Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
I'm coming from a developer standpoint and you're coming from a consumer standpoint.
|
I'm coming at it from an economics standpoint. My point is that "what is needed to recoup cost" is irrelevant to pricing. The money is spent and it's not coming back. The only goal is to maximize revenue, whether you lose money or make money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
The videogame market doesn't fluctuate that much based on price. It's quality driven. Put out a top game, it'll sell.
|
This is a point I can actually get behind. You contend that the market for triple A games is not very price sensitive. I contend that, beyond the super hardcore fans of a franchise/developer, that it might be a lot more price sensitive than these companies think. Since neither of us have strong evidence to back up our opinions, I think it's fine to disagree here.
We'll see in the future if the market will bear the price hike after getting used to paying $60 for a game. My anecdotal evidence from myself and people I know says that they're going to be losing significant sales, but obviously I wouldn't be confident in coming to any firm conclusions based on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
They have years of experiential knowledge of the impact an $80 price point has.
|
This is true. My feeling, however, is that their past sales data might be leading them astray. I think the market has changed, Canadians won't buy $80 games at anywhere near the volume the developers think they will, and they'll see that soon in lower than expected revenue. Again, I might be totally wrong.