[Leif_-]

Kraftwerk said:
So S&S that AMC only paid a million to put on at its numerous locations, will only appear on 1 maybe 2 screens where as ID4 that cost them maybe 5 million to put on at their locations, will get 4 to maybe even 8 screens.

Actually, theatres don't buy movies. The business model is more along the lines of the studio renting screens from the theatre in return for a (rather small) fraction of the ticket price. Then the theatre makes a significant part of its revenue from selling concessions.

That's a little besides the point, though, which is this: for works of art such as movies, music, computer games and similar, the price is not determined by the cost of production. Rather, the price is determined by the consumers and what they percieve the value is, and the budget for production is then determined from this. This makes sense, because -- unlike physical products -- the worth of the product to the individual consumer is not directly linked to the cost of production. It doesn't matter if a game cost hundreds of millions to make: if the game is good it's good, if it's ****e, it's ****e, regardless of cost.

Your example is actually proof of what im saying. If you charge 8 dollars for something, people are more inclined to pay for it than if you charge 60 for it.

True for widgets and nails. Not true for "soft" areas such as entertainment or fashion. For some types of products (surprisingly many, in fact), lowering the price can be a kiss of death, resulting in fewer sales. There's a reason why pepole buy poor $50 games from the shelf rather than good $15 games from the bargain bin: perceived value.

Bottom line, the price keeps people from buying it.

Sure, the (relative) high price leads to some people deciding not to buy it. That would be the true no matter what the price was, as long as it was over $0. Don't you think Shrapnel knows the basics[1] supply and demand curve, and how to find the optimum price point? Remember, the optimum price point is the point that maximises your profit, and not your units sold.

[1] Not to say simplistic

This isnt the first time this has come up over the years, and it wont be the last.

Carthago delenda est!

Weeds keep coming up repeatedly over the years too. That doesn't make them flowers.

The price hurts the community.

The evidence does not appear to support the statement.

Every month, someone shelfs this game. If there arent warm fresh bodies, eventually the community dies, and you end up like Master of Magic. A game people DL for free, a decade later, because the community dried up, where the developers could still be getting checks , and the community could still be actively creating mods and purchasing the game, and hopefully, providing an opportunity for a sequel.

If it's the price that hurts the community, how come the MoM community is still dead, despite people downloading it for free? Simple: It's not the price.

Seriously, if you guys arent going to make a dominions 4, why should i even convince friends of mine to purchase this game?

Because it's a good game that's fun to play? Would you be hesitant to recommend a good book or a movie, just because there might not be a sequel? No? Then why does it matter for a game?

So you can retire to florida? Put gas in your tank? Why should we pay new release price for a old game, when a current version isnt being worked on, wheres the money going?

If you buy an Elvis CD, where's that money going? Not towards any new Elvis recordings, that for sure. Does that mean your money is wasted? Of course not.

Here's how it works: You pay your money, you get the game, you play the game. If the game is good, you've got your money's worth. If the game isn't good, you haven't. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

A greedy publisher? Solid gold champagne glasses? For serious....why should you get far more than somethings worth.

See, that's just it. Dominions 3 is worth $55. Yes, it's more than some other games, but then Dominions 3 is better than those other games.

Of course, if you don't like Dominions 3, then the game won't be worth $55 to you. 'course, then it won't be worth $15 either, so that's not an argument. Overall, though, it seems most of the people who're likely to buy a turn based, rough-around-the-edges strategy games do think that Dominions 3 is worth the asking price.

What are you providing for the 15 more dollars your charging over the competition.

All of this And even more, that they haven't mentioned.

Simply put: they're better than the competition, the provide more than the competition and so they can charge more than the competition. Isn't economics grand?