Board Thread:Plants vs. Zombies 2/@comment-25546049-20151120001516/@comment-24275721-20151121181004

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. You make good points but what if the graph that they follow to scale out their revenue is based on Vector Graphs? In Vector Graphs, the postive curve towards profit indicates that price range will gradually incline towards plotted dots (as in customers) when teh price range hits a general avrage of curvature costs. Then, by that we can deduce that the lower the prices, the higher the chances ofpeople paying for it.

Sure, if this price model was failing, then it would have been abandoned BUT what if that price factor is determined by not the total number of people paying but by the total number of people actually trying to buy it based on different cost and currency inflations. That's a factor that we have to keep in mine. Cost inflations also say that when the initial plot of a hypothetical graphlines consisting of a vitual item is to be measured by scalar graphs, then the scales are tipped off in favor of inflation as the proper number of people paying for stuff has to go through such norms. So, while your point does raise a good question, the general rule of cost implosion should also be counted as the more number of people pay the max. profit bar rises as the currency inflow never stays the same. It is always considered as a variable and thus it is impossible to reach max profit as that term is really curveballed. But then again, the Max is to be deduced by the fact that currency is not always equal to the general revenue. Because while revenue is collected as a whole, tax deductions are accounted for in such situations. As such, the prices of these items will change. That's the keyword here; change. Not increase or decrease but change.