No. Here's why: It will destroy the user base.
Imagine if every time you want to enter a game, you have to pay 100 points. That means you can have about 3 entries running at a time. This means there is less incentive to visit the site frequently, and less incentive to enter. Ultimately the impact would be less visits, less giving, and less ad views / clicks. The community may become tighter, but it would ultimately shrink (or stop growing).
YES! There will be fewer entrants per giveaway, but also more discouragement when you lose. Imagine if you have to bid 100 points for every $15 game. You "invest" a lot more of your points and lose more when you don't win. I know these are not "real" and you don't come away with anything less than you started, but the psychological effect is real. If you have to invest an entire day's or week's worth of points just to enter a giveaway with 200 other entrants, then you end up losing more when you lose. As it is now, points come so freely that it means nothing when you lose, but there's also a strong incentive to come back, participate and enter frequently.
Yes! not every giveaway will have inflated point scales (entry fees). But what is the incentive for making inflated fees higher anyways? To reduce the number of entrants? To see who really wants it? With so many giveaways now, there are already methods for doing each of those.
I just don't see the benefit or how it will actually help the site or community. The admins of course could experiment to see, but my prediction at least is that it would not be good.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well Written. I'm not sure if I agree with you (I think a capped allowable increase may address most of your concerns), but your points are valid, and it gives a lot to think about.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, capping it at 2x or 3x might reduce most of the problems (keep it from getting to 300 point entries for a $1 DLC), but then if you have caps, what's the point at all?
The idea of allowing multiple entries though, like Snookerman proposed below, is pretty interesting and would also circumvent most of the problems. I'm not saying it needs to happen, but I don't think it would have the same negative impacts that I stated above, and I certainly wouldn't oppose it.
But then again, I'm not sure it would change much, except giving the user the psychological satisfaction that they have some control over their ability to win, and letting them play the odds and adjust the risks.
Comment has been collapsed.
What if we were allowed multiple entries for the same giveaway? Maybe a maximum of 3 or 5. The entry points would be the same but you could increase your chances if you really want the game and have the points. Just like buying more than one lottery tickets.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's a pretty hot idea... but I can't imagine it hasn't come up before.
Comment has been collapsed.
Mmh are you the guy who is on playblink nr.1 winner?
Comment has been collapsed.
I partly agree. Emphasis on partly.
If the fee was higher, people might not enter it. Thus giving a higher chance to others.
But it could also be abused. See Bad Rats fee at 100.
Edit: Didn't see griefer proof part. Maybe after giving away a single game? It shouldn't be completely restricted.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is what I was thinking. No limit would not work I think. But a multiplier would do.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm curious, why do you think this would be abused? Either you have the points, or you don't. It might actually help with other giveaways as well, as people would be less inclined to enter every giveaway if they knew that a great game with a 300p entery could drop at any time.
But I'm not arguing, I'm genuinely interested in what your take on this is.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know if I'm slow, or your 4 words just didn't get the point across, but I asked how you thought it would get abused. I just don't see how, and I'd like to. There are already invite only and group giveaways, so making a "private" giveaway won't really do much.
Comment has been collapsed.
but he's only talking about points to enter, not points toward contribution totals or anything. Those same friends can just make a private group giveaway right now and do the exact same thing, only right now they'll have points left over for other games as well, outside of their little ring.
Am I wrong here?
Comment has been collapsed.
It's logic like that that almost prevented chocolate and peanut butter from coming together. Shame on you sir!
Comment has been collapsed.
The fact that people are constantly complaining does not mean anything should change - ppl should just complain less and think more before they post sh*t.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think more options are always good... Provided, of course, that it only changes the points required to enter, not the contribution level of the giver.
Comment has been collapsed.
How in the lord of all that is fuck did you manage to misspell the name of "Fortix"
Comment has been collapsed.
365 Comments - Last post 35 minutes ago by dailylhama
5 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Steamgifty
47,146 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by FranckCastle
19 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by juryman00
39 Comments - Last post 10 hours ago by Massulan
50 Comments - Last post 10 hours ago by wigglenose
27 Comments - Last post 12 hours ago by Foxhack
746 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by krol7
19 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by m0r1arty
2,522 Comments - Last post 34 minutes ago by lycankai
10 Comments - Last post 48 minutes ago by herbesdeprovence
61 Comments - Last post 52 minutes ago by SergeD
34 Comments - Last post 53 minutes ago by squall831
15 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by antidaz
So you know how people are constantly complaining that they have too many points and people enter too many giveaways? How about let the gifter choose how much his entry fee is. The minimum should still be the actual games worth.
So if John made a giveaway for Fortifix and set the point worth to 300P then only diehard fans would enter or none.
To make it griefer proof (if there is anything to grief..:) you could make it only available for people with enough contributions.
Comment has been collapsed.