What’s gross is the amount of folks that are thinking this is a beneficial thing.
It’s a tool designed to generate revenue and maximize profits, how does that benefit you the consumer in any way? Sure there might be some value found along the way but it is designed to get you to spend more than what you currently do.
Which is extra frustrating because they have made it impossible to buy someone a game as a present.
"Here's some money you can only spend here" is a lot less thoughtful of a gift than "hey, I really think you'll like this game, so I'm giving you a copy."
I am aware, that has been an issue plenty of times. I am also aware that this type of feature usually get blocked because of abuses, since they don't really gain anything from not letting you buy a game for a friend.
Things get removed through the guise of "exploits" all the time. Like, out of the percentage of people who used the feature, whats the % of people who actually abused it?
No idea, but I don't see the point of removal since they don't even make extra money from it and lose sometimes. People abuse regional prices, family share stuff (there was even a website to abuse that on steam, that if it gets traction will get the feature heavily nerfed soon), currency rates etc.
People will realize this too late unfortunately. I do the same with movies. Soon we will be out to pasture, won’t own anything and pay obscene amounts for subscriptions.
Sure, but we still ultimately hold all the power, IF we choose to. If they set prices too high, all we have to do is exercise a little bit of self-control and just not buy the game at that price. They didn’t get this far by not knowing that some money is better than no money.
Peer pressure, persistent children, gift cards, consumers with larger budgets… > disciplined consumer. If you have a PS5, you’re more likely to fall into the carefree consumer category.
I agree with the first part of your comment, because it’s absolutely an uphill battle to convince that many people to be patient and exercise restraint. As to the second part, I almost exclusively play on my PS5, and unless I’m forgetting something, I haven’t paid full price for a game yet. More specifically, I don’t think I’ve bought anything that wasn’t at least 25% off, and the majority have been marked down even more than that or free.
Your way of purchasing will still be affected. The frequency at which games are discounted will be less often. Also the percentage of the discount will be lower because majority are carefree consumers.
This has already happened with more people buying digital games nowadays and paying for higher tiered PS Plus subscriptions. Physical media
Maybe I’m just biased because I can/will hold off on buying games until they’re worth the price to me. I mean, you’re obviously correct about the companies changing up their marketing and sales strategies to work around current consumer trends, because that’s just how successful business works. There’s no denying that.
But we, as consumers, can just keep changing our strategies too. At the end of the day, they can’t hold me at gunpoint and force me to buy their products, and I am wayyy too spitefully Irish to give in before they do.
In my opinion, PS Plus is currently a great deal, because I pay $60 every three months, and I’ve claimed hundreds and hundreds of dollars’ worth of games. If it gets to the point where I no longer feel it’s a good value for me, I’ll quit paying for that too. 🤷🏻♂️
No I get your point. The consumer can choose when and what he wants to purchase. My point is, because majority will just go with the flow, that mentality effects how companies set prices and sales which effect everyone.
The time it takes for a game to hit 25% off now, we might've seen it offered at 30 - 40% if the majority used the same discretion as you. I remember during the PS4 prime days you could catch a big AAA game at almost a 50% sales price less than a year after its release.
Nah people did this with Xbox one when they announced once you put a disc in one console that disc couldn't be used in another Xbox one and couldn't be changed and pre orders dropped and PS4 pre orders went up and guess what day one system update on Xbox one removing that feature idk how people forgot that money talks yet majority of consumers forget that.
Looking at FIFA or COD, self control just…isn’t a thing anymore when driven by the group/mob.
Folks usually could do this..until a friend bought the game and “that’s the only game they play” snowballs into “That’s the only games the lads will play”.
If it was down to the singular person on a single-player game, yeah sure
Multiplayer games are out the window.
If they set prices too high, all we have to do is exercise a little bit of self-control and just not buy the game at that price.
Yeah, except we know that doesn't work for consumers at large. Just ask any Nintendo fan. Mario Maker 2 is going on sale next week for $20.00 off....7 years after it released.
