Yep, his communist brother is full of shit. Corps aren’t going to raise prices to negate it as it would just kill people’s purchasing power who work. You’d effectively neuter your company pulling a stunt like that. What companies do see is a new area to pull money from.
That’s why instead of raising the price of a new game to $70, They just added more microtransactions. I mean they tried raising to 70 but people wouldn’t have it, but microtransaction just gets the “aww shucks” treatment.
They call it the gig economy, but if they were being honest they would call this the nickel and dime economy.
Prices are driven by figuring out what the meeting point between the maximum someone will pay for a product or service, and how many people will pay for a product or service at a very low price.
If a company sells widgets at 100 dollars a piece, would they make more money if they were sold for 90 dollars a piece or 110 dollars a piece? They may move fewer at 110 dollars a piece but would the difference in price make up for it? It’s hard to say, and a great deal of time and money is spent on figuring out what price will produce the greatest return on sales.
Imagine you’re on a team trying to pinpoint this number and suddenly, over night, every single person in your market has 2000 extra dollars to spend. Great! A boon to sales is sure to come, and with it, because demand has increased, so to must cost, because the supply has not changed.
Now imagine you’re a competitor, you also sell widgets but you’ve been selling them for 90 dollars all this time. All of a sudden, you can’t keep shelves stocked. And you notice a competing widget selling for 110 dollars a piece!! It’s essentially the same product, and you’re moving them so fast, and people have 2000 extra dollars to spend, you bump the price up to match it. Because the supply has gone down, the prices must increase.
More spending means higher prices. Universally. You’re living in an era with some of the worst inflation we’ve ever seen, and you have the audacity to suggest companies wouldn’t raise their prices when people have more money to spend?
My brother in Zenu, they’re raising prices when people have historically little to spend. Supplemental income for all Americans means money in our pockets that they believe belongs to them. You, the consumer are an obstacle between them and their money, and they’ll bleed every cent they can out of you. UBI is painting a big sign on everyone’s head that they have more money to spend, of course prices will go up to match.
Yep, his communist brother is full of shit. Corps aren’t going to raise prices to negate it as it would just kill people’s purchasing power who work. You’d effectively neuter your company pulling a stunt like that. What companies do see is a new area to pull money from.
That’s why instead of raising the price of a new game to $70, They just added more microtransactions. I mean they tried raising to 70 but people wouldn’t have it, but microtransaction just gets the “aww shucks” treatment.
They call it the gig economy, but if they were being honest they would call this the nickel and dime economy.
And then it went to to 70 dollars anyway…
This is a reflection of big budgets for games growing over time. Customers demand more, costs go up.
That’s not the point.
The statement was that they wouldn’t raise prices due to backlash, so to avoid raising prices they added micro transactions.
But then they raised prices as well
And there was some backlash
And now games are more expensive upfront and we also have micro transactions. And games still sell.
My point is, prices only go up, any backlash will be temporary, and if they do it slow enough they’ll keep enough of their base it won’t matter.
All the streaming services do the same thing.
Prices are driven by figuring out what the meeting point between the maximum someone will pay for a product or service, and how many people will pay for a product or service at a very low price.
If a company sells widgets at 100 dollars a piece, would they make more money if they were sold for 90 dollars a piece or 110 dollars a piece? They may move fewer at 110 dollars a piece but would the difference in price make up for it? It’s hard to say, and a great deal of time and money is spent on figuring out what price will produce the greatest return on sales.
Imagine you’re on a team trying to pinpoint this number and suddenly, over night, every single person in your market has 2000 extra dollars to spend. Great! A boon to sales is sure to come, and with it, because demand has increased, so to must cost, because the supply has not changed.
Now imagine you’re a competitor, you also sell widgets but you’ve been selling them for 90 dollars all this time. All of a sudden, you can’t keep shelves stocked. And you notice a competing widget selling for 110 dollars a piece!! It’s essentially the same product, and you’re moving them so fast, and people have 2000 extra dollars to spend, you bump the price up to match it. Because the supply has gone down, the prices must increase.
More spending means higher prices. Universally. You’re living in an era with some of the worst inflation we’ve ever seen, and you have the audacity to suggest companies wouldn’t raise their prices when people have more money to spend?
My brother in Zenu, they’re raising prices when people have historically little to spend. Supplemental income for all Americans means money in our pockets that they believe belongs to them. You, the consumer are an obstacle between them and their money, and they’ll bleed every cent they can out of you. UBI is painting a big sign on everyone’s head that they have more money to spend, of course prices will go up to match.