Board Thread:Plants vs. Zombies 2/@comment-25546049-20151120001516/@comment-26942983-20151122054104

RetroBowser wrote: IG Gaming + Maramok= Awesome wrote: RetroBowser wrote: DaddyB0yn3d wrote: Coolyoyo33 wrote: DaddyB0yn3d wrote: Coolyoyo33 wrote: The Ancient Pult Ancestor wrote: Salad200 wrote: still don't know if shrinking violet is premium or gemium (my damn internet broke) Let's see. Extremely useful. Plus points for being cute (not the most bada** plant, not a favorite, but certainly the cutest one I've ever seen in the series)

We all know PopCap. We all know EA. We all know what they need: MONEY!

Already confirmed in the previous comments, though I'm seriously hoping for a last minute change. You're wrong - They don't need money, they have a greed for money. They just want it like dogs want bones, they've stooped so low, if anyone says "You don't have to buy them" well, they made them the best plants in the game and nerfed all the free plants so yes we do if we want some actual firepower.

Also they never last minute changes CS or Grapeshot so I doubt they'll last minute change another virtual plant for $7. the last premium may even be $14 or somethin EA is a company. Companies are made for one purpose: make money.

Yes, they need money to support their company.

I hate premium plants as much as the next guy, but they're not greedy for money. Every company wants money. Yes but every company doesn't just selfishly look at the mirror and totally ignore their consumers, our feedback isn't given two sh*ts about. The only actual people they take any feedback from are famous youtubers who praise the game like it's perfect so they have free advertising campaigns. Every company does want to make money but there is an extent to which it goes to do so.

Now look, if popcap had kept to how they were in far future (1 money premium per world for $3-$4 they would've been getting better profit, increasing the price lowers the profit, haven't they ever learned a thing about economics or business? Now people are mostly hacking the prems in because they're NOT worth it. People have always been hacking the premiums.

Clearly the 7 dollar plants are working, since they keep making them.

The people who buy the 7 dollar plants are most likely the target audience: children. The children have no sense of the worth of a dollar, so they don't see the "$6.99", and only see the cool new plant that they want. They ask their parents, and the parents buy the plant for them. EA knows this, and they will keep increasing the price of plants. Actually you learn in school that it actually formulates more of a quadratic relation than a linear relation so you can see that you are on the right track, but with the wrong conclusion. While it is true that lowering a price would increase the number of customers in theory, it still comes down to the this:

A higher number of customers paying a lower price, and inversely a lower number of customers paying a higher price will both reach the same ultimate fate: they will not give out max profit.

When the right balance between price and #of purchases is achieved we get a max value where the most profit is achieved. Let's take a look at a visual graph (that is not co-related to pvz 2 but used for visual understanding only).

You can clearly see that the lowest price, nor highest price determine the max revenue.

Lower price might mean more customers but it doesn't mean max profit.

Therefore your argument that they should lower the price because more people would have it and they would get more money is invalid. A company as big as EA has people paid to determine how they get the max profit and since the last few premiums averaged around $7, we can justly say that it works because they would not continue to use a broken system if it was losing them money.

People should stop using fallicious arguments and argue based on factual evidence.

Hmm, I agree with this, but then again, I'm probably biased toward math. Also, profit should be more of a normal curve. As x increases to a large number, it will be likely that nobody buys anything, but there will still be some donations, so profit will not hit zero like that. Theoretically it always with the trend displayed because its not an 1^X graph, it's an X^2 graph. Since the graph has a positive Y value on the vertex and opens downwards, it will hit 0 seeing that the graph also has no restrictions on the variables.

And theoretically this is correct. You make a price low enough, you actually start making less than it took to develop that (I.E paying people to program, people to create the art) and therefore make a loss. The point where you neither gain nor lose money would be that 0 on the graph.

Inversely say you made the price high enough that you don't make as much as you put in, again you get a loss and see the same effect.

The relation is based on revenue so profit is based off of initial cost and money earned. If you make less than it took to develop, you have negative profit. Yes, but as I said, there are donations. Also there will be different coefficients for different plants depending on the plant's usefulness, which itself is opinionative.