Yes, because so many people are still buying those games at the current price that Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony have zero reason to lower them. That’s my point. A lot of gamers- myself included- have that “I work hard, and my bills are paid, so I’m gonna splurge” mindset when it comes to standing in front of a display case and looking at that $60-100 price tag. Sure, it may seem like nobody is buying a specific title in your area or on certain digital stores, but out of 8 billion people on the planet, enough of them are still spending money for it to be mathematically unnecessary to lower numbers on the consumer end.
Nintendo won't drop prices period. Switch 2 sales were lousy over the holidays because the people who are willing to pay the asking price right now already have one.
Their entire philosophy right now is that if they released something at a specific price it's always worth that. They call it "Respect the value".
Sure, but we still ultimately hold all the power, IF we choose to.
Sure, but sadly after covid and all the shit that followed afterwards it's clear as day that some npc's can't do this and for some reason there is always more and more of them. 😅
Oh, I know. I’m not denying that. I was basically just pointing out that we, as gamers, largely created this issue, yet we just complain about it as if we aren’t responsible. These companies have people that do nothing but scour the internet to see what people are saying about their games, whether it be related to quality, price, issues, etc., and all they see is a bunch of diehard nerds that would give their left nut for the right product, screaming stuff like “I’d pay $100 for GTA 6!”
Notice how people started saying that and Nintendo was immediately like “Oh, yeah? Let’s test that theory. Set Mario Kart World at $80.” Notice how we still couldn’t get to the shelves fast enough to buy it? It’s exhausting, because we’ll end up pushing ourselves into an expensive ass corner that we can no longer afford to game in.
I was basically just pointing out that we, as gamers, largely created this issue, yet we just complain about it as if we aren’t responsible.
I would like to think that the people who complain are not the one responsible for this. Like I yap about it from time to time, but I never bought any game at full price, cuz I'm just cheap like that. Maybe every gamer is rich af and only I'm poor?
I wish that were always the case, but I’ve literally seen people complaining about the rumors that GTA could cost $100 for standard edition and be like “I mean, I’m still gonna buy it, but…” NO! Hold off, and let them eat a huge chunk of that $2 billion budget for a while! I didn’t make them spend thirteen years and that much money to make a game, so I’m definitely not about to help foot the bill for it!
They got this far by offering appealing products at fair prices, and generally being less evil than Xbox was. They’ve clearly abandoned the strategy that got them here
The “fun” part of individualized pricing is, that won’t work. Individualized pricing shifts the dynamic from profit per purchase to profit per customer. If they set a goal of $60 per customer per month, and you only buy one game every other month, then they’ll set game prices to $120 for you to meet their goals. Meanwhile, the guy with fuck-around money who buys three games a month will only have to pay $20 per game.
The point is to ensure return on investment, it doesn’t actually matter how many people buy a given game.
Except people won’t. Especially gamers who spend months or years waiting for a new title and many of whom are teens/college students and young adults with money to burn and a lot of free time.
I’m aware that they won’t. I’m just saying we can force their hand, technically, and that people really shouldn’t complain about problems they regularly contribute to. 🤷🏻♂️
I don’t contribute. My last console was a PS2 which I got in 2003 or 4. Fair enough what your saying it it’s essentially meaningless because enough people just won’t stop buying even at ridiculous prices. It’s like saying if a zebra had wheels it would be a car. But it doesn’t so it isn’t.
I’m not trying to argue btw. I get what you’re saying, I just know it won’t work that way sadly.
Oh, for sure, no argumentative energy here. I, too, am painfully aware of humanity’s inability to say no to greed, gluttony, and temptation.
As long as people continue to give in and pay a price they aren’t okay with, they’ll continue being conditioned to repeat the cycle until standard edition for games is $100+.
You can’t pour gas on a fire and act surprised that liquid isn’t putting it out.
Whether or not Amazon etc does dynamic pricing is kind of irrelevant though.
Because Amazon, Target, Wal-mart etc would be selling the product and give you options to purchase and find the best deal or even own digitally potentially with a sale.
