The Cost of Price: The Effects of Pricing on the User Experience

For this digression I would ask you the reader to grant me one premise:
"Price is a factor that always plays into a product's sense of worth"
Granting me this premise, I would propose that the justification for this statement  is that the association of worth we convey to our products is primarily an unconscious process.  Hypothetically, lets say you have three identical watches of which you sell one for $100, sell the second for $20, and give the last one away. How much does this method affect the owners associated worth of there watches. It is not difficult to understand the greater sense of ownership that the purchaser of the $100 watch possesses over the owner of the free watch. 
 
Relevance: Have you the reader owned products in the past who's price has effected its worth to you? Perhaps an expensive item you splurged on, or an inexpensive product  which exceeded your expectations? How does games fall into this classification for you, and have you noticed pricing affecting you experience? Does the lack of cost effect the end user experience of  those whom pirate games given that they have not invested in a sense of worth?

For this digression I would ask you the reader to grant me one premise:
"Price is a factor that always plays into a product's sense of worth"
Granting me this premise, I would propose that the justification for this statement  is that the association of worth we convey to our products is primarily an unconscious process.  Hypothetically, lets say you have three identical watches of which you sell one for $100, sell the second for $20, and give the last one away. How much does this method affect the owners associated worth of there watches. It is not difficult to understand the greater sense of ownership that the purchaser of the $100 watch possesses over the owner of the free watch. 
 
Relevance: Have you the reader owned products in the past who's price has effected its worth to you? Perhaps an expensive item you splurged on, or an inexpensive product  which exceeded your expectations? How does games fall into this classification for you, and have you noticed pricing affecting you experience? Does the lack of cost effect the end user experience of  those whom pirate games given that they have not invested in a sense of worth?

Well, I payed full price for Fable III and played it extensively. However, a lot of the steam sale games I buy I've hardly touched. I don't think this has to do with perceived value of the game though. It's more likely circumstantial in my case because I was living in a college dorm at the time and only had my 360 around. I really don't buy games full priced anymore now that I have a computer and access to those insane Steam sales (better than piracy!). I think most people consider the 60 dollar price tag on games to be ridiculous. I don't really related cost of a game to its quality. I think I've been reading reviews too long to buy into that.

I can see your point , but cost doesn't have to only relate to price. Price is simply the easiest way to associate the level of investment you the end user have applied  toward a given product and is universally relevant in the subject of worth. However, there are less concrete (though no less substantive) ways one can sustain a cost in order to invest in an item's worth, such as time. For example, lets say you find a large piece of wood and decide to spend a week carving it into a bust. Even when the week is over the object may still have no material value, but you have invested a substantial amount of personal worth into the item. 
So it is in this way, the investment of time (among other currencies), that the end user can imbue a product with personal worth. In a personal analogy I can think of a game I played years ago back in my sophomore year in collage. I had bought my older brother's Dreamcast and his stack of games for about $50, mostly I had just been interested in soul caliber 3 and San Fransisco rush 2049 so I never played many of the other games. One day I was bored and decided to play one of the games I had never touched before called Evolution. It looked like a game skewed to a younger audience and since it was not the reason I had bought the system the game had no personal value to me. However, I then preceded to play it for the next 24hours straight. By the end of that play session I had invested a great deal of personal worth into that game and it still holds a high place in my heart.
 
The reason I began along this train of thought was actually Steam related.  One of the games I had always meant to play but never had was Portal. However, when Steam offered it for free a couple of days ago I decided there would be no better time. While I enjoyed to game I didn't really feel a sense of ownership. So I wondered to myself, "had I purchased this game would I feel a stronger sense of ownership or worth?" Portal is not a long game, so I did not invest much time into it and establish worth in that way. So the question for me becomes "would I have been better of not downloading to for free?"  I know the question seems frivolous and I'm sure that in the same circumstances I would have done the same thing, but I am still curious as to whether my sense of ownership would have been different.  

