I wonder what the criteria is. Either way it’s messed up but I am curious.
Another commenter somewhere suggested it could be because the wife (lower price) doesn’t play as much, and the discount is to incentivize buying/playing.
It’s still shady and black-box-algorithmic, but it’s a guess.
Kinda feels like the opposite of how it should work, too. The people buying the most and supporting the video game industry get the worst deal. 😬
It’s the new customer v old customer. The old one is already coming in and spending money. The new one needs to be enticed in. Same with like any subscription. New customers get a deal, existing don’t.
A random tweet with no further proof or examples? I’m sure it’s totally 100% legit and not just ragebait because rockstar is popular(rightfully so) to hate on right now.
console slaves gotta console slave
Possibly illegal in the US under the Robinson-Patman Act? IANAL
The law doesn’t matter when the punishment for breaking it cost less than the profits they make by breaking it. Even better when the punishment is never even enforced at all.
Burn it all down
What’s the website? PlayStation store inside a PS5?
That’s kind of why I never feel great about buying video games. The price is pretty much entirely arbitrary.
Like yeah, they did an investment, it is fair that they recuperate that. But the actual price they need to ask of each customer entirely depends on how many customers there are.And so, they will always start out asking more than what they expect to need to ask of each customer, which just feels like I’m paying too much.
But even when they do put it on sale, there’s likely going to be sales in the future where they sell it for even less. It’s not like they need to empty out a warehouse or such, where they put up uniquely low prices. So, even when I could get a game on a sale, I’ll feel like I could also just wait longer…You basically described the economic concept of consumer surplus. When a product is entirely dependent on the price a consumer is willing to pay because the supply is infinite, the natural result is… this.
Except they shouldn’t be price discriminating; it’s easier and more effective to just offer tiered pricing structures (e.g. collectors editions) and eventual sales (e.g. 50% off after a year) to hit people at different places on the supposed consumer surplus curve. As you note, the undermines your confidence in the prices but you’re likely a little lower on the curve compared to the “must have on day one” crowd.
That said, the whole theory also explains why freemium is so attractive. When there’s no price minimum, the optimal price is 0 and you work your way up with features and perks (while also raising the price people are willing to pay by getting them hooked). It’s all nasty business, lol