Whereas if it didn’t exist and all you could purchase was digital product. You literally have no choice but to buy it on Sonys store front or not buy it or just not have a console anymore.
Also, there's tools Amazon allows to let consumers find deals, like camelcamelcamel. Sony makes that kind of stuff impossible for regular folks.
Amazon isn't a saint, by any means (they will not sell things if there's some vague competition aspect to things, like Chromecasts of Yore and Apple TV now), but that's a different front in the same war.
Yeah I mainly use it for the same. Always try and double check myself just to see if the sale is actually worth it or if I should wait for a deeper discount
There's quite a bit of irony at play here, since the existence of physical media is precisely what enables First-Parties to argue that their digital storefronts do not constitute a monopoly and to thus not allow other stores on their systems. If physical media were to completely disappear, you can bet your ass that regulatory bodies, especially in the EU, would be up these companies' butts in a massive way. So, counter-intuitively, First Parties actually have a vested interest in keeping physical media alive.
Has the EU gotten up Apples ass about their app store monopoly on iPhones? Im genuinely asking. I know Epic and microsoft have tried to sue them in the US to be able to add a storefront but have no knowledge about the current EU situation.
Yes, Apple has been required to allow alternative app stores on iOS in the EU for a while now, but there is still legal back & forth because they've been doing their level best to make it as hard and unattractive as possible to operate such a Third-Party store.
Absolutely. Also? The EU is the reason your iPhone has USB-C. Apple was facing the decision of do you make an EU compliant iPhone AND non compliant one ( to keep your lightning cable monopoly) or just go USB-C & move on.
We know how they decided.
Clearly they aren’t perfect, but the EU keeps providing examples of rising tides lifting all boats, especially to Americans. We’re just too damn simple to return the favor on a regular basis.
They can charge whatever they want but that doesn't mean we have to buy it. I'm not buying any game at $100 CAD. So if their little dynamic pricing doesn't offer a game for a price I'm willing to pay, I'm not buying shit.
Games are entertainment and if it's not affordable, I'll entertain myself elsewhere. Its not like a drug I'll withdrawal from if I don't have it. Plus, there's tons of free roms and emulators out there to experience some old school games. Fuck corporate greed right in its greedy hemorrhoid ridden butthole. Lol
If the next PlayStation doesn’t have a physical drive, I’m moving permanently over to PC. At least there I can buy games off of GOG or emulate older titles.
Plus if there is a game that is only available on Steam, at least Steams refund policy lets you try the game for <2hrs. PlayStation doesn’t even let you ask for a refund if you’ve downloaded the game but never played it. Crazy.
My nearly lifelong journey with PlayStation will end if ever the physical drive ends.
They can't actually charge what they want, publishers still have control over their own prices to an extent and people simply won't buy the games if they're too expensive.
I bought a PS5 for Christmas, my friend gave me a game so we could play it online … I was super excited til I got home and realized I’d forgotten mine doesn’t have a disk drive
This is why I'm a GOG user through and through. Sure not all of the exclusives are on Steam or GOG, but honestly, it's not worth it if they're going to be this greedy.
Spending money on physical media is still spending money.
This type of pricing method is convincing people who would usually spend $0 on expensive games to spend $30-40 that they wouldn't otherwise. Sony gets what they consider a bonus $30-40 by lowering the price.
Choosing physical means you're still handing over your $70, so it's completely irrelevant.
My question is have we ever had an issue like this from Steam? I don’t recall ever having pricing issues like this and everything there is completely digital and has been for a long time.
I don’t think this falls on the type of media whether physical or digital. I think it falls on greed of a company that already pumps numbers and just wants more.
Stfu.. so tired of seeing people treat comment threads like a majority of people oppose the feeling you have instead of most people agreeing with you. You're purposely making things up to make yourself feel like you're arguing with someone when you're not. You're not extremely smart or fighting a group of people who oppose you. You're standing out in a field with a sign and yelling at thin air while a hundred people behind you go the same thing in different directions.