I do see what the commenter above, noble_yorik is saying. There are other investments you could put into a game that make that game seem more valuable to you. But what I wanted to say is how what I haven't heard yet either, which is that when purchasing a full priced game or just purchasing a game in general is the circumstances surrounding that purchase. What I mean is that you could have a kid who has just enough to buy one full priced game, but that is his only game he could afford for the next month. That means this game, included with the games he already owns, are the only games he could play. Now the next assumptions are all just based own my own experiences. Now when you buy a game with your hard earned money, you look for the best quality game with the most value for your money, or in other words the longest game you can get.You look for the most content you can get for that 60 dollars or however much on that game you are getting. But for a kid who can only get one game a month, it's all the same. What I mean is that the end result is the same for him. It doesn't matter if he got a huge open world game like Fallout 3 or a straight linear game like Army Of Two. Now I know if the kid had the knowledge of the two games and the choice of which one to pick, I know it would be Fallout 3 almost purely because of the two different lengths of gameplay. But what I can also assure you is that the two outcomes would have been the same of how much time is invested in the two. That's because no matter what, that kid only can pick one, and when that kid picks his one he's stuck with it. Now he is going to justify that purchase by playing that game to the fullest of its extent, or until something new and better comes his way. 
 
So what I'm ultimately saying is that we all talk about getting the most bang for our buck, which is definitely true when we have to make choices between certain games. But no matter what we pick in any circumstance, we will try and  justify that purchase by playing the hell out of it and try and experience every nook and cranny of that game, or until we feel that we have justified our purchase. This can also lead to why we defend games so whole hartedly from reviews. We want to justify our purchase and think that you made the right decision.
 
I have always tried to get the best valued games with my money and try and only buy the longer games. That's why I also rent most of the games I play. But recently I have gotten into a snag of buying shorter games because of their quality. I think it goes back to the circumstance of me having more constant funds to buy games. It lays off of the pressure  bit to think if a game is worth my money. For instance I rented Batman when it came out last year and got almost all the achievements in it and beat the game. But now I see it on sale in some places for like 20 bucks and am really thinking hard on if I should get it because it is such a good game and I just want to play it again. And with the funds I have it's almost like a no-brainer.  It just comes back to if you think a certain game you like is worth the amount of your money.

You make a good point, spence_5060 and expose another insight into the investment of worth... circumstance. Take the previous example of a subject finding a large piece of wood and deciding to spend a week carving it into a bust, lets say that in this hypothetical situation the reason the subject decided to carve the bust is that while trying to wait out a thunder storm, lightning strikes a limb off of the tree he is sitting under and it is this timber he now wants to carve. In this way circumstance serves as a motivator toward instilling worth. You can also see this in the analogy you put forward of the kid whom only gets to play one new game a month. It is because of his/her circumstances that they are motivated to get the most value out of their game, and in this way instill it with personal worth. However, that presupposes that the inverse can also be true, such as the other circumstance you stated. In which as a result of having constant funds you are able to buy a glut of games and in this way devalue the personal worth of any one game due to less personal time invested and having a less impactful circumstance in their acquisition.  So it would seem that circumstance can be a powerful tool for both good and ill when it comes to instilling worth.
 
The other point you bring forward is justification. Based on the context you have coached this in, I would go so far as to also add vindication and validation and to surmise that all three stem from the same source. As to the source, I think you rightly named one of the contributing factors in circumstance. But remember that circumstance for better or worse is simply a motivator for the investment of personal worth. And so it is the defense of this valued commodity that so much vitriol is spewed. Think back to the lightning struck timber turned carved bust and imagine the lengths to which the carver would justify and defend his totem if others spoke ill of it. Once again, it is not  the item the man would defend (though you could have fooled him) so much as the personal worth he has invested in it.

