It’s beyond insane to me that a $70 “AAAA” game (kidding, it’s AAA) dips down to the absurd price of $5. I’ve never seen anything like it. Wish the entire Sims 4 “collection” if you can call it that was $5 total, would be incredible, or Starfield.
It’s beyond insane to me that a $70 “AAAA” game (kidding, it’s AAA) dips down to the absurd price of $5. I’ve never seen anything like it. Wish the entire Sims 4 “collection” if you can call it that was $5 total, would be incredible, or Starfield.
It’s about Volume.
Selling a thing to a million people for $5 makes more money than selling it to a thousand people for $70.
They’ll most likely return the price to $70 before long, so they can pick up a few whales who aren’t patient enough to wait for the next sale.
Then… Why not just price it correctly to begin with? Huh… I’d buy some of these newer games if they cost a reasonable amount. Starfield out here charging $70 for a 5.5/10 game
I can’t speak for the people pricing these things, but suspect the answer has to do with whales, perceived value, shareholders, regional economics, and various other things.
I agree that lots of games are overpriced, though.
You charge the highest price you can for the people who don’t want to wait, then drop the price once you’ve run out of those customers. The temporary price of a sale creates a sense of urgency that it won’t be this cheap again for a while, and positive word of mouth from the sale customers drives more sales for a little while once it returns to full price.
Starfield wasn’t worth $70 to me, but I bought it on sale for $45 a few months later.
Price tier strategy. Get impatient people to pay $70 because they need to play ASAP. And then sales to get people who won’t pay $70. Pricing low permanently misses out on getting as much money from people who are willing to pay more throughout the year.