having more heroe's is always good, as your going to turn most into command stat mules anyways. This idea of loss of revenue implies that regular people won't spend 20-50$ dollars on a hero. My argument has long been that directing sales towards average people will drive UP revenue not down, as 100$ heroe's are far outside of the conformable zone for most people. Is that true for everyone, dunno, I don't make claims beyond what I see, I know that average none whales won't buy a 100$ hero inless its absolutely necesary to leveling the playing field I.E. Jaques/Ellena/Rose/Gafgar. Otherwise your going to be hard pressed to convince anyone to buy a tiadrin/bane (as an example), who do very little for your lineup. I'm not averse to them keeping cost for "good" hero's up, but driving down cost on the lesser ones that have neglible value at the late game even when stacked with stats and gear.
I will however always argue for more "poor-man" hero packages, as the gulf of having all hero's vs the 10$ one and void hero's is an insurmountable hurdle for most people. Does lilith loose money if they drive down costs and see a 10-20% uptick in hero purchases? Its an interesting question, one they could simply test once to see if people would buy hero's at 20-30$. If they don't see allot of purchases, then they have their answer, if they do, it doesent take away from whales who will buy hero packages to gain an advantage, but their also making money off people who can't stomach a 100$ purchase in a mobile game.