Twenty Dollars. (Destiny)

by Vortech , A Fourth Wheel, Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 06:32 (3681 days ago) @ Avateur
edited by Vortech, Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 06:41

Personal worth and economic worth are two different things in a market with pricing schemes that are set by publishers.

I'm not convinced they are things at all let alone different things. They are not economic terms I am familiar with in this context and I can't discern what you mean when you use them.

I'm not talking about whether you or I felt that ODST was worth every penny. I'm not talking about whether you or I feel like Destiny itself is worth $1,000 based on our time playing it. Your own motivations whenever you reply to me doesn't change the economics, but you already know that. I'm talking about a video game's price in relation to another in real economic terms.

Please point out the real economic terms in this post. ("economic*" and "Price*" do not count.)

ODST's pricing structure wasn't correct in relation to Halo 3's. I never spoke of or implied personal worth, especially when talking directly about whoever is actually setting the prices.

And big corporations have a history of "funny" pricing. I mean, Microsoft priced its Windows 98 upgrades at $89 even though it found that $49 was more than sufficient to get a profit.

I've heard of a for-profit corp. I've heard of a not-for-profit corp. I have not heard of this Only just enough to barely make a profit corp. It's quite a difficult high wire act and for literally the smallest of rewards.

Microsoft probably figured that they could get away with charging more than what ODST was truly worth charging for.

Everything is "truly worth charging for" the most that people in aggregate will pay for it. Your divine granted sense of objective value not withstanding, the value of things is absolutely a reflection of how much people value it. Your paragraph is all nonsense to me. I truly can't figure out what it means (I used the word truly there so you know i'm making important unassailable points.)

A campaign you can beat on the hardest difficulty in three hours without speedrunning? The name itself implies it's an expansion of Halo 3? But if people want their Halo, they'll pay more than an expansion's price (based in comparison to relative expansion pricing within the video game market at the time). They clearly happened to be right based on sales! Oops to the consumer, though, right?

No. Wrong. As you seem to know based on the very next sentence.

But, as you're talking about, subjectively, who knows how many people thought it was worth every penny (or more)! Good for Microsoft, I guess.

Yes. Good for MS. And good for consumers. Both got the benefit of their bargain. Both are happy.

Consumers get suckered all the time.

Wait, what? how is buying something worth every penny getting suckered? How many people are writing your post at the same time? Am I having an aphasia?

It sucks when consumers don't even question it, or just outright allow it. Other times, consumers can't do anything other than vote with their wallets (ideally), right? But again, that personal worth thing you're talking about is the subjective part that you're trying to make this about. I haven't been talking about that at all. I'm talking the actual pricing done by the corporation(s).

What you seem to be talking about, as far as I can tell is whether you, and anyone who agrees with you, think the pricing was right. Your confidence does not make something objective. Pointing to the specific items to which you have assigned value does not make this objective. Different people value things in different ways and thus ends the objective truth of this area. Explaining your way of valuing things in no way means it is correct.

Your pity for those of us poor suckers who were just too stupid about real economic terms to understand that we shouldn't have been happy with our Oops game purchase is narcissism and arrogance masquerading as concerned science. Knock it off.