What Rockstar is doing with GTAV pricing is both interesting, abusive and negative.

[Notabene]

First, the genius cross-generation strategy that boosted sales beyond: GTA V as a game was released in 2013 on old-gen consoles, then in 2014 on new-gen consoles with "updated graphics" and then in 2015 with more add-ons creating every-time a target sliding demand for each versions.

Then there's online, which I you care about it provides tons of additions DLCs and values, in which case I can understand buying it.

But regardless, and especially if you don't play online, what Rockstar is doing as pricing strategy is very interesting and bad for several reasons, and in fact pretty in line with the general VG c$rp$ration market and Steam:

- Remember when video games were released on Steam or Physical retail at full price, and then month after month they would lower in price, not only to reach smaller and smaller, and more and more pockets, but also because this is basic mercantile economical law that product value decrease over time (once initial production-return has be "consumed" over time), and we even get sales and even better flash sales to promote that "digital" format trap?

- Rockstar is doing something new, anti-mercantilist and actually maybe a new kind of speculation (okay they didn't invent it, the digital music industry did it first which is why it crashed): the game base price, although 3 years old is STILL at full price and never cut down, only to be lowered regularly at 30$, then 35$, then 25$, then 30$ again?

- What it means is mainly two things: one, they're paving the way for the future of digital, or rather streaming gaming, when the argument of being able to stream play for 1 hour at 5$, or a day at 9$, a week at 15$, or month at 25$, or the year at 40$ (these are example price, but actually not far from PSNow pricing), which will mean that you're paying for not owning a licence and nor having free access to it, which in turn will justify the stagnation and even inflation of prices of video games.

- Secondly (but this one you have to have basics of economical science): they're creating a new kind of speculation, aka making money "out of thin air" ie. making money not from the actual value produced and consumer, in other terms syphoning thus stealing money from the real economic GDP by creating artificial money on nothing, which implies more inflation, and that's how the actual current recession work. Basically they invested, produced work then consumed this time per work investment (there are different ratios you can use) a long time ago, yet they are still benefiting from an old product as a kind of speculative annuity, which goes against basic economical laws that defined value as decreasing over-time for very good, profound reasons...

Anyway I'm still baffled at these pseudo-sales: I mean everybody who's okay with buying at 30$ probably got it, the majority of people who didn't are those not okay with price as indicated by the many recurring thread, so who exactly are they selling to for the same 50th "price cut", 10 people? And before you spew BS, no GTA V is not in the top-selling list because it's selling the most at this instant but become of accumulative sales over a larger period.

[Postal]

i rem when they raised the price, then set it down to 39.99 and advertised that it was discount

[[Lethalvriend]]

The game sells enough for Rockstar to not warrent a price drop, demand remains high and supply is sorta infinite, since it's a digital product. The reason many products lower their price is purely to increase demand. Many people aren't willing to pay a certain price for a certain product, others are. By lowering the price after a while those who waited get to buy it. Honestly most games that'd use Rockstar's tactic would be affected negatively, but because GTA 5 still sells a ton (according to their own blog ~75 million across all platforms since launch) they don't need to lower the price. It has nothing to do with what you find justified, just a sale model working out for them. Furthermore, a 'sale' or price drop are irrelevant, so long as the price drops to the value customers are willing to pay it won't matter.

[RageMojo]

引用自 Postal：

i rem when they raised the price, then set it down to 39.99 and advertised that it was discount

I hate Rockstar's business models and greed since 2013, but that is not what happened.

[azxcvbnm321]

Maybe you should look at the entire picture. Due to inflation, one dollar 20 years ago is not worth one dollar today, in fact only about 50 cents or so. That means games in 1990 that sold for $40 should be selling for $80 today. And since games take even longer to make and are more complicated, really they should be selling for $100+. The fact is that games are cheaper today than they've ever been, which is why companies like Rockstar need to sell DLCs and find other means.

And despite the common perception, Rockstar isn't greedy at all. Take Two, the parent company of Rockstar, has been losing money for the past two years. They've only had one money making year out of the last 5 years! It costs a lot of money to keep programmers, take a look at their income statement

http://ir.take2games.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=86428&p=irol-fundIncomeA

Too many people have no clue as to how the real world works and are ignorant of basic economic principles. It takes years now to make a game, that's millions of dollars in costs that have to be recouped plus the ongoing support and new DLCs. And yes, companies need to make a profit and have a return on investment that reflects the risk of making a game that might not sell. There are plenty of good games that have failed, there is no guarantee that you'll make your money back so the profits have to reflect the risk, otherwise companies should stop making games and just invest in bonds or other means of income with no risk and a guaranteed return.

