setsunatenshi said:
@ bold: i never said that companies are to dumb, nor that those exact figures would be the correct ones for maximizing profits. I gave a clear example on a previous post of the same game being ALREADY sold upon release at different prices for different markets (Russian/Eastern europe price vs Western Europe). In some cases it's a 50% difference in price. So according to you, companies are too dumb to price their games the same in those markets as they do elsewhere.
1) there are plenty more who don't 2) BS, the bulk of pirates are in emerging markets (China, Brasil, etc). When I mention poorer countries, I don't mean dirt poor (as in not enough food to feed the family poor). |
There may be some cases of 50% disparity in prices sure, even more when the launch isn't aligned. Yet you were the one claiming that you are sure that selling for 20 would have more profit than selling for 60. So if the companies aren't doing that they are dumb. Thus I still require you to show your evidence that proves that it would be better to sell for 20 and also that it would sell 10x more and that selling 10x more it would profit more considering all involved costs.
1) Still doesn't make the majority child, where is the statisc to prove your claim
2) Nope you are wrong. You could try and spin a relation between paying customer vs pirates on developed and underdeveloped to say that in percentage there are more pirates in Brazil than USA, but if you look at raw number USA have more pirates.

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."







