Porn games, Sex chat

I don't know how much time it takes to make a new pose, transform  an fm pose to fs/ms/ff, or how long it takes to create clothing. But with all the suggestions made that I know of, they would be occupied for a pretty long time, just executing our wishes.

My point my friend is that from observing their release schedule our wishes are a secondary concern. The dresses are a perfect example. We've been asking for them to be more reasonably priced, or to at least to be able to not have to shell out around A$100 for each color, but I'm guessing that enough people are willing to that it is profitable for them to keep churning out those variations on a theme rather then worry about our ideas.

Which is in my eyes indeed short term thinking. Rather then binding a broader audience to them,they go for the quick gold. But I guess a bit of a philosofy other then "let's make money" is too much to ask for from a commercial company. But there is also an old economic law that says: high demand,  low stock means high prices. Would you be willing to pay more if that would mean more ff pose releases? Maybe this should be a poll...

@ Janine

I'm sorry my dear friend,

I wrote "I would like to believe..." ending with the sad emoticon. This should be a hint I don't believe it, it's more ironic.
But it brought some new drive into the discussion

@ tighfit: Do not dare to make a poll with this question

What are our wishes? More cheaper dresses (or keep the price, but get all colours... you understand), more poses for everyone (starting with FF), more for- and afterplay for us and (sometimes) more actions for the positions. Agree?

What do they want? Make money (a natural goal for each company! No problem to accept this).
Their way (as it seems to me): Create positions for the majority and dresses for the majority, too. Decide to make them expensive (a question of philosophy). Check out what happens and react. Probably they sell enough positions and dresse and are satisfied.

In MY opinion (this is the point I absolutely agree with your statements): It's a dangerous philosophy. Listen more to the customer voices to have a long term success. But I also have to admit: We are a wonderful family in this forum, but not the majority of the members.
Enough for now, maybe this is another kick-off for our discussion...

No Lover, you're hitting that nail on the head. We are not the majority of AChat customers. If anything we are the minority if you consider our tales of the many sorry, cold inviting, poor to no describing masses.

I've said before I prefer to make the assumption the other person is not an idiot. I make that assumption of AChat, and I'm assuming they are catering to those masses I mentioned.

Much like the world, the stupid rule by sheer volume of numbers.

Unfortunately Janine, you are hitting the nail on the head. I bet the majority of the users have never even looked at the forum. I didn't until general chat disappeared. I noticed that there is a lot of activity from a lot of (but usually the same, no offense intended) people with great ideas and respect for eachother, the game and the developers.
But most of the ones out there want nothing more than a dress up and watch the action. Which is perfectly fine as well. And as you pointed out, the masses rule the game. Proofs it to be a community... wondering about how it's governed... 

@ tighfit: Do not dare to make a poll with this question

I don't mind helping, but not that much...  I'd boycot a poll if they put it up...

singularly no,..but add the bi' women open to such play, it is the second largest population here in AChat. That is why I have a hard time understanding the lack of development beyond the quick $A turnaround the dresses provide. They could increase female membership if they cater a bit more to that customer base. Not all are that entranced with the shemale  option...

Indeed the majority are silent,... but it does not reduce the substance we try to offer the developers...

But they may figure that between FM, FS, and new dresses they ARE catering to the Bi women.

If they do think that, they still have things to learn. In my view, but you will have experience in that Janine, FS is NOT the same as FF. I can imagine a bi-woman wants to have a girl without something dangling between her legs (no offense towards shemales ofcourse...)

Do you mean a homo woman instead of a bi-woman?

And to be more accurate, I don't believe it's because aof something between your legs. It's much more your whole personality, your mind. To be homo, bi or het set is not just a question of sexual attitude.

I am neither bi or homo and I don't want a dick in my mouth or ass, but that's not the reason for being hetero.

Janine suggested the A-team might think that making alot of fs poses, they serve the group of bisexual women. But my point is: I think a bi-woman likes to make love with a womanonce in a while  instead of a shemale. The A-team thinking being a bi-woman means liking sex with shemales only, would be a mistake.

Actually no Tight I was saying FM might be there way of catering to Bi women because Bi women do by definition have the capacity to enjoy sex with men. They ALSO enjoy sex with women, but the idea may be that at leas they are getting 50%.

Shemales and the resulting positions are a whole other area. For themselves and their partners to define.

Still, and I do understand what you mean now Janine, if they think they are catering bi women this way, they are still singleing out and excluding true FF poses and directing their attention to the 'het set'