I would be curious to have your thoughts on a similar discussion I've had with my roommate and on other forums on the game Persona 3 and it's upcoming re-release Persona 3 Portable. I think it's relevant to the conversation for a number of reasons... For one, you've talked about Investments of Time. Anyone had played a Shin Megami game knows that Time is in fact the greatest cost, while also having a high risk/reward factor. There's also financial logic... One could pick up Persona 3 on the PS2 for dirt cheap, and pick up it's extended content FES release for $30 since it came out (It's likely cheaper now, I would imagine). Now, Atlus is pushing a remix of the original game for $40 bones on the PSP. In my view we have the bonus: new main character with new story opportunities, as well as updated controls and mechanics to better suit the clearly superior Persona 4 (Square-button quick-travel, full-party control, etc.) However, much is lost, like the animated cut-scenes, and really any sense of on-screen action... since everything has been reduced to text and character portraits outside of Tartarus.  
 
So with fresh mechanics and story, but terribly reduced visuals (and likely high-end load times), where does the value of this game lie? Is it worth $40, which is $10 more than the FES version (whose bonus content has also been removed, some would argue for the better). As far as I think most gamers are concerned, I believe it comes down to many of the circumstances listed above, but ultimately leads to where your priorities lie. To borrow the watch metaphor, perceived values also have to be weighed against priorities. The 3 watches, $100, $20, and Free can be weighed against any number of values. If the watch is the same, one thing one might have to look at is how much it cost to make it. Also, do you even need a watch? Are you perhaps a watch collector... is it a rare watch that you can show off, or put at the center of the collection? And what about brand loyalty? Does Brand A always break on you, so you wouldn't even take it for free, but Brand B is well worth every cent of the full price tag? 
 
And now I understand why it takes me two hours to leave a GameStop or a Best Buy... and it's been like this since I was a kid at the video store, two dollars in hand, deciding what to spend my weekend-long rental with. (Hint: it was Super Mario RPG. Over, and over again. And I never got my file back the next time I rented it, so I always had to start from scratch.)  Now a days, I'm a more dangerous person when I have money... compulsively buying things because they have Shin Megami in the title (of which I have only ever beaten Persona 3 and 4), or sometimes diving into a bargain bin and grabbing whatever I can. It works out now and then; I did find Big Bang Mini for 20 bones. That game is flippin' awesome. 
 
I guess what I'm saying is you didn't factor crazy into this equation. I have purchased Portal no less than 3 times. Once in The Orange Box 360, once in The Orange Box for PC, and again for Xbox Live arcade. Why? I don't god damned know. I guess I just really love that game and want them to make more... I did the same thing with Peggle, buying it for PC, Xbox Live, and DS. I guess what that boils down to is having been hurt by TV shows that get cancelled because they don't have support, and wanting to throw as much money at things I end up liking, for whatever reason, in desperate hopes to get more and more. I'm doing that with Fringe, the TV show, right now. Every episode I buy on Xbox Live, and then I buy the Blu ray when it comes out. Am I consumer whore, or wishful investor? Can't it be both? :/ Sorry if I have wasted your time.

I payed $3.50 for The Club. It's totally fun and I have a blast playing it. 
 
If I payed $59.99 for it though, I would definitely be angry and feel ripped off. It's just not a $60 game.

DrRandle, your question was indeed a little scatter-shot but you bring another important factor to light... perceived value. In fact that was the reason for the original analogy involving the three watches. In the analogy the three men obtain the same watch but their level of perceived value is different based on what they believe the market price of the watch to be. The difference in price also effects their level of personal investment and their investment of personal worth into the watches. So it is a combination of both of these factors that effects one's level of attachment to a product. In the analogy it is easy to understand that the level of expectation for the man whom paid $100 is much higher than the man given the free watch. The watch must now stand-up under a higher level of scrutiny, however as was discussed previously because this individual has invested a higher level of personal worth into the product he will also be inclined to be more forgiving in defense of said worth. If the watch can hold up to his scrutiny then it will likely hold a higher place in his esteem than the man with the free watch. However, because the level of investment is so much lower for the man with the free watch then so too is his level of expectation for the watch's performance and as such the watch is not held to the same level of scrutiny as the previous case subject. But once again the level of personal investment for the later individual is lower and so the only factor that can increase its personal worth to him are "circumstance and time".
 
