And the last bastion of non-Mog Station items gets put on Mog Station

[Hamada]

The bottom line is, Square Enix is selling these items for the price that they think the market will bear. Let me ask you a hypothetical. Suppose that, priced at $5, 10,000 people would buy a specific orchestrion roll ($50,000 revenue). Also suppose that, if they priced it at $2, twice as many people (20,000) would purchase it ($40,000 revenue). If that were the case, would you consider the $5 price point "greedy"? Why or why not? I'm interested in creating a coherent standard for what constitutes fair pricing.

You are just assuming that to suit your narrative, but fine ill play along. I dislike you ignored my other points but I can play with this I suppose. The biggest problem with your statement is that assumes an isolated environment. On its own, yes your assessment is valid. However it completely ignores the impact of the MP3 cost. That alone will impact the sales at 5 dollars. Why pay 5 dollars for an item that is resisted in game when I can DL on MP3 and get to hear it wherever and whenever I want, including while in my house? Because of that it is more like getting 2000 sales at 5 dollars or 30000 sales at 2 dollars (even higher if they make it account wide which they should) Outside factors impact a lot, and the same reason how my friend was able talk down all those different industries down in price. They do not want you going somewhere else or have word of mouth do not buy from x company because they do x,y,z. (Also the fact they know they can be easily reported to government bodies to further backlash) Now thinking about it, i suspect gaming industry feels more immune due to monopoly. I can't go to a different company to service FFXIV play for example. In the end of the day I am confused why every other industry it is easy to talk to companies with pricing and get customer service while gaming industry thinks they are the exception on how everyone else acts, just because laws are lagging behind with such concepts. This only shows gaming industry are unable to self regulate and try to push the greed line as much as possible. How they act now may turn high profits, but they are shooting themselves in the foot as far as their future outlook

[Emstidor]

You are just assuming that to suit your narrative, but fine ill play along. I dislike you ignored my other points but I can play with this I suppose. The biggest problem with your statement is that assumes an isolated environment. On its own, yes your assessment is valid. However it completely ignores the impact of the MP3 cost. That alone will impact the sales at 5 dollars. Why pay 5 dollars for an item that is resisted in game when I can DL on MP3 and get to hear it wherever and whenever I want, including while in my house? Because of that it is more like getting 2000 sales at 5 dollars or 30000 sales at 2 dollars (even higher if they make it account wide which they should) Outside factors impact a lot, and the same reason how my friend was able talk down all those different industries down in price. They do not want you going somewhere else or have word of mouth do not buy from x company because they do x,y,z. (Also the fact they know they can be easily reported to government bodies to further backlash) Now thinking about it, i suspect gaming industry feels more immune due to monopoly. I can't go to a different company to service FFXIV play for example. In the end of the day I am confused why every other industry it is easy to talk to companies with pricing and get customer service while gaming industry thinks they are the exception on how everyone else acts, just because laws are lagging behind with such concepts. This only shows gaming industry are unable to self regulate and try to push the greed line as much as possible. How they act now may turn high profits, but they are shooting themselves in the foot as far as their future outlook

The MP3s aren't going anywhere man, so I fail to see how they're relevant to the scenario? It's a vanity item in a video game, why would I be upset if it doesn't have the portability or accessibility of a different form of digital media?

If you want to hear the song in-game and play it in your virtual house, you can't do that with a digital mp3, so it's weird that people argue one shouldn't exist because the other one does.

[Alleo]

The MP3s aren't going anywhere man, so I fail to see how they're relevant to the scenario? It's a vanity item in a video game, why would I be upset if it doesn't have the portability or accessibility of a different form of digital media?

(Hamadas whole point was about the pricing not that it exist.)

Its simple: It just shows how much SE truly cares for the customers..for me this means that they want our money and nothing more thus why they priced it at nearly double the amount.

I mean if you are fine with having to pay double for less uses then go for it, others might not like that price and will post about it. I mean would it hurt you if it only costs half the amount?

If they somehow need to sell this on the mog station, then do it reasonable otherwise this will just create feelings of being a cash cow for SE for some.

[Lauront]

You are just assuming that to suit your narrative, but fine ill play along. I dislike you ignored my other points but I can play with this I suppose. The biggest problem with your statement is that assumes an isolated environment. On its own, yes your assessment is valid. However it completely ignores the impact of the MP3 cost. That alone will impact the sales at 5 dollars. Why pay 5 dollars for an item that is resisted in game when I can DL on MP3 and get to hear it wherever and whenever I want, including while in my house? Because of that it is more like getting 2000 sales at 5 dollars or 30000 sales at 2 dollars (even higher if they make it account wide which they should) Outside factors impact a lot, and the same reason how my friend was able talk down all those different industries down in price. They do not want you going somewhere else or have word of mouth do not buy from x company because they do x,y,z. (Also the fact they know they can be easily reported to government bodies to further backlash) Now thinking about it, i suspect gaming industry feels more immune due to monopoly. I can't go to a different company to service FFXIV play for example. In the end of the day I am confused why every other industry it is easy to talk to companies with pricing and get customer service while gaming industry thinks they are the exception on how everyone else acts, just because laws are lagging behind with such concepts. This only shows gaming industry are unable to self regulate and try to push the greed line as much as possible. How they act now may turn high profits, but they are shooting themselves in the foot as far as their future outlook

This post is an excellent summary of the extreme entitlement mentality pervading many gamers. They're not a "monopoly", a term thrown around a lot but poorly understood or defined; yeah, the brand is (fairly) unique but you can acquire the substitute goods (other games and virtually every other purchasing decision made out of a limited budget) from elsewhere and, lest we forget, the sub and main product IS priced with its competition in mind. The optional content - key word: OPTIONAL - need not be, but it's not like they're charging a fortune for it, either. You pay more if you buy early. If you're expecting already dumb anti-trust laws (tools for big companies to bludgeon smaller ones, in case you don't know), to make their way into gaming, because you perceive it's a monopoly, you're being silly. The idea that this is being reported to government bodies, who should be worrying about more important matters, like the colossal amount of debt they're running up, is INSANE. The last entity I want involved in this area is lethargic governments, with piss-poor understanding of economics, and even less so of the industry they're trying to regulate. Guess who they'll turn to if they need to? Insiders, on whose behalf they will then regulate, as is the case with the vast majority of regulation out there. Not to mention the possibility of various ideologues - who can't compete on the market - using such an opportunity to push their agenda in gaming. I could name-drop but it should be obvious to whom I'm referring.

I don't think you have an appreciation of how dumb this all sounds to someone who understands economics. The gaming industry's margins are healthy - in the region of 15% - but it's also a high risk, high reward industry where a company can lose considerable investment with the wrong decisions, and which has far from realised its full potential. There are no effective barriers to entry, though, and nothing stopping a company from developing its own IP over time. There is a reason many well capitalised firms choose not to: it doesn't fit their expertise or risk appetite, when they feel more comfortable delivering lower margin but less risky products. SE is just better positioned to do so than most because it's spent close on 30 years on developing its brand. Go whine to the govt about it. Doubt they'll take it any more seriously than I do.

http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar...le/margin.html

I mean if you're patient, they discount the stuff eventually anyway. Really don't understand what the complaint is here. If different venues offer differential pricing, whatever; not like you have to buy it right now.