>>324049941 Are you talking in a business scenario? Like, I'm the game publisher? Because if you're offering me the promise that 5 times more people will buy a game at less than 1/5th the price, obviously the $110 is better.
But in reality, I dont think the exchange rate is that promising. I think a game will sell more if it's cheaper, and if lots of people buys it, more people will buy it just because there friends have it.
>>324050759 Also, first scenario has more people playing the game which means a longer lifespan for it if it depends on online play or user creations. And longer lifespan always means better sales, just imagine how much more something like Titanfall had sold in the long run if it had 5x more players.
>>324053085 This. Cheaper game price doesnt mean more people buy it. Heck, if Nintendo showed anything, it shows people think cheaper priced games are of lower-quality. >It's a $30 game so it's probably half as good as a $60 game, why bother?
Multiple people would be better. I mean say only 3/5 like it and those three recomended it to 5 of their own friends. Where as one person might not like it an then no one gets recommended. also even if that one dude liked it and recommended it how many fucking people would be willing to drop 110 bucks on a game just because their friend said "it was good"?
>>324049941 considering how expensive advertisement is, I would consider the first one the best option, since that is 5 people who will talk about your game, also that's 5 costumers who may later buy the same dlc (you won't sell the same dlc 5 times to the same person), or 5 expansion packs. etc.
>>324049941 Depends on running costs, whether there are network effects, and so on. Many stores always take a minimum cut and then a percentage for example (like with credit cards), so selling fewer units at a higher price has fundamentally lower overhead. On the other hand, in a multiplayer gamer often playerbase itself is key to attracting new customers down the road. So the more people who get their hands on it the better. A larger playerbase might also be more suitable for trying to get more money out of via future expansion packs, add-ons, DLC, etc. The right strategy will vary depending on game type, expected audience, and so on.
Lots of niche JP stuff does very well at a high unit price for example, because they have fundamental ceilings on interest. Most people aren't going to be interested at any price, period, it's not an economic curve, and conversely those who love that niche are willing to pay higher prices for it. So it makes a lot more sense to sell fewer, top quality fancy packages at premium prices.
On the complete total opposite extreme of course is F2P stuff, which has zero cost of entry, tries to build as gigantic a playerbase as possible, and then hook in some percent.
>>324053815 >Worse I wouldnt say worse. Also, Amiibo Festival is $60 They just offer less content Captain Toad for example is a great game. But it's also short.
Fuck nintendo and let's go the hypothetical route. Would Halo 3: ODST sell 3X more if it was only the ODST expansion (no Halo 3 MP) at $20 instead of $60? I dont think so cause halo was at it's peak in popularity then so everyone bought it anyways
shitpost sHitp౦st thats a shitpost rightthere rightthere if i do ƽaү so my self i say so thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: ʳᶦᵍʰᵗ ᵗʰᵉʳᵉ) mMMMMᎷM HO0OଠOOOOOOଠଠOoooᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒ Shitpost
Five people, because there's a better chance of people talking about the game and spreading its exposure than just the one. I'll take a larger potential audience over a slightly larger profit margin, as that's probably better in the long run.
>>324049941 Short term as in just those people, the one guy buying for 110$. Long term? The 5 people as you've got 4 more people that are potential buyers for your sequel, DLC or any other paid content you could think of.
>>324049941 The first. It has a far higher chance of both building a larger audience, allowing future games more chance at selling, and also a lower price point lowers expectations, this increasing chances at the customer being more satisfied.
This is of course under the assumption both games are the same, with the same money model ala buy the game and you get everything.
There should be a product made, priced and marketed towards Ultra Rich people. At least a paywall or barrier of entry to keep people in that lucrative demographic separate from the common masses. It should be a console that uses the most expensive components available and it should have a annual subscription fee in the ten digits. I'm telling you, it would be very successful. There are care manufacturers that only make less than half a dozen units annually. Why would a game console be any different?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.