No DLC hint today | Forums

[Chesapeake36]

I for one would be okay with dynamic pricing. Why should every song cost the same amount? Bigger acts don't release songs becuase there's not enough room in the 2.99 price for them. Fine. There are songs I would pay 9.99 for, maybe more. Let the market decide what is a fair price. Everyone gets paid. Everyone is happy.

[armoury_R1]

I for one would be okay with dynamic pricing. Why should every song cost the same amount? Bigger acts don't release songs becuase there's not enough room in the 2.99 price for them. Fine. There are songs I would pay 9.99 for, maybe more. Let the market decide what is a fair price. Everyone gets paid. Everyone is happy.

Might be a bit difficult to administer, IMHO. How do you tell an act they aren't "big" enough to warrant a higher price? After all, if there is a price range for songs, say $1.99 to $7.99, every act is going to want their stuff priced at $7.99, to maximize revenue. And if they don't get the max price, they get sniffy and refuse.

Easier to have a flat price, which they know up front before they sign on or not. After all, most CDs (excluding deluxe editions) from the major labels are roughly the same price, regardless of whether it's a debut album from a heretofore unknown, or the 10th from a multi-platinum artist. (This also excludes indie releases, but then again indie artists aren't appearing on RS, are they?)

[Bluesman25]

So, have they officially said that there will be no new songs on the 7th? Just because they are adding bass support on the 14th, I don't understand why they would skip the dlc songs?

[toymachinesh]

Because they used their time to push out the Bass DLC/Patch instead

[mbarsott]

Because they used their time to push out the Bass DLC/Patch instead

Yep... it's like they are releasing about 120 new arrangements instead of 9 or 10 they usually have in one DLC.

[Bob_Sacamano]

Might be a bit difficult to administer, IMHO. How do you tell an act they aren't "big" enough to warrant a higher price? After all, if there is a price range for songs, say $1.99 to $7.99, every act is going to want their stuff priced at $7.99, to maximize revenue. And if they don't get the max price, they get sniffy and refuse.

Easier to have a flat price, which they know up front before they sign on or not. After all, most CDs (excluding deluxe editions) from the major labels are roughly the same price, regardless of whether it's a debut album from a heretofore unknown, or the 10th from a multi-platinum artist. (This also excludes indie releases, but then again indie artists aren't appearing on RS, are they?)

I don't agree that CD's are priced roughly the same. I've bought hundreds, and the prices varied quite a bit.

And no, just pricing something higher doesn't maximize revenue. There is a certain demand for each song at any given price point, and the demand will go down a certain amount with a price increase. By raising the price you increase the profit on each item, but you sell fewer items. A song could very well generate more profit by selling items cheaper and moving more product than they could by raising the price. There are a lot of variables in this equation.

[toymachinesh]

So if they bring out Linkin Park the songs will be $10 and if they bring out Sublime it will be $2.00?

[Ezios_Axe]

Not if it's from linkin park's last album or two. lol Hybrid theory I'd pay a bunch for though.

[toiviservo]

I think dynamic pricing dlc is a bad idea. What happens when a year later some songs you whining forum users paid $10 for are going for $3-$4... Jesus christ we'll be having annoying complaint threads every week about a new price reduction on an old song.

[toymachinesh]

I think dynamic pricing dlc is a bad idea. What happens when a year later some songs you whining forum users paid $10 for are going for $3-$4... Jesus christ we'll be having annoying complaint threads every week about a new price reduction on an old song.