For example in schizogony's post, it is mentioned that he bought The Club for $3.50 and enjoyed it quite a bit. Given that his level of personal investment is low, but that he feels fondly for the game it can be assumed that the circumstances in which he played the game were good (perhaps in play sessions with friends or enjoying a quite weekend on the couch with pizza) which encouraged his investment of time and therefore personal worth into the game. However, he brings up a good point in which he states that he would not have been happy if the game had cost $60. This is because his level of perceived value has been effected by the market price and reception of the game. As such his level of expectation was lower that it would be had the game been more expensive. However, the question becomes had the game originally cost $60 and his initial level of personal investment been higher would that have enough of an offset to change his feelings of the game?

" DrRandle, your question was indeed a little scatter-shot but you bring another important factor to light... perceived value. In fact that was the reason for the original analogy involving the three watches. In the analogy the three men obtain the same watch but their level of perceived value is different based on what they believe the market price of the watch to be. The difference in price also effects their level of personal investment and their investment of personal worth into the watches. So it is a combination of both of these factors that effects one's level of attachment to a product. In the analogy it is easy to understand that the level of expectation for the man whom paid $100 is much higher than the man given the free watch. The watch must now stand-up under a higher level of scrutiny, however as was discussed previously because this individual has invested a higher level of personal worth into the product he will also be inclined to be more forgiving in defense of said worth. If the watch can hold up to his scrutiny then it will likely hold a higher place in his esteem than the man with the free watch. However, because the level of investment is so much lower for the man with the free watch then so too is his level of expectation for the watch's performance and as such the watch is not held to the same level of scrutiny as the previous case subject. But once again the level of personal investment for the later individual is lower and so the only factor that can increase its personal worth to him are "circumstance and time".  For example in schizogony's post, it is mentioned that he bought The Club for $3.50 and enjoyed it quite a bit. Given that his level of personal investment is low, but that he feels fondly for the game it can be assumed that the circumstances in which he played the game were good (perhaps in play sessions with friends or enjoying a quite weekend on the couch with pizza) which encouraged his investment of time and therefore personal worth into the game. However, he brings up a good point in which he states that he would not have been happy if the game had cost $60. This is because his level of perceived value has been effected by the market price and reception of the game. As such his level of expectation was lower that it would be had the game been more expensive. However, the question becomes had the game originally cost $60 and his initial level of personal investment been higher would that have enough of an offset to change his feelings of the game? "

I think you are overestimating the long term effect of price on personal value. In the short term, what you paid for something will shape your expectations and perceived value, but in 5 years if I have 2 watches that are identical in every way except what I paid for them, I'll have no preference either way.

Also, I don't understand your point about Portal having less of a sense of worth because you got it for free. If anything, I'd say that price and worth are inversely related. On the rare occasion that I buy games at MSRP, I'm always a little worried in the back of my mind that the game won't provide $60 worth of entertainment as I play the game. Getting games for cheap allows you to bypass the illogical part of your brain that can't think clearly when sunk costs are involved.

While it is true that paying a higher cost for a product leads to a higher expectation and in turn can lead to a low level of anxiety when gauging whether the product has met those expectations, I would propose that there can also be a higher level of gratification in the purchasing of said product. A form of justification such as "This is expensive, but I work hard and I deserve this". In this way the act of making the purchase can be a release of sorts, a way of releasing oneself from personal feelings of financial misappropriation and granting self gratification.
 
However, once again the subject of monetary cost has become the primary focus when it seems to me that in the subject of personal worth it should be a secondary consideration. As you sixghost pointed out " in 5 years if I have 2 watches that are identical in every way except what I paid for them, I'll have no preference either way". After the initial investment has been laid money moves from the realm of the concrete to the abstract, in relation to the product in question it only serves as a mechanism toward helping the end user to establish personal worth (and in that way a bond with the product) in combination with other factors such as circumstance and the investment of time.
For example, in the analogy of the two watches lets say that while it is true that both watches initially cost the same in terms of price. However, lets suppose that watch B stopped working as the result of a car accident that you were in and that after you had spend time to recover from the accident you spend a week getting watch B fixed as a way to move on from the accident and get your life back on track. Now the situation has changed, due to the effects of circumstance and its motivation in the investment of time you have now invested personal worth into the watch. At the end of the five year period one would imagine that watch B would hold more value to you.  Monetary cost become irrelevant (in terms of the establishment of personal worth) after it has served its purpose in shaping the end-users perception of value and gauging their level of personal investment into a product.
 
