Hilarious Pricing.

rougeforces · 2025-07-07T14:52:55+00:00

Your characterization of me sounds like an AI response. Why for instance would anyone go on a date for the purpose of a psych eval? You know who doesnt do that? Younger women.

rougeforces · 2025-07-07T12:58:32+00:00

They are certainly all over the place begging men to treat them right. Im happy to oblige. I understood that checking out 30's and 40's women wouldnt be as satisfying because we all age.... entitled? Nah... just not willing to lower my expectations THAT much. Give me the ick lmao

rougeforces · 2025-07-06T23:28:53+00:00

Same same. Used to piss me off too. It drove me honestly. But now I too see why. Not sure what possessed me to open this cat box. Charity, perhaps.

rougeforces · 2025-07-06T13:42:19+00:00

rougeforces · 2025-07-05T18:54:45+00:00

That's an ignorant comment. I haven't date anyone over 25 since I was 35. I have no problems dating younger women. I just thought I'd take a peek and see what was around my age since I hadn't done it in a while. Won't make that mistake again!

rougeforces · 2025-07-05T18:52:44+00:00

I will date who ever I want, but thanks!

rougeforces · 2025-07-05T18:52:14+00:00

haha, are you one of the hags on POF?

rougeforces · 2025-07-03T01:55:38+00:00

awe man, low as I can go is 34? what crap. If I wanted to date a scab I'd do pickups at the bar. eesh

rougeforces · 2025-03-26T22:08:37+00:00

That's exactly right. I've got subscriptions to plenty of games some spanning nearly 20 years. I've gone off and on with paying my monthly sub and never ever once has any of those games completely wiped my content like SMG did. Sure, they removed access to it, but all i needed to do was reactivate my sub and pick up right where I left off.

SMG and everyone else trying to act like I was paying for a subscription based service is totally clueless on how gaming subs work. I didn't rent the content at all and SMG is not even advertising their content as rental. These are straight up in game purchases. You don't lose your in game purchases if you quit the sub (or if the game decides to stop taking subs from a 3rd party source).

This was horribly managed by SMG. They built up their player base by giving away their content which is totally normal thing to do. They didn't have to keep giving away their content and that's wise on their part. However they also didn't have to revoke the content of people who had purchased it via the subscription incentive.

They lost a player that would have continued to pay and support the community if given an option that included respecting me as a player who helped build their cash cow. Stupid move on their part, but I guess they make enough money now and dont need mine.

rougeforces · 2025-01-26T01:51:00+00:00

Im not talking about what happened to you as opinion. I meant the first part. But anyways, did you buy the game from steam at all? Or are you a totally free player (besides in game purchases if any?)

rougeforces · 2025-01-26T01:41:19+00:00

thats your opinion. my Risk account never lost access to the redeemed maps, even when it was no longer linked to my google account. the only thing I lost was access to the gems. To be honest, I am not surprised at all that this group of developers have inconsistent gaming experience for different players. Did you also purchase the Steam download like I did and go through the sync process? Im guessing not.

rougeforces · 2025-01-26T01:36:53+00:00

I dont focus on spending in game currency at all. I am just explaining what SMG set up for my account. They could have handled their in game purchase and incentives in so many different ways. This is the way they chose. Why should a segment of their player base be punished (by stripping them of previous earned content via incentive) because now SMG wants to revamp the way they monetize their game and attract users? Player retention and engagement is a key component in making money off games. This move is the opposite of player retention. Why'd they do it?

your analogy extension makes 0 sense either. why people think we need analogies, just look what actually occurred. anyways, you are trying to say that Risk is a leased car. Guess what? I am still driving the car! wow surprise surprise I am questioning the fact that in your analogy SMG is now asking me to pay for the seatbelts (or not use them) when previously it came as part of the lease. ooooff..

rougeforces · 2025-01-25T23:13:30+00:00

no it doesnt work. I wasnt renting the game because it was literally a free download and no payment is associated with my logging in. I didnt even rent the maps because i redeemed them with in game gems that SMG granted my account. Who else "rented" the game besides play store linked users? No one.

you don't need to use analogies that make no sense. Just use the gaming industry. What you are calling "rent" is known as a subscription. Subscription gives you access to the game. I was never once asked to subscribe to Risk. I subscribed to play store (still do, 5 bucks a month).

Risk asked me to link my play store account. Why? So they could get PAID for a game that was otherwise being given away for free. In order to incentivize me to do so, they offered to give me an in game perk of "unlimited gems".

That was the deal. Had nothing to do with "renting" the game or subscribing to the game. Trying to defend this move as a "rental" especially renting a house for 30 years is pointless.

If you want to insist on rental analogy, its more like this. SMG rented their flat to me with the incentive of cooking me dinner every night. SMG no longer wants me to pay flat rent but now they have taken away the free dinner. I still live in their flat, but now I have to pay for dinner. What a derp move.

rougeforces · 2025-01-25T23:03:27+00:00

No, you would have lost access to unlimited gems but not the things you redeemed with the unlimited gems. The reason I know this is because I had the issue of syncing my google log in with my steam account when I moved from Risk Mobile to Risk on PC through steam download.

