Some Math for Thrax

Natural said:
You said:


An inverse relationship is expressed as Y = ~1/X - Or as you seem to put:
quality ~ 1/price

In this relationship (INVERSE) as the quality of the game becomes high, the price drops lower. When the game costs pennies, the quality is at its highest.

What you meant to say is that price and quality are indirectly related(at least I hope). You're confusing the english and math meanings of the word direct and pairing them with improper antonyms.



And that changes what I said how? I consider the community as a whole. Every consumer is a member (so long as they keep playing). I like attacking your post because it was such a nice blend of economic and logical fallacy--I couldn't pass it up.

Way to make a mongoose out of a ferret. Maybe you could inform the rest of us dolts what your semantic argument has to do with the price of cock in China?
 
Thrax Panda said:
I absolutely guarantee 100% that the price will not be $70.00. We would never do that. It would be $69.95 in that case.

:rofl:


GLASS FUCKING JAR
 
-]P[-Veor said:
GLASS FUCKING JAR
Don't worry, I doubt if it will be more than $49.95, but if it were it wouldn't be $69.95, it would be $59.95, and that would depend on if everybody else was moving up in price too.

I'd make it $99.95 in North Carolina only, but it's not my decision :(
 
rilkean panther said:
Way to make a mongoose out of a ferret. Maybe you could inform the rest of us dolts what your semantic argument has to do with the price of cock in China?

I was explaining how you misused the word "inverse" in relation to game quality and sales. I told you this before, but you said I was wrong so this is my explanation.

Just because you don't remember your own posts doesn't mean the replies are meaningless.
 
rilkean panther said:
Since when are the quality of a product and the price of a product necessarily and directly, as opposed to inversely, linked to one another?

Natural (the legalist; there are many around here I'm finding),

I remember my post. I have quoted it here and have emboldened the gnat which you have so aggresivelely strained out to show how ridiculous it is for you to carry on about such a peripheral semantic issue with a grandstandish sense of moral high ground.

But, since you are such a keen editor, I would repost as follows so that those like yourself do not so easily get sidetracked in the course of discussions:

rilkean panther said:
Since when are the quality of a product and the price of a product necessarily and directly linked to one another?

Let the record show that I have removed a prepositional phrase so that Natural would not be further sidetracked by peripheral semantic issues during the course of discussion.


Lastly, as it turns out, "inversely" as an adjective, as in the phrase "inversely related" has more than just an application in math. If you are interested, Natural, you can do some dictionary work to see even further how eroneous your objection to my prepositional phrase is.

n. (nvûrs, n-vûrs)
Something that is opposite, as in sequence or character; the reverse
 
New releases of major titles intially sell to those people who want the game and who are not concerned with price. They are interested in getting it first. They buy full-priced games (usually at EB and Gamestop) and they buy even more high priced "Special Editions" or "Tin Boxes" and that kind of stuff. They find $49.95 to be an equitable price for a "A" game, and can swallow $59.95 for a "AAA" title like a WAR3.

Depending on the title, sales to these people span one to six months. Once the volume of sales for a title trickles off (and it does it quickly and dramatically), retailers start threatening to send the remaning product back to the publisher. At this point the publisher reduces their price on future and existing stock, spurring a brief upsurge in sales. These sales typically come from casual gamers buying at Target and WalMart. Once a product starts dropping price, it can't ever hold it unless it's a Half-Life caliber title. From $39.95 it drops to $19.95, and after another small upsurge in sales, it drops to $9.95 in the bargain bin where it will sell until its stock is exhausted unless its one of the top bargain sellers. This whole life cycle for an average game is about 9 months. There are many exceptions, but this is typical.

The proportion of sales between full price and reduced price is quite interesting. Typically, a core game sells 25% of its total units to the hardcore, and 75% of its units to the Walmart crowd at discounts. Simultaneously, the lifetime revenue for a game typically measures out to be 75% from core gamers who bought at full price, and 25% from casual who buy at discount.

The higher a price the product can support, the longer a shelf life it has, the more sales it generates. Therefore, Rilke, the higher the initial price of the product (as long as it's not prohibitive) the bigger the consumer base will be.

Edit: Be nice folks, this is the ON TOPIC forum. Take your flamage elsewhere.
 
Njal Storm said:
sounds like some people better ask there parents for a raise on there allowance............lol

i would pay $100.00 for anyy additional tribes titles.

they provide me w/ countless hours of enjoyment ( at least 3 hours a night, 5 times a week, for 4 years now)
 
WTF, he saunters in and says the same thing I just said (but all flowery like) and everybody say "Oh, OK" and gives up?

I need beer.
 
lol, the real underlying premise here is that everyone here will buy a copy, hehe they are powerless........

if they dont buy they will never know----> drive them crazy it will.

how else can they join thier "another tribes title fucked" army.

hehehe buy it they will........ it q0wns u.
 
Thrax Panda said:
Don't worry, I doubt if it will be more than $49.95, but if it were it wouldn't be $69.95, it would be $59.95, and that would depend on if everybody else was moving up in price too.

I'd make it $99.95 in North Carolina only, but it's not my decision :(

Good, I don't mind paying $50 for the next Tribes game, thats depending of course on how the beta goes.



re: north carolina

:no:
if that did happen you might want to watch your back, dawg.
 
Back
Top