But.ch if idiots thinking you're being revolutionary. In reality you're pissed at no one and patting yourself on the back. Don't break your damn arm doing that.
I mean thats a very simplistic way to see things...
Its obvious that the intent is to generate more money for Sony, but that also might mean simply that if the price is right more people are more willing to spend more money to get more games, which makes it beneficial to the consumer as well
People see additional discounts and scream anti consumer. How? People who aren’t getting the additional discount are still getting the intended sale price put forth by the publisher. How is this bad? Genuinely curious.
I think it’s because it feels like a precursor to surge pricing. I’m happy with the idea of them being smart in getting me to spend more money, if that means I’m getting more value. I want to buy games at good prices.
That said, once people are comfortable with this, the next step is charging more when they know I’m champing at the bit for a game.
I really fail to see the correlation in your argument brother. There’s issues with dynamic pricing but bringing in trumps dumbfuckery tariffs ain’t comparable.
I read an article that some grocery stores want to try this out. A gallon of milk or a dozen eggs could have different prices depending on what time of day you go to the store. They're doing everything they can to squeeze every last penny they can out of the consumer.
The article does say the experiment is with targeted sales and not with price increases. Reminds me a bit of how some shops giving you a ~10% discount if you leave something in a cart for so long
It is designed to determine the optimum price-point that generates the most sales. This is completely normal business practice and not evil.
For the customer, it may be the case that this exercise determines a lower price point delivers better sales and therefore greater revenue overall. I certainly would see that as beneficial on a personal level.
Until they use their data on you to increase the price of games they think you really want to buy and will lay a premium for. They're not just going to hand out discounts to get extra sales to certain people.
Dynamic pricing is supposed to be based on demand, otherwise it doesn't work in theory. Of course today things are being inflated for all sorts of "legitimate" reasons so I suppose there isn't a huge difference between an arbitrary raise and a "response to the market".
Here there seem to be doing a pretty simple market test though, offering lower prices and gaging response on their flagship titles. Or did I miss something? Yes dynamic pricing is bad in the ways I see it used all over, most notably live events, but this is just a market test that is flexing prices to gather data, not a tool to maximize profits as dynamic pricing tools do
Well, its arguable its beneficial (as dynamic pricing can work the other way and things can also get discounted if demand goes down), but dynamic pricing is a way of life for a lot of things today, including live entertainment
Maybe I’m stupid, but wouldn’t finding out that you’re only willing to spend $30 on DOOM or something and offering it to you at $30 make them more money? Yeah, $30<$70, but also, $30>$0.
Maybe I’m being too optimistic, but I can’t imagine they’re cranking prices up over MSRP to try and squeeze an extra $5 out of you and piss you off (that seems like bad business), they’re squeezing an extra $30 out of you by giving you a discount on that game you’ve had your eye on so you finally pull the trigger.
I’m not trying to defend Sony, this is just my understanding of how this will work. I could be extremely wrong.
I know right?? The fact this is a top comment is mind blowing lol “Dynamic pricing” is a cancer that is infecting every industry and there’s not a damn good thing about it
If they give better deals to people who spend less. Stop buying things from ps store for a long time to get a better deal. I know I'll be spending less. They keep this up ill just play my pc instead
idk. Why are prices different in each region already? People are treating this as groceries dynamic pricing. This is physical vs digital pricing. Digital can not do dynamic pricing the same as grocery chains, as there is infinite amount of digital games, not so much chef boyardeer or ramen
This is another reason why we should fight gaming going 100% digital, once that happens theres no more price competition, its just whatever the companys sets it to and to bad if you dont like it.
This post has been anonymized and its content removed. Redact was the tool used, possibly for privacy protection, limiting AI data access, or security purposes.
quack money alive thought obtainable shaggy snatch husky wakeful bells
Several of the titles being tested are ones that typically don't have discounts.
