<potentially boring economic talk>
Actually the customer has every right to complain about prices they perceive as too high. While the generally accepted role of a company is to maximize profit, the generally accepted role of a consumer is to maximize utility, getting the best possible products for the least cost. It's this push and pull that creates capitalism, not one-sided profit maximization. In fact, consumers complaining about imminent prices can actually be beneficial to a company if it saves them from having to suffer lower profitability from decreased sales by warning them ahead of time of insufficient price elasticity of demand. (or PED. If demand for something stays strong in the face of increasing prices, it's considered elastic, If it doesn't, it's considered inelastic.)
That's really the crux of this debate. EA is testing the waters with a higher PC price to see if the PC market is elastic enough to increase profitability in the face of an exclusive price increase. That's generally the sort of things companies do. Here, part of the PC market is letting it be known that no, it's not; though, were the circumstances different (such as the price increase being reflective of an increase on cost on the company's side) it might be. Also, others are saying the increased price is acceptable/desired/admirable. The difference between the two sides isn't that one side (largely) doesn't understand the increased price isn't reflective of increased cost on the companies side. It that one side does not care, part of that side going as far as to say, "Until your prices reach or exceed parity with mine, regardless of circumstances, I do not care what you pay." Some, however, are simply saying, "It doesn't matter to me that the increase is exclusive to the PC. My demand is elastic enough to absorb the increased price regardless of circumstaces."
While they're entitled to their opinions welcome to express their own view of ME3's PED, too many of them are either not customers in the market in question and are responding more in response to the prices in their market or throwing out bits of occasionally misunderstood/misused economic principles as an explanation why consumers pushing back against a potential increased price are being irrational. They are not. They are, in fact, doing exactly what rational consumers in an economic model are expected to do. Please stop insisting otherwise. Also, while no, a final price has not been set, that doesn't mean input on potential prices can't be given. i.e. We may not know for certain whether or not the final price will be $60, but some of us are certain we would not be willing to pay $60.
</potentially boring economic talk>
As for myself, I generally agree. Honestly, I find the increase a bit disappointing. I was all set to pre-order ME3 for $50. At an aribitrary-seeming $60 I'll probably wait for a price drop, which will probably coincide with the first wave of DLC anyway, before picking it up unless whatever uber edition they release is irresistably snazzy. Given the amount of reasonably-priced games being released for the PC on a regular basis, I have a hard time accepting a $60 price tag without a good reason, and no, reasons extrapolated by players don't count.
Retour en haut
