Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Ideally, publishers want to choose a price so that "price * number sold" is a maximum -- a higher price will be over-compensated by the drop in units sold, while a lower price will not raise the unit count enough to compensate.
However, a somewhat safer strategy is to start at a high price point, and lower it over time. If you start at €100, you can sell it to people willing to pay €100. Eventually, you go down to €90, to fetch the people willing to pay €90. Then €80, €70, €60, €50, ...
The idea that a product can’t be overpriced simply because it’s not essential misunderstands what “overpriced” means. Overpricing refers to a mismatch between value and cost, not whether a product is a necessity. A $100 shovel might not be a necessity either, but that doesn't make it immune to being overpriced.
At this stage, I simply believe we are being taken for a ride by all businesses out to rip us off.