This raises a really weird question based on stupid AI nonsense. If AI ever does factor in gender / race / religion for pricing, is it racist or is it simply data driven? Will it be rejected at a government level?
PC has multiple store fronts and key sellers that drive down the prices via competition. Sony is the sole provider of digital games on Playstation. Massive difference in economic forces at play.
What you're saying is unrelated but even then Steam has quite the monopoly there and no physical where you can get massive competition and discounts on console. But again, all unrelated to what we're discussing.
But you're only acknowledging one side of a coin. A bigger discount for some means the opposite for others, which is what people fear with this type of stuff. Everyone knows where this leads, certain players never getting discounts because of their perceived loyalty by the AI algorithm. Don't be a moron.
What? The only person being a moron is yourself. You don't seem to understand how price elasticity works. If the price rises "on the other side of the coin" then fewer people buy games and games are digital meaning no supply issues so why would the base price change. This side (discounts) is to increase sales but again what makes you believe that this practice does not already happen on the PC? You have different EU user segmented prices there already on PC.
You could avoid all this by just buying one of the other consol..... Wait a second.I really, really hate this shit.
Edit: I wonder if this has any legal issues in EU. I am guessing no, but I wish there was something that could be done about this whole dynamic pricing BS.
Edit 2: This also explains why some of the folks on GAF weren't getting the PSN sub discount offer.
This same line argument is made all the time with Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft all being the subject.
Try posting the percentage of crimes in the US by different races, with no other context, on Era and let me know if data by itself will be considered racist on its own.
I really just avoid it by buying on PC. And sometimes I get physical PS5/Switch games for my collection (ones that I really like).
CentralScrutinizer
fashion a laugh emoji and then don't address the point. So explain how "the other side of the coin" would work. There is a base price for games if they could increase that they would have already and it's not like they have supply issues for digital content. This is to get more customers, more sales, and they way you do that is discounts. So instead of just laughing it off like you do all your other antisony bullshit why don't you explain the other side of the coin and why you think PC doesn't already employ EU user segmented pricing.PC (steam) employs the same thing so you're not avoiding it at all if anything it's worse in price discrepancy on PC, due to different stores charging different amounts, limited keys being offered to some vs the actual store and steam segmenting more based on currency .
So sayeth the biggest sony fanboy on the forum.
You already spat that bullshit when you mentioned the emojis which was why I replied to you:
You're really bad at this.
circular conversation? Yeah, do you take pride in being good?
Less discounts the more you buy. Until you stop buying.
Neither of these. This wasn't actually personalised pricing like initially thought. Having read the source it's A/B testing for lower pricing with a sample picked at random. It needs to be a random sample in A/B testing. meaning what you have done or do doesn't affect anything in being picked for group A or group B otherwise the test is pointless.
The whole point with PC ecosystem (it's not just Steam) is that there is competition. It's not one actor (in this case Sony) who is gaming the thresholds at which people will pay within a closed system.
And if you believe that this is where they are going to stop and what they are really shooting for, I got nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell.
But the entire issue is that Group A got a bigger discount than Group B . People are mad that some are getting prices "that are significantly lower than the standard retail price".
if this's the point of the exercise, then why not just sell to everyone at $40, & then to everyone at $35, & determine the same thing? when we're all on the internet, & in communication re: stuff like pricing, what's the point of blatantly screwing some of your customer base when it's completely unnecessary?...
Because what if you don't increase unit volume but you've dropped margin on the same sales? It's a limited sales test. Keys work in a similar manner which is why Valve caps it and controls it. You don't want everybody buying keys instead of buying from the store.The people aren't really getting screwed, some are just getting a better deal than normal.
This is a pointless argument. The whole reason that people are upset with Sony is that it looks like they are gearing up to do personalized data driven discounts based on the least possible amount they can get away with to get people to bite.
And yet this is what people are arguing about here. This isn't about personalised pricing. That is the misunderstanding I'm talking about. It's an A/B price elasticity test to see if they should lower the price for all.
Sure….and the fact that PSN discounts are now personalized has nothing to do with this.
But it is. Read the source.
Did you read it, are you daft or what? A/B testing is not "personalised pricing" it has to be split randomly by definition otherwise the test is pointless. If you want to stick your hands in your ears and not read the source and pretend this is about "personalised pricing" then I can't help you.
sorry, man. frame it however you want, but when i pay less than you for the same damn thing, you're getting screwed. now, you wanna tell yourself 'gosh, he's lucky. but that's okay - i'm really simply paying the 'normal' price'? you go right ahead...
I guess that's one way of looking at it, I don't consider somebody being picked in a random draw as me getting screwed. I've lost nothing with that random draw existing. They've been lucky though to be picked for the trial.
Becuase responding to you isn't worth the hassle because you aren't even engaging in the argument at all. You're literally a waste of my time. I never said anything about raising the base price. I simply said this feature could be used to deny discounts to people they think will spend the money regardless. You just like to ignore what I say and go on fanboy tangents that I'm not interested in reading.In usual
Go on, keep defending your favorite giant Corpo.
I'm engaging with everyone who has made a point. Ignoring my question of what the other side of the coin is and leaving only a laugh emoji is you not engaging.
Keep ignoring the point because you know you didn't read what you thought it was.
People are talking about where this stuff leads in the end game you idiot, not what this specific study is for. Quit being dense and stop trying to play defense. We all know what the end game is, except you of course.
I gave you an example of Sony doing personalized pricing right now and you are completely ignoring it and going on to tilt as a noble knight for Sony's defense.
for a number of us sony/playstation customers, it absolutely is. when i hear of others getting discounts on a year of ps plus essential, & it's not available to me, for whatever friggin' reason? it most certainly is...
You're an imbecile. Is this your engagement? So define it, where does it lead? Define "this stuff" because you stupidly think this is building a profile of you to give prices based on the user and you're too stubborn to admit that you're completely wrong about that. This is a random trail to see how lower prices affect increased sales volume.
We already said where we think this leads earlier in the thread. Go back and read it, I'm not spelling it out again for you to ignore.
Where was your example of it? Are you talking about your PS+ post I liked very early in the thread? How was it personalised? It could have been the same A/B testing.
Obviously, but that's the fucking point you're ignoring. Efficient monetisation here is lower prices for the consumer vs standard retail price but higher volume (its a digital good so cost of ramping up sales is low). They are testing whether to decrease prices for everybody if it means more people biting. That's what price elasticity is.
Sure buddy in your imagination. Is it hard to explain what your envisaged "other side of the coin" is? Thought so.We already said where we think this leads earlier in the thread. Go back and read it, I'm not spelling it out again for you to ignore.
Yeah I get that it's a bit gutting to not get picked for something good like this trial, some even get picked and sent out free codes, same with betas I don't get picked for but I don't necessarily feel that screwed by it. I understand the feeling and sympathise. We can only hope those in the lucky group bit so that it gets rolled out for everybody.