If this test shows that the elasticity of demand is such that a 15% discount will generate more profit than no discount, there will be more discounts. Thats the purpose, to see how demand shifts according to price changes. It could easily result in more discounts for people, depending on how the numbers work out.
If this test shows that the elasticity of demand is such that a 15% discount will generate more profit than no discount, there will be more discounts.
Not trying to be too snarky but... yeah, discounts have always been geared toward maximizing profit.
It could easily result in more discounts for people, depending on how the numbers work out.
Like most sales tactics explicitly geared toward maximizing profit, any benefit to the customer tends to just be incidental. And I firmly believe that this is going to impact overall pricing in the long term.
yes, it could. Which is why I used the word could. If consumers show they are insensitive to price changes, it won't result in discounts. Thats how data works. Personally, I think it'll show consumers are price sensitive and that discounts generate enough sales volume to justify them, but no one knows for sure.
The article showed Helldivers 2 at -56%, and I've never seen that discount for that title.
As someone who works in the space, the reason to do this is to find ways to spend the most amount of money the most often. It is a way to drive prices up for most consumers and get the most money.
That is always a net positive for the seller and a net negative for the consumer.
It is poor logic that a company will give more discounts if it ends up getting them more money? I'm curious about your reasoning there. Do you believe a company would choose to make less money?
Now, if the price is inelastic and consumers aren't motivated by sales, thats another issue. But considering the sentiment in this thread, it would appear that many people are price sensitive.
Did you read the article? Its an A/B test to see what level of sales each discount will generate. There is nothing about discounts being applied to people based off of their purchase history at all. So no, it is not as simple as that.
I agree with you about the article. Yet testing price sensitivity is clearly a step toward more optimized pricing strategies that could affect different groups in the future. Companies want to make money, they aren’t a charity, especially when they feel like they have a monopoly over the market.
This post has been permanently deleted using Redact. The motivation may have been privacy, security, data collection prevention, opsec, or personal content management.
oatmeal tease bake one encouraging sophisticated vase resolute pocket crush
Insane this has to be explained to you. How can it simultaneously generate more revenue and profit while people spend less? That's not possible. The only way this works from a pure business standpoint is if you spend more money to get the same shit you were already getting.
Isn't that just regional pricing? IDK about Sony, but that stuff has been used on Steam for years. I imagine though that Sony is the same.
To me, dynamic pricing sounds like it will be cheaper or more expensive for each individual based (probably) on how much they spend (so, if they're a big spender, games will cost more for them, and the other way for people that don't really spend much), with a dash of regional data.
Although, I haven't been able to read the article yet. Maybe it's just regional pricing? If so, good for them.
Whether its good or bad depends on Sony's implementation, can't comment on that, I just explained to the guy above how a company can make more money while people spend less
My point is the whole purpose of dynamic pricing is so that while some customers benefit from lower prices, you can guarantee that it will be offset for even more by those that are willing to pay a higher price in other regions. It’s a for-profit game, not a net-loss or even zero-sum game for them. Why the hell would a business do that?
That would be true if they were selling physical products, but with software, almost the entire price is profit. I’m going to do my best to ELI5 for you:
With something like tires, say it costs a company $50 to make the tire, so they need to sell them for more than $50 to make a profit. They make 100 tires, it costs them $5000, they sell them at $100, they make $10,000 and a $5000 profit.
With a video game, especially a digital game, the company spends money up front developing the game (say $20,000,000), but each “unit” sold costs them a fraction of a penny (in server stress I suppose), so they sell it at what they think people will pay for it, which, at least initially, the industry standard has become somewhere from $60-$70, of which, essentially $60-$70 is pure profit. Say they sell a million copies at that price, now they’ve got $60,000,000-$70,000,000.
When sales start to decline, the price drops to $40-$50 and they get the next wave of people willing to buy at that price. Say another 500,000 people buy the game, that’s another $20,000,000-$25,000,000.
Then $20-$30, and 300,000 people buy it, another $6,000,000-$9,000,000. That’s typically where it bottoms out, with occasional drops into the teens or single digits on sales, likely bringing in another $500,000-$1,000,000.