[MonK]

It's a quality game. One of the best ones in recent years you can't deny that. It's still selling like hotcakes. So no reason to lower the price. If you want it cheaper look outside of steam. Steam is terrible for deals nowadays. It might be an 'old' game so what? It's still being supported with free dlc. You'll easly get like 100h gametime in singleplayer alone. That alone is enough to justify the price. People complaining about the price now are ch3ap4sses and will get the game eventually anyways when it drops below a certain price. So would be dumb if they drop it more if it's still doing good.

[Licopolis]

Notabene, I wish there were "like" buttons for posts. Although the changes within virtual content distribution are basically in the plain sight, I couldn't say better.

[BIGHEADBase]

引用自 Notabene：

this is basic mercantile economical law that product value decrease over time

Except it has topped Steam sales charts repeatedly since its release on PC. The value has been quite high and so, the price.

[Notabene]

引用自 Licopolis：

Notabene, I wish there were "like" buttons for posts. Although the changes within virtual content distribution are basically in the plain sight, I couldn't say better.

Thanks

[RaÿTHeoN:]

Truth be told you should have never ever have had to pay full price for a digital copy.

I paid the exact same price for a boxed copy of GTAV as I did my Steam.

Something's wrong with that

Don't get me started on DRM or inability to play games without an active internet connection.


Maybe I'm just too ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ old

[Notabene]

引用自 BùRg£àR：

Truth be told you should have never ever have had to pay full price for a digital copy.

I paid the exact same price for a boxed copy of GTAV as I did my Steam.

Something's wrong with that

Don't get me started on DRM or inability to play games without an active internet connection.


Maybe I'm just too ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ old

No, but that's a great point, actually it would have been too long to explain why digital game pricing doesn't match the operating cost and therefor real value and therefor personal GPD price.

But it's the same thing with music or movie, the fact that a digital album is still priced at 10$ although the operating cost are near zero despite the accompanying scaled explosion of offer, is why nobody buys music anymore, except for vinyls and with good reasons.

As for DRM and active internet connection, did you know that everywhere in the world, again following basic mercantilist economical laws, the fact that you own a licence to download and use a copy of game, means you are legally free to download or use a crack if you want (not to distribute or share nonetheless).

[Watermelon {JESUS IS LORD}]

引用自 Postal：

i rem when they raised the price, then set it down to 39.99 and advertised that it was discount

pics or i claim BS

[Reina Orikasa]

引用自 Trash Can：

引用自 Postal：

i rem when they raised the price, then set it down to 39.99 and advertised that it was discount

pics or i claim BS

https://www.reddit.com/r/Steam/comments/39h0ml/gta_v_raises_its_prices_to_7997_so_the_sale_price/

http://steamed.kotaku.com/the-truth-behind-the-steam-summer-sale-controversy-1710941999

(Heads up: USD Prices). They basically made it so you couldn't refund since the Shark Card was bundled with the main game. Like the Shark Card was worth the extra $20 LOL.

[Watermelon {JESUS IS LORD}]

yes when i remember that was only a purchase with game AND a shark card, but you COULD still buy the main game WITHOUT the inflated price, also gg, no pics and just a thread proving nothing exx dee

[iMoveFasterAlone]

Rockstar can take any price they want to, new players buy it at full price every day.

This time the price is fixed - and the game changes. The game today is a complete different product than it was 2 years ago. Do the math.

R* should increase the price.

[☢ GoldFish (SVK) ☢]

引用自 Lethalvriend：

The game sells enough for Rockstar to not warrent a price drop, demand remains high and supply is sorta infinite, since it's a digital product. The reason many products lower their price is purely to increase demand. Many people aren't willing to pay a certain price for a certain product, others are. By lowering the price after a while those who waited get to buy it. Honestly most games that'd use Rockstar's tactic would be affected negatively, but because GTA 5 still sells a ton (according to their own blog ~75 million across all platforms since launch) they don't need to lower the price. It has nothing to do with what you find justified, just a sale model working out for them. Furthermore, a 'sale' or price drop are irrelevant, so long as the price drops to the value customers are willing to pay it won't matter.

/thread

Dropping the price isn't a gesture of goodwill to customers. It is a mean to maximize profits by boosting the dying sales. This simply means that the sales aren't dying.

Strangely enough, I think the price of GTA V on PC not dropping significantly is a good thing for PC players. I think it means that PC platform is profitable enough for Rockstar not to warrant a discount for the time being, and they can see that. Let's not lie to ourselves, Rockstar tends to prioritize console players more. This could improve our chances to get Rockstar titles on PC in the future (and to make good optimization one of their priorities; because I think good optimization is one of the main reasons GTA V sells so well on PC) and to prevent another Red Dead Redemption situation (or unoptimized GTA IV situation).