In regards to Portal, I was just wondering if my associated level of personal worth would have been significantly different had I initially paid a monetary cost. Remember that the level or existence of a monetary cost is not necessary in the establishment of personal worth, but it can serve as a stepping stone given its association with one's perception of value and in its role in establishing a personal investment. Not having had that stepping stone my investment into portal was derived solely from circumstance and investment of time. In regards to circumstance I played through the entirely of Portal in one sitting while taking a break from a couple of other games. So circumstance served to neither add or detract from personal worth. In regards to time, Portal is a short game so not much was invested (though I do plan to go back through and hear the commentary). 
 
So that's pretty much it, in hindsight I found myself idly wondering if my experiance would have been differant had I originally paid for the game. Although as I had mentioned earlier in the postings I would have made the same choice had I to make them again (its kind of illogical to pay more for something if you don't have to). But I thought that exploring the topic would be fun, so here we are.

I believe it and have thought about it many times before.  The best example I've used many times before is sunglasses.  How many pairs of cheap ass sunglasses do you own that you have no idea the location of?  I have purchased many shitty $20 pairs that end up being easily broken or left somewhere.  But I have a pair of $300 Oakleys that I've had for 7 years now.
 
I find the question gets interesting when you start talking about gifts.  At what point do you put assign it as being more important.  If you really like the gift then you are going to take care of it.  But what if you like the gift but know it only cost the person $10 What if you don't like the gift but know that is worth $200?

I find the question gets interesting when you start talking about gifts.  At what point do you put assign it as being more important.  If you really like the gift then you are going to take care of it.  But what if you like the gift but know it only cost the person $10 What if you don't like the gift but know that is worth $200? " 

That's true Spencer in that in that specific situation guilt can negatively play into the owner of the gift's personal investment into the product, but it does not negate the process of the owner investing the item with personal worth. The process in which the individual has received the product simply plays into the factor of circumstance, but if the circumstances revolving around the item were to evolve and if the owner were to invest time into the gift then it's personal value to him can increase.

" While it is true that paying a higher cost for a product leads to a higher expectation and in turn can lead to a low level of anxiety when gauging whether the product has met those expectations, I would propose that there can also be a higher level of gratification in the purchasing of said product. A form of justification such as "This is expensive, but I work hard and I deserve this". In this way the act of making the purchase can be a release of sorts, a way of releasing oneself from personal feelings of financial misappropriation and granting self gratification.

I'm not sure I follow you on your second point. Price is just a point of entry when applied to video games, once you pay for the game, price really plays no part in determining value aside from reselling the game. Especially considering how sharply the price of games drop after 6+ months, I don't think price is a good value metric. Say someone goes out and buys Dead Space for $10 and some mediocre game for $60. I don't think it follows to say that the $60 game has a higher value ceiling.

 However, once again the subject of monetary cost has become the primary focus when it seems to me that in the subject of personal worth it should be a secondary consideration. As you sixghost pointed out " in 5 years if I have 2 watches that are identical in every way except what I paid for them, I'll have no preference either way". After the initial investment has been laid money moves from the realm of the concrete to the abstract, in relation to the product in question it only serves as a mechanism toward helping the end user to establish personal worth (and in that way a bond with the product) in combination with other factors such as circumstance and the investment of time. For example, in the analogy of the two watches lets say that while it is true that both watches initially cost the same in terms of price. However, lets suppose that watch B stopped working as the result of a car accident that you were in and that after you had spend time to recover from the accident you spend a week getting watch B fixed as a way to move on from the accident and get your life back on track. Now the situation has changed, due to the effects of circumstance and its motivation in the investment of time you have now invested personal worth into the watch. At the end of the five year period one would imagine that watch B would hold more value to you.  Monetary cost become irrelevant (in terms of the establishment of personal worth) after it has served its purpose in shaping the end-users perception of value and gauging their level of personal investment into a product.

