By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
setsunatenshi said:
Ka-pi96 said:

It isn't. Jacking up the price for other people however is anti-consumer! If they can afford a low price for some people then they can afford it for all people!

game prices are stagnant since the 90's

no one is "jacking up the price" for "other people". if we are lucky enough to live in wealthy countries, then we already won the life lottery. if someone lives in a country with the average salary of $500 a month, then I don't see how having lower prices on software could hurt the industry in such places. 100 sales at $20 each (especially digitally) is better than 10 sales at $60 each.

it's just maths and maximizing profits taking into account basic economic rules for emerging markets

Sorry but unless you have the full demonstrative of sales, profits, costs, etc then you can't just absolutelly say 100@20 is better than 10@60. If that was the case (that you would even get to sell 10x more by having price at 1/3) then why doesn't any company release the AAA at those prices? Perhaps they saw that they wouldn't have much more profit for lower prices?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."