There's a lot of interesting psychology in pricing. There was a case study (don't remember the link/source, I think it may have been in a TED Talk) a while back about how the existence of an option that people would be dumb to select can dramatically influence the outcome of the two options that make sense.
Paraphrased example:
There was a newspaper selling three packages:
Newspaper only - $40
Online only - $60
Online and newspaper - $60
There is no intelligent reason to select the "Online only" option, as for the exact same price you could get the print version as well.
However, when this professor did two polls in several of his (large lecture) classes. One group was given the three options, another group was given just two options, print or online. The group given three options, predictably, had 0% selecting online only, with (these numbers are from memory) 70% selecting both, and 30% selecting newspaper only.
The group that was given just the two options ended up dramatically preferring the cheaper option with the numbers essentially reversed, 30% choosing online and newspaper. (I looked for the talk to confirm the numbers but couldn't find it - I'd love if someone could point it out and get the correct numbers).
The idea was basically that you could have a throw-away option that actually GAVE MORE (perceived) VALUE and TOOK AWAY VALUE to other options.
This situation may not entirely apply to this example, but I wonder if what's going on is basically:
Trying to increase the perceived value of the more expensive product by having a cheaper product right there, even though he acknowledges there is no additional value.
For anyone interested in learning tons more on the topic of consumer behavior, here's a nice outline of the book "Predictably Rational" containing key points:
They should have also made a higher tier price. Some people would have paid that because they love the game, and what is the big difference between $5.99 and $9.99 if you are in a wealthy country and have a full-time job?
Interesting nudge - the background image for the "discount edition" button is a pile of maggots.
Aside from that, patio11 is right - there's nothing good about this idea. If you can't immediately identify half a dozen horrible mistakes in this scheme, your first priority should be to do some reading on pricing.
This kind of "differential pricing by gentle emotional blackmail" approach seems to work for those who can establish more of a convincingly personal relationship with the customer. Or which at least on a broad economic scale feels like a relationship of equals.
As he points out, bigger orgs tend to fall back on the more traditional and distanced means of differential pricing (sales, selectively-targetted vouchers, student discounts etc)
It's strange. As a 3D modeller who loves the game, I would adore making the artwork for free for everyone to enjoy. GSB should involve the community more.
I think this is a great idea and very upfront for the reasoning. There are many games I know nothing about and would like to try, having the discount edition (barring there is a demo) lets me do this at little cost to me, and if it is a hit, I will be a lifelong customer paying full price onward. I dig it.
I've considered this as well for pricing our product. We have users from all over the world, all of which have a drastically different spending ability. Additionally, we have a strong connection with our users, so I think the emotional appeal would be successful.
It's just so hard to bet potentially thousands of dollars on it!
I would assume it's much harder to double the price for what is the third expansion pack in a series, that gives everyone price-points to compare with. Also, if you make a computer game, its price will be compared to every other computer game, and to be at the high end of pricing, you have to release an AAA title that cost millions and had a 100+ person development team, otherwise people will think it's too expensive.
So doubling your price is only a valid strategy if people can't compare your price to similar products.
Wait a minute? This looks like the best bits of Master of Orion 2, upgraded to modern graphics standards. I've been waiting for something like this for a long time. Now if only this workday could end so I can run the demo... :-)
I still play MOO2. Interested: what are the "best bits"? I adore the tactical combat - can you defeat 3 inbound battleships with 3 scouts and a missile base? Ok it took 10 tries but what a blast when you succeed!
Buildings on the planet were cumbersome - how to improve?
Btw a group of us have designed a MOO-like collectible card game, in beta test, pretty cool if I say so myself. 400 unique cards so far (Stellar Converter! Ion Pulse Cannon!), dozens of deck styles/ways to win.
No, pricing is fine, it's just that the anti-piracy brigade get more airtime than the validity of their arguments merit... as has been demonstrated ad nauseum by experiments such as this.
It's almost as if they know damned well that their reasoning is wrong, and are just trying to milk as much as they can before the rest of the world catches up. Hey, wait a minute...
[+] [-] zacharycohn|15 years ago|reply
Paraphrased example: There was a newspaper selling three packages: Newspaper only - $40 Online only - $60 Online and newspaper - $60
There is no intelligent reason to select the "Online only" option, as for the exact same price you could get the print version as well.
However, when this professor did two polls in several of his (large lecture) classes. One group was given the three options, another group was given just two options, print or online. The group given three options, predictably, had 0% selecting online only, with (these numbers are from memory) 70% selecting both, and 30% selecting newspaper only.
The group that was given just the two options ended up dramatically preferring the cheaper option with the numbers essentially reversed, 30% choosing online and newspaper. (I looked for the talk to confirm the numbers but couldn't find it - I'd love if someone could point it out and get the correct numbers).
The idea was basically that you could have a throw-away option that actually GAVE MORE (perceived) VALUE and TOOK AWAY VALUE to other options.
This situation may not entirely apply to this example, but I wonder if what's going on is basically: Trying to increase the perceived value of the more expensive product by having a cheaper product right there, even though he acknowledges there is no additional value.
[+] [-] photon_off|15 years ago|reply
http://bookoutlines.pbworks.com/Predictably-Irrational
Plugging that into moreofit.com gives you an endless list of interesting consumer behavior articles:
http://www.moreofit.com/search/?q=http://bookoutlines.pbwork...
[+] [-] patio11|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ericb|15 years ago|reply
To my mind, that seems like this isn't a failure at all.
[+] [-] gregpilling|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jot|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eru|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdietrich|15 years ago|reply
Aside from that, patio11 is right - there's nothing good about this idea. If you can't immediately identify half a dozen horrible mistakes in this scheme, your first priority should be to do some reading on pricing.
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] revolvingcur|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjw|15 years ago|reply
This kind of "differential pricing by gentle emotional blackmail" approach seems to work for those who can establish more of a convincingly personal relationship with the customer. Or which at least on a broad economic scale feels like a relationship of equals.
As he points out, bigger orgs tend to fall back on the more traditional and distanced means of differential pricing (sales, selectively-targetted vouchers, student discounts etc)
[+] [-] someone_here|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PatHyatt|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cullenking|15 years ago|reply
It's just so hard to bet potentially thousands of dollars on it!
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] henrikschroder|15 years ago|reply
So doubling your price is only a valid strategy if people can't compare your price to similar products.
[+] [-] henrikschroder|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|15 years ago|reply
Buildings on the planet were cumbersome - how to improve?
Btw a group of us have designed a MOO-like collectible card game, in beta test, pretty cool if I say so myself. 400 unique cards so far (Stellar Converter! Ion Pulse Cannon!), dozens of deck styles/ways to win.
[+] [-] eru|15 years ago|reply
MoO II, while itself a fine game, left that legacy, and feels much closer to Civilization than to MoO.
[+] [-] getonit|15 years ago|reply
It's almost as if they know damned well that their reasoning is wrong, and are just trying to milk as much as they can before the rest of the world catches up. Hey, wait a minute...
[+] [-] tptacek|15 years ago|reply