Here I think you are venturing out of the original scope of the thread. What you seem to be talking about here is the added value of memories, experiences, and nostalgia associated with the object.

 In regards to Portal, I was just wondering if my associated level of personal worth would have been significantly different had I initially paid a monetary cost. Remember that the level or existence of a monetary cost is not necessary in the establishment of personal worth, but it can serve as a stepping stone given its association with one's perception of value and in its role in establishing a personal investment. Not having had that stepping stone my investment into portal was derived solely from circumstance and investment of time. In regards to circumstance I played through the entirely of Portal in one sitting while taking a break from a couple of other games. So circumstance served to neither add or detract from personal worth. In regards to time, Portal is a short game so not much was invested (though I do plan to go back through and hear the commentary).

You lose me again here. I just don't think price effects personal value in any way. If there is any connection between the two, I'd argue that it's the inverse of what you suggest. The only time price ever effects my value of a game is when I get a really good deal on a game. I guess I just try to ignore the sunk cost fallacy as much as possible. I've got the special edition of Halo 2, that cost like $80, somewhere in my room, and I couldn't give a shit about it game because I just didn't like it very much. On the other hand, I've got a regular old Final Fantasy IX in a broken ass case that I bought for $20 when I was a kid, and I wouldn't part with that for 5x its selling price today, just because I love the game.

   So that's pretty much it, in hindsight I found myself idly wondering if my experiance would have been differant had I originally paid for the game. Although as I had mentioned earlier in the postings I would have made the same choice had I to make them again (its kind of illogical to pay more for something if you don't have to). But I thought that exploring the topic would be fun, so here we are. "

" I believe it and have thought about it many times before.  The best example I've used many times before is sunglasses.  How many pairs of cheap ass sunglasses do you own that you have no idea the location of?  I have purchased many shitty $20 pairs that end up being easily broken or left somewhere.  But I have a pair of $300 Oakleys that I've had for 7 years now.  I find the question gets interesting when you start talking about gifts.  At what point do you put assign it as being more important.  If you really like the gift then you are going to take care of it.  But what if you like the gift but know it only cost the person $10 What if you don't like the gift but know that is worth $200? "

" I believe it and have thought about it many times before.  The best example I've used many times before is sunglasses.  How many pairs of cheap ass sunglasses do you own that you have no idea the location of?  I have purchased many shitty $20 pairs that end up being easily broken or left somewhere.  But I have a pair of $300 Oakleys that I've had for 7 years now.  I find the question gets interesting when you start talking about gifts.  At what point do you put assign it as being more important.  If you really like the gift then you are going to take care of it.  But what if you like the gift but know it only cost the person $10 What if you don't like the gift but know that is worth $200? "

I think that is sort of a different argument. In your example, the sunglasses that you care most about are the ones that a clearly a superior product. Also, I think the extra care given to the Oakleys is also due to the cost to replace them. If the $20 sunglasses were just as good as the Oakleys would you still treat them like crap?

You can't really apply that logic to games since price really isn't contingent on quality, unless you start talking about budget stuff. On release, G.I. Joe is going to run you the same $60 that ME2 does.

For years the rationalization for pricing was games have a much smaller userbase than movies and movies have theatrical releases, hence DVDs cost like 15 dollars and games cost 60. Well its hard and harder to substantiate that now but apparently everyone's afraid to lower the price because if only one publisher lowers their price, the perception is cheapness not value. Banjo didn't sell better at its price and the reason (other than limited appeal) is people see its half price and perceive it to be a lower quality product instead of a good value. Every game has to go down in price in order to keep that perception from developing and it just won't happen. Some outside force will have to shove gaming in the right direction because people in it now are fucking clueless.

"Some outside force will have to shove gaming in the right direction because people in it now are fucking clueless. "