Akvod said:
I'm sad your microecon prosseor didn't fucking stress about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus There are TWO variable in the supply and demand graph. Quantity, and price. At first, I thought you were simply making the mistake of lumping all Final Fantasy games as one product, therefore saying that there's a huge quantity, and therefore, there needs to be a low price. Well, that mind set is totally retarded, but no, you're saying something even more ridiculous, in an extremely belittling and arrogant way.
"It's called a downward demand slope, it tends to happen when interest isn't there anymore."
NO Again, Ceteris paribus, "all other things being equal or held constant". The reason why the slope is downward sloping is a simple relationship, between two variables, x and y. It's the common sense and proven belief that if you have the SAME ONE product, and you raise the price, quantity sold will be lower. If you lower the price, the quantity sold will be higher. Simple, nothing involved with "interest" or freshness.
If you're trying to talk about deminishing marginal benefit (a common sense example will be that a scoop of ice cream will make you happy, but the tenth one won't be as enjoyable), then that brings me back to case one, which is that final fantasy, the series of individual products, is one product. But no, you have to focus on only one product at a time. All you can do, if you want to include factors OTHER than price and quantity, then is to SHIFT the demand curve. Which means that at every price, there is less quantity of products demanded. *sigh* I don't even know why you're brining up macroeconomics. The aggregate supply and demand curve has nothing to do with this. If you're going to talk about the recession affecting game sales, fine. But the reason why those two lines are downward and upward sloping are not even related the supply and demand of a SINGLE product.
I've only taken two principles course of economics, but I don't go acting smug and big like you. |
I see.
I'll mail you something but nice post, also were not talking about the same thing, in your 6th line you started into what I was talking about but then you seemed to go somewhere else.
As for my terminologies and the macroeconomic reference was to stop well...
"So, since you don't try to prove me wrong, and only try to be smart and spin it, I assume that you understand that sales for a sequel can be lower that the prequel, even if the prequel was a very good game."
Consumers decide what a good game is to a business it's all marketing if they talk about reviewers because they would want reviewers to be taken seriously by the consumer but in the end the dollar comes from the consumer.
I'm not saying ANY of the FF's were bad games just that if the OP's values are indicative of anything it's that each sequel wasn't as good as the last.
I brought up Macroeconomics because that is a fair starting point to grasp what matters at the end of the day and nothing else.
It's just weird you think my professor should "fucking" drill something into my head. Did I steal your babies candy for you to react so passionately?
Seems every response to my post is in tangent of what I'm saying. It's like I'm speaking Spanish an English Tea Party.
I've said it at least twice in this post, that this is about the goal of a business to make more consumers. Strictly yes it's best to make profits but people don't have unlimited money, you need more consumers while making profits that's the fundamentals right there.
Sorry for the late reply by the way, I was playing MHTri. GN~
I'm Unamerica and you can too.
The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread:
