Board Thread:Game Discussion/@comment-36073160-20180910021423/@comment-29898480-20180910135212

47.29.252.4 wrote: Pareto principle suggests that 20% of your customers provides your 80% of income. So FM (or EA?) is comfy milking the 20% to maximize earnings by putting up exorbitant prices. However, if they reduce the prices by 75%, the customer spending on their iAPs will increase by atleast 50%. I used to think that FM was living in denial of price elasticity of demand, and would see increased revenue with decreased costs as you suggest here. Then FM removed the 21-Day GC card from the store, which was the lowest price-per-GC option and had been popular with some here on the wiki (I'd bought a two or three myself), and it hasn't come back. They would have seen a revenue drop on an on-going basis when they removed it if it's lower price led to more total revenue, and it would have made sense for them to bring the 21-Day Card back. But they didn't bring it back. So unless they're total idiots (each can decide for themselves on that...), they have data in hand telling them that lower priced options don't drive higher total revenue.