Jim Perry:

Doubtful an exception will be made as it would have to be made for everyone.

email them - these forums are not the right way to reach the team on such things. (Jenkmeister posted below - don't email them) I doubt they will grant any exceptions though so report back here what you hear.

TOgburn:

@ZMan: You beat me to marking that as the answer.  Give other people a chance to try out some of the new forum functions. ;)

Jenkmeister:

There will be no exceptions to the rule. We understand you may have some frustration that there is a new price point that you want to change too, but there are reasons for only one price change every 90 days (pay out calculations being a big part of this).

Jenkmeister:

Actually - I marked my post as the answer ;-)

PitchMobile:

Jim Perry:

The rule is, you can only change the price every 90 days. By renaming the game and resubmitting just to get around this you're gaming the system. End of story.

Hmm. There seems to be some disparity between which actions are considered "gaming the system" and which are "legitimate workarounds". I recently watched a discussion wherein a user had reached his 8-game limit, and had worked around the problem by purchasing another account. Without any discussion of why the 8-game limit rule was even in place, the opinion of the moderators was that this was a legitimate workaround to the limitation. To my mind, that indicates there's most likely a technical issue involved, and not a fairness issue or other kind of concern.

When asked if there would be an exception to the price-change rule, Jenkmeister responded with the following (emphasis mine):

Jenkmeister:

There will be no exceptions to the rule. We understand you may have some frustration that there is a new price point that you want to change too, but there are reasons for only one price change every 90 days (pay out calculations being a big part of this).

So there's a technical issue at play here. Why is getting around a technical issue legitimate in one case, but not in another?

My concern is that there's a fairness issue in not allowing an immediate price change for those who fall within the 90-day period before the structure change. Like it or not, titles on the service compete against each other for sales, and given titles of similar depth and quality the ones at a lower price point will most likely 'win' that competition. So now you have a situation where there are games of a similar quality that were at the same price point before the structure change, but since the change some have been able to lower their prices to be inline with the new structure, but some have not. Those without that opportunity are at a huge competitive disadvantage for whatever time they have to wait for their 90 days to be up. If the reasons for prohibiting the exception to the rule are mostly technical in nature, why is there so much derision for those who choose to give up a game slot to compensate for the competitive disadvantage?

Pheel:

It's not a technical issue

PitchMobile:

If that's the case, I feel I'm missing something big and obvious. Would you mind elaborating? I'd really like to understand the issues here.

Pheel:

I'm not going to justify why the price can only change every 90 days. It's a policy decision and we're not going to make exceptions