Premium Prices

It's not about my personal spending limits. I didn't suggest a price. It's about using a reasonable pricing scale for what you are selling.

This site doesn't represent the entire audience of the game but it serves as an example that one could base a market projection on. That is what EA bases their decisions on - example tests.

Also, what he was getting at wasn't exactly a cherry-picked instance. It's common practice in business. You find an ideal price point that will make the market thrive, or you produce a better product for what you are charging.

Will people pay these prices? Sure. Some people will also pay $700 or more for Louboutin shoes. The difference is one caters specifically to a wealthy share of the market whereas the other is aiming for the casual consumer. Not too many people here feel the prices are justified, even the ones who do pay for it because the want it and get enjoyment from the game. I'm going off of the general consensus of the majority, not my own opinion which happens to align.

Pricing digital content has always been problematic. In traditional economics, the minimum price for an item is its "marginal cost," what it costs to produce one unit for sale plus some portion of R&D/fixed costs that you're trying to recoup. You then add more for your profit (less when sales are poor and more when sales a good). But for digital content, the marginal cost is $0! So, once you've figured in a portion of your R&D/fixed costs, what should you charge?

In theory, to spur sales you should add only a tiny amount for profit. However, digital content is often priced on the perceived "value" of the product to the customer. It costs no more to produce a unit of Adobe CS 6 than it does a PC video game. However, a complete set of CS 6 lists for about $1500 and the game for $40.

As I see it, a company like EA has to gauge what they believe to be the value of the digital content and price it accordingly. What we seem to disagree on is exactly what that value should be.

Its is just as enjoyable for free play (more so as I often think people have more money than sense), I just get 1 scratch card each week. Have huge farm 100 pink houses and 100 white houses. So I level up 2 or 3 times a week which provides a few more dough nuts. It soon accumulates, maybe its what goals you set. That and not speeding taxes up by accident has helped.

Used to be get all the characters, now it is get all the land. The latter is achievable if not on decent income, the former will just make you go nuts. Since the yard sale started I have accumulated 222 (which i got finks dog and 2 duff bus things.)donuts but I have been really lucky with scratch cards.

blackgryphon9999 wrote:
Pricing digital content has always been problematic. In traditional economics, the minimum price for an item is its "marginal cost," what it costs to produce one unit for sale plus some portion of R&D/fixed costs that you're trying to recoup. You then add more for your profit (less when sales are poor and more when sales a good). But for digital content, the marginal cost is $0! So, once you've figured in a portion of your R&D/fixed costs, what should you charge?

In theory, to spur sales you should add only a tiny amount for profit. However, digital content is often priced on the perceived "value" of the product to the customer. It costs no more to produce a unit of Adobe CS 6 than it does a PC video game. However, a complete set of CS 6 lists for about $1500 and the game for $40.

As I see it, a company like EA has to gauge what they believe to be the value of the digital content and price it accordingly. What we seem to disagree on is exactly what that value should be.

This is the whole point. It's all development and licensing costs, there is no loss if someone doesn't buy something. Even at that rate, the development that goes into $15 worth of graphic items in this game doesn't even come close to the development and support that goes into, say, a $15 map pack on Battlefield. For what you get in other games in digital content for the price, the graphics on this game are laughable at $8 or more per item.

I'm torn about which side of the fence I sit on with this topic.

This game is exceptionally playable, without having to spend any money at all on premium content. So i can understand the price point for premium content, because it's paying for the licensing that covers all of the casual players who are more than happy to keep playing it as a free game without spending anything on it.

Do I think that premium content could be priced lower? Absolutely. I definitely agree that if donuts were half the price, more people would buy them.

The real question in terms of profitability for EA is "if the premium content was half of the price it is now, would TWICE as many people buy it...?" and the answer to that, is probably not.

stoob0t wrote:
The real question in terms of profitability for EA is "if the premium content was half of the price it is now, would TWICE as many people buy it...?" and the answer to that, is probably not.

Actually it would have to be more than twice as many... EA wouldn't lower the prices unless they would make a profit of it. Otherwise there wouldn't be a point to lower the prices, atleast on their part...

I have to say I stand with Excruciator69, as he explains basic microeconomics... All points he makes are valid.

That is not to say that I myself would of course want lower prices too, as all consumers/customers always wants. But as Excruciator69 points out, this has to be weighed against the fact that all producers want to price their products for as much as possible. EA have most probably found a good enough price for the product they are making, atleast to make them content. If someone wants to suggest to EA that they should change their prices, that person better have very solid arguments, and you need to sit on the figures to be able to suggest an alternative that might be sound.

To finish this, as Excruciator69 sums it up, if EA had missed horribly with their prices, they would have been adjusted long ago. As that is not the case, you can assume that the pricing isn't too far off as it is now...