Can’t be that they hired business and psychology people only to come up with such a retarded cost. My guess would be they intentionally leaked a $100 figure so they could price a barebones dlc at $50 and go ‘see, we listened!’
What they did, if you read the piece, was to ask people what it would take to justify a long list of price points, from 50 to 100. Which is a good practice for a survey question like that, because you want to know at what point people start to say “there’s nothing you could do to justify a price point of 70” so you know where the breaking point is.
It doesn’t even mean that they’ll price it at whatever people say is the breaking point. They could see that the sweet spot is somewhere else. But if you’re asking people to put something on a scale you need the scale to be bigger than the range of valid responses or you can’t see what people are saying.
Can’t be that they hired business and psychology people only to come up with such a retarded cost. My guess would be they intentionally leaked a $100 figure so they could price a barebones dlc at $50 and go ‘see, we listened!’
Eh… no, almost certainly not.
What they did, if you read the piece, was to ask people what it would take to justify a long list of price points, from 50 to 100. Which is a good practice for a survey question like that, because you want to know at what point people start to say “there’s nothing you could do to justify a price point of 70” so you know where the breaking point is.
It doesn’t even mean that they’ll price it at whatever people say is the breaking point. They could see that the sweet spot is somewhere else. But if you’re asking people to put something on a scale you need the scale to be bigger than the range of valid responses or you can’t see what people are saying.
Deceptive headlines are deceptive.