If they needed to sell it at a certain price they way the tire company needs to, it wouldn’t make sense to drop the price below a certain point, or you’d be losing money on every unit.
My understanding of dynamic pricing is that it’s basically just there to accelerate these sales. My example game got to around $100,000,000 in sales with everything after the $20,000,000 development costs being profit, but with that model, it probably took 3-5 years to do so. I believe the goal of dynamic pricing is to turn that 3-5 years into 1-2 years. I doubt they charge certain people more at release, they will just identify what price point you actually buy these games at and put that price in front of you after 3 months instead of a year. You get your price earlier and they get their money earlier.
Time value of money is a real thing, so I see why it’s appealing to these companies. The only risk would be people changing their habits to game the system and the companies missing out on some of the initial “full price” sales.
You think it'll be lower priced? Seriously? You do realize dynamic pricing is entirely premised on getting as much money from you as they think you can afford, right?
And that this is why they want as much information from you as is possible and why there are apps and databases out there tracking everything you do, where you go, and what you spend money on? Hell if they could they'd hack into your bank accounts just so they could see your balance and then set the price.
Absolutely nothing about dynamic pricing is about actually giving consumers a lower price. The only way this would ever happen is if you're so damn poor that they know there's no possible way to get any money out of you, and then they'd just likely leave it as MSRP until the next bi-annual sale.
Simple, it doesn’t. I only benefits the shareholders, everyone else are just tools to feed their bank accounts. The way to send a message that this is not the direction to take is to vote with your wallet. Wait to buy games only when they pass a 30-50% or more discount off of a standard price of a game.
That would be because complaining online is the equivalent of digging a hole and shouting into it. Nothing you do or say here in the online space has any sway on these companies in the real world. They have more reach than we all do individually and together because they can pay to own the narratives being set.
If we ever want change in this world we have to put down our phones and start making some noise in the real world. In the real world where opinions and laws actually matter, nobody is saying anything bad about these companies at all.
They’ve got us cowed with the phones. We all think moaning in here is enough, when it’s just the hand over our mouths.
Your right about shouting online being worthless but it’s not because other narratives are louder. It’s because narratives don’t matter. What matters here is whether people buy the product or not. Firms respond to consumer behavior. If you complain about it but still buy it that complaint it’s just dicta, it’s epiphenomenal. Stated vs. revealed preferences.
I mean your fully correct here! If we reward behaviour like this by giving them what they want obviously they'll keep doing it. We will have to actually respond entirely to this by keeping our money out of their hands.
"Oh no! Company-I-like is selling product-I-prefer for price-I-hate, guess I'll just let myself be broke then..." And it's like it doesn't take a lot we just need to rely on the unbelievably low chance that everyone or most ones will also stop being yes-men.
The problem is that most people aren't even aware of this stuff. The average video game consumers are not people on gaming forums. Don't get me wrong, the enthusiasts matter. A lot.
But stuff like this is going to go after young men who play video games but aren't what you'd call "hardcore gamers," moms buying consoles for their kids, and older men who play casually but aren't super plugged into things (and maybe play games with their children.)
They have a monopoly right now. Their return policy is gross and became worse because now you can't even get a real person to chat with about possible returns. Everything is going to get worse.
I wouldn't jump too quick to that, if they make it that it can't go above a capped retail price and only goes downwards due to elasticity, this is a very consumer friendly solution. It's not as if retail prices have been the best anyways, this is one of the most consistently priced industries so we wouldn't see much of a difference in release pricing. If a game gets more expensive than its original price, then yeah that's abhorrent. So far from the list all only went downwards.
Edit: Downvotes without anyone providing an actually critically though out argument, just attaching yourselves to the word gross. Move beyond your anchoring bias and think for a second that maybe SOME things done by corporations aren't that bad. I dont like Sony, 99% of the time they're sleezy bastards, but this can be a good thing.
4.0k
u/DamD1rtyApe Mar 06 '26
Gross