>>22680054>please someone explain to me why they will probably choose the first option anyways?They always drop the prices of games over time. Charging that high of a price to begin with is just a way to fleece early adopters who refuse to wait. Reviews at first might trend to being negative and sales might be slower, but this doesn't matter in the long run. These companies are playing the long game.
Then a year later, the game is half the price, sales start to pick up, and reviews trend to be more favorable.
"Review bombing" games can easily be undone over time. Do you remember the controversy over No Man's Sky when it first launched? Reviews on Steam at first got the game down to as low as only 9% positive user reviews at first. But now you look at the reviews on that game and it is overwhelmingly positive.
Slow sales and negative initial reviews simply do not matter at all in the long run. If you understood how the long game works then you would understand this. This company executives DO understand this.
They're maximizing their profits by getting extra money out of early adopters. But they will STILL get just as many sales in the long run from everyone else after the price gets dropped.
Don't forget eventually these games will end up $20 and maybe even 75% off that in a Steam sale. I'm talking like a decade or more from now so it won't be anytime soon, but still. If you can't or don't want to pay $100 on a game, then don't. Just wait and play the long game and then you can get it cheap. But even sold cheap still counts as a sale, and adds into however many millions of copies these games sell.
