8 bucks is definitely 10 bucks in my book. 6.99 is 5 but above that and I start thinking 10.
The developers of PEAK, explaining how they decided on pricing for their game.
Submitted 1 month ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@piefed.world to games@lemmy.world
https://media.piefed.world/posts/Qn/jr/QnjriCjNzFRb7ii.jpg
Comments
bdonvr@thelemmy.club 1 month ago
altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
1.99 prices > 2.00 prices
Maybe I adapted to that with time, like .99 always felt like a scam pricing strategy, but for me everything involving number nine is worse than, say 1.20. Double nines are the worst. Flat prices with zeroes make me more confident and interested somehow.
termaxima@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
That seems very subjective. Personally I always round prices correctly (yes I’m pedantic), and every 2.5€ block counts. So 7.99 ≈ 7.50 to me.
ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Remind me to never play any games by these assholes. Wtf kind of psychological mind-game bullshit is this.
Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
Then I’d have to also tell you to never play a game or buy a product ending in 99 cents. Getting into the mind of the consumer is business 101 and is literally the difference between a game/product having any success or not.
And this has been proven, JCPenney tried to get rid of 99 cent pricing and led to losing 30% profits and bankruptcy. The people who want fair and square pricing won’t be there to actually buy it.
ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
This isn’t getting into the mind if the consumer, this is manipulating the consumer.
tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Just seems to be a basic commentary on how people think about prices in general. The x.99 thing seems stupid but there’s plenty of data showing that it has an effect.
ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Its more the “how do we find the optimal price to psychologically manipulate the consumer” aspect that’s bothersome, instead of just setting it at a price that you think is fair. The 99 cent thing has been in effect long enough that my brain just automatically rounds it up.
Liketearsinrain@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_pricing this kind. It’s not unusual, although I never liked it either
SharkAttak@kbin.melroy.org 1 month ago
Oh get out. Would you prefer "hey this game costs $60 cause it's an AAA, and anyway now 70 will become the standard cause we know that some sucker will still buy em"?
At least PEAK it's a fun little game with a decent price.ToTheGraveMyLove@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
No, I don’t buy AAA games.
Camille_Jamal@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Where I live, peak is $12ish after usd to cad and taxes but every cent has been worth it and every second, I’ve been having a blast
Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 1 month ago
How about a different pattern;
-
Figure out what your breakeven is - in other words, how much money you need to make to recoup salaries, licenses, and generally keep the lights on.
-
Put out a free demo (and I mean free - no DRM either). See how many people download it within a month or so.
-
Project the production budget for the next game.
-
Price based on a 2% retention rate of the demo downloads to accommodate breakeven + next game + 5% profit for op-cap.
Rinse and repeat as necessary.
-
ceenote@lemmy.world 1 month ago
And they say you can’t make money with a psych degree…
piyuv@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I usually look at it from cost per hour perspective. Tears of the Kingdom was 70 but I played it for ~140 hours, so 0.5 per hour. I’m ok with 1 per hour too but anything higher I start to ask myself “is the developer / publisher worth my support?”. Not all games can be judged by this metric though (eg outer wilds, unpacking)
So far, nothing beats the value of factorio. Mindustry (being so cheap) is a close second.
ragas@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Still waiting for ANNO 1800 with all extensions to fall to the 5$ category. Until then, I’m enjoying me some ANNO 2070.