing to pay a non-zero amount of dollars for the patch, 

Additionally please understand how statistically people actually willing to pay a non-zero amount of money are only a subset of those saying they will be willing to pay a non-zero amount of money :whistle:.

jaclaz

Posted

I was able to assemble a Package so I am considering putting it on my Website.

I have decided on $20 US + $1 (S&H).

Now I will find out how big that subset is.

Sorry, no gamblers.

Posted
17 minutes ago, rloew said:

Sorry, no gamblers.

Hmmm, too bad for them :(, however I bet  ;) they weren't that many anyway.

jaclaz

Posted
On 9/9/2018 at 6:59 AM, jaclaz said:

Additionally please understand how statistically people actually willing to pay a non-zero amount of money are only a subset of those saying they will be willing to pay a non-zero amount of money :whistle:.

You are probably right about the subset being smaller.

So far, I haven't heard from the two who were interested.

0 < 2.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...