Price-Sensitive Gamers

[mmadsen]

...if my perceived utility for a product does not justify the price, I won't buy it.

A few people have said the same thing, and it's true, but it's a tautology; it's true by definition. The real question is, how does your internal price-justifier work?

I have a hard time beleiving that most people aren't somewhat price sensitive.

Certainly. It's a continuum. Everyone's somewhat price insensitive too. (Remember, price sensitivity goes two ways.) How much do I have to lower the price of d20 Barbie before you buy it? And how much could I raise the price of the three core rulebooks before you'd say they're not worth it to you?

The prevailing argument in these price argument threads seem to be that if we raise prices of products, the consumer will merely compensate and pay more, and writing games will be lucrative.

Well, they've tried the converse and found it didn't work. If they lower prices, they don't seem to sell any more copies -- and their own expenses don't go down much.

 

[Someguy]

In general I avoid things that cost too much...

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

A few people have said the same thing, and it's true, but it's a tautology; it's true by definition. The real question is, how does your internal price-justifier work?

Monte Cook had a great way to talk about it. The difference is between a gaming product, and game materials. A game product is what you buy --- the book, the boxed set, etc. Game material is what you actually use.

For instance, let's say you buy "Song and Silence". That's the product. Call it P. You select "Quicker than the Eye" for your PC. That's the gaming material. Call it G. The price of the product is $.

My formula for computing value is: P/G TIMES $.

In other words, two questions have to be answered: what percentage of the product constitutes actual gaming material? If a product is 100% material (for instance, you run a campaign based on Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil), then all of the product is used, hence a higher price can be justified.

If in the case of a splat book, you use one or two feats and a prestige class, then it's only say, 5% of the book, then the book has to be of a lower price to justify the use.

Now, there's an additional factor here, which is how frequently you use that gaming material. For instance, "Quicker than the Eye" gets used every game session, if that's your PC's feat. But once you're done with the Temple of Elemental Evil, you might as well throw away the book, because you're done, so some of the value is lost, since it is one use.

The Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting has high value to me at $20, because the feats from the book, and some of the rules are in use in nearly every game, and if you play in the campaign setting, it's even higher value potentially. To me, the splatbooks have low value, because much of the prestige classes and feats and new spells are pretty useless, and there's no potential for me to make more use of them in the game. The Core Books have the highest value to me, since they come into play nearly every game session.

 

[Kichwas]

I think it's an error to judge it by individual books as those two industry types were.

Judge it rather by overall buying trends.

If FRCS was cheaper; would more people have also bought a second WotC book the month they bought FRCS?

Even if the total had been slightly more than the one book alone?

Likewise with d20 books. How many people buy only X books when they desire to buy 2x because of the prices?

I suspect that once you start framing the question this way you'll find more sensitivity to the current pricing.

 

[Mistwell]

Well dude, since I pay between 70 and 100 kronor for a movie ticket, the price of tickets in LA, SD, NYC, SC, SF, St.L, KC and UNLV means precious little to me.

Sorry for not living in America.

Um, you phrased your post by using some kind of dollar (you said $7 to see a movie), why are you surprise that I answered using dollars?

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

[duplicate post]

 

[JohnNephew]

I think it's an error to judge it by individual books as those two industry types were.

Judge it rather by overall buying trends.

If FRCS was cheaper; would more people have also bought a second WotC book the month they bought FRCS?

Even if the total had been slightly more than the one book alone?

Likewise with d20 books. How many people buy only X books when they desire to buy 2x because of the prices?

I suspect that once you start framing the question this way you'll find more sensitivity to the current pricing.

Again, consider it from the publisher's POV. The question might not be, would they have bought a 2nd WotC book, but would they have supersized all their value meals that week?

Or, would they have bought some 3rd party D20 book, or one for a different game, or a Workshop mini?

By making an item that was highly valued, and highly priced, WotC made sure they got the money. They got their forty bucks. That's better than getting thirty and some odds of picking up the other ten from a module (with just as good odds that the other ten would go to see Spiderman --which Michelle says I now must get up and go do!).

 

[Storminator]

Monte Cook had a great way to talk about it. The difference is between a gaming product, and game materials. A game product is what you buy --- the book, the boxed set, etc. Game material is what you actually use.

For instance, let's say you buy "Song and Silence". That's the product. Call it P. You select "Quicker than the Eye" for your PC. That's the gaming material. Call it G. The price of the product is $.

My formula for computing value is: P/G TIMES $.

<SNIP>

LOL! your formula is inverted. It says if G=0, then value goes to infinity! You need

"If

value > G/P * $

then buy"

Just messin with ya...

PS

 

[Kichwas]

Again, consider it from the publisher's POV. The question might not be, would they have bought a 2nd WotC book,

...

By making an item that was highly valued, and highly priced, WotC made sure they got the money. They got their forty bucks. That's better than getting thirty and some odds of picking up the other ten from a module (with just as good odds that the other ten would go to see Spiderman --which Michelle says I now must get up and go do!).

That's a short sighted view though.

Do you want long term customers or short term buyers that don't come back?

If I buy two books I feel that I have greater buying power than if I buy one.

If I can only afford one then in future months I don't look as hard and may even decide I've been pushed out.

My group is full of people like this.

If I buy two then my perception is that I can afford more of this stuff. Even if in reality I spent the same amount of money in both cases.

I come away thinking I can afford to stay in the market and I keep looking for more that I can buy.

 

[Snoweel]

Mistwell wrote: Um, you phrased your post by using some kind of dollar (you said $7 to see a movie), why are you surprise that I answered using dollars?

Well, actually, the quote I supplied was a paraphrased quote that I read somewhere before by some industry type.

I've never forgotten it, right down to the $7.

The fact that the price of movie tickets is on the increase just means that, according to this twisted logic, the price of US published gaming products will rise too.

So maybe I should care.

But I'm going to keep spending how I spend - the price is either right or it isn't.

Incidentally, when I buy a product, it's entirely based on how useful it will be to my campaign. Given 3e's obsession with making our game more and more like a table-top computer game, most modules, indeed most accessories, aren't even worth combing for ideas, let alone adapting to my campaign.

The best module I bought recently for my game was 2e "Slavers".

Of course every stat block in it was useless, but then so was the MM.

However, the general situation of "Slavers" was adaptable to my campaign, where the MM is full of inspiration for adversaries and non-human races.

Not to mention pictures to show my PC's when I say "You see a big group of these."