Actually what hung me up on these questions was the answer honestly part, though most people would assume that's a part of any question they are asked, when its stated explicetly it tends to signify something else.
I still stand by my reasoning. The question is not perhaps clear enough though, my interpretation is that the game is too cheap for me, since I am willing to spend more on it. There is no mention of what *Shrapnel* should charge, only, is the game too expensive, cheap, just right.
If you are willing to spend more the game is too cheap. That is as absolute a statement as you can get, if you don't like the absoluteness of it, don't blame me, blame the question, which I have twice... oooops now its three times
Anyway, PvK, I agree that the fair price is in some spread, but there is no 'universal' fair price, each of us will have their own break point. And I think by definition the 'fair' price is that personal break point, any higher and you feel the game is unfairly priced. Any lower and the game is again unfairly priced, just that in this case you don't care because you are getting a better deal. This boils down to the 'fair' price being a fixed point, not a spread. If you disagree with that assumption then of course we won't agree on anything else.
Its like buying a used car (which I just did actually) you can figure out what the 'fair' price of the car is, Kelly and a zillion other sites will tell you. However, when you go to negotiate the price you'll go lower than that 'fair' price, the seller will go higher (usually). That mental process doesn't change the fact that there is still a single fair price out there.
Nothing against the poll Saber, like I said, I get all hung up on semantics... especially when I'm board at work