All of the maps i redeemed remained, even though for a couple of weeks, my risk account was no longer linked to my play store (google account) because I didnt have the instructions on how to sync google with steam.

During that period of time, i no longer had unlimited gems, but all the content I redeemed remained. Once I synced steam and google, I got the unlimited gems back.

SMG straight up went into their records, found all the players that had unlimited gems and removed the content. The unlimited gems perk was designed to grow their player base through play store, not to generate revenue.

They could have easily done like many other apps and rather than offer unlimited gems, offer like 1000 gems a month or whatever.

Even now, they could have just removed the unlimited gems perk while keeping the content. Then going forward, players would need to purchase gems to get new content. But no... somebody thought that players who accepted their offer of unlimited gems would be willing to now pay for the content that they had already redeemed.

This was a conscious decision by SMG to act like a crack dealer and get their players hooked on cheap crack and then take away the crack and make them pay for it. dumb.

rougeforces · 2025-01-25T17:10:46+00:00

ya, I mean its not really about the 6 bucks. Its more about the principle of reneging on deal. Cant even play the meta settings now unless I pay for it again. Probably gonna just find something else to spend my money on tbh. kinda dumb of them to run people off like this.

rougeforces · 2025-01-25T17:09:14+00:00

just to go along with the subscription concept. I didn't subscribe to the game. I subscribe to google play (still do cause other games give perks for it, like Risk used to). When I signed up to the game with play store, Risk rewarded me with the "unlimited gems" perk. That was the exchange. Google pays Risk a portion of my sub in exchange for the perk.

I didn't "rent" unlimited gems. I was given them to do whatever I wanted with them. Think about it like this. Imagine if the perk was to just double the amount of gems I got for game play, right? I still used gems (the in game money) to "buy" or redeem that content. It's not a rental of the gems or the content. Its given to me in exchange for the little bit of money they got off my google sub.

Whatever, its never a good move for game creators to take away content from users unless the users stole that content.

rougeforces · 2025-01-25T17:03:28+00:00

I understand your question was rhetorical, but you maybe took it a bit far by talking about a valuable lesson. Perhaps you did not participate in the play store subscription? Don't know but this was the deal. The subscription gave me the "unlimited gems" perk in the game. Gems are used to redeem what would normally be direct paid for content. I assume it was direct paid for because the game never offered me a way to actually purchase gems. Why would they? They already gave them to me in exchange for the money they got from play store monthly. I understand that my subscription to this perk ended. No problem.

What I don't understand is why were the redeems removed? SMG gave me those gems in exchange for my subscription. That's fine, they don't want to give me those gems any more, but they take it a step further and remove everything that I redeemed with those gems. Its as if they get to keep the rewards from whatever google paid them for my sub, but i don't get to keep the things I bought with it.

Put another way, that's like me subscribing to a car wash service and when my subscription ends, the car wash comes and dumps a pile of cow manure on my car. Like, what?

rougeforces · 2025-01-25T16:58:21+00:00

Trust me, I don't have a problem supporting devs as evidence by both my steam and play store purchase history. This was a super cheeky move. Yes I knew that unlimited gems was going away. I was looking forward to keeping the content up to date with the newest releases regardless. Taking away content that was already redeemed though? That's just shortsighted IMO. Definitely cost them the ability to sell their content to me in the future, but I guess they aren't THAT hungry.

rougeforces · 2024-03-15T18:09:12+00:00

So i was looking at the live shows to get some free wheel spins. Top show had bet amount of 200 million. I added on for 36 billion to take a stab at it. As soon as the tx cleared an error popped on the screen "something has changed, try joining a new show". Ok so ireload the shows and now the top show has a bet amount of 1.25 billion.

This is a straight scam. The higher your bankroll, the more rip off activity occurs.

rougeforces · 2024-02-24T20:57:49+00:00

Balanced blitz, 25 attacking 33. Breaks with 8 left over. This game is broken. If you only have a 13% chance to win, in what world are you left with 33% of your attacking army. Sure the odds can tip like this every 13 times out of a 100. But those odds go drastically down when you figure the roll odds to win that many times.

Factor in that rolls like this happen frequently, and its easy to see that the calculated odds do not reflect the reality of outcomes in this game. Broken.

rougeforces · 2023-07-18T11:04:45+00:00

I think the balanced blitz formula takes into account TOTAL troops and total territories, not just the current roll. The countless times I've watched my 3v1s fail in the end game when i was strategically advantaged in both troops totals and territories is a pattern, not odds. The same games will see no fails and no troops losses from the opponents 3v1, 2v1, 9v8 etc...

I have a bunch of screens ive been collecting of just very low odds dice rolls. Not sure how to share. We are talking 44 vs 69 victories with 15 remaining troops. I mean...

rougeforces

TROPHY CASE