Board Thread:Game Discussion/@comment-36180858-20190206153942/@comment-37145414-20190207223355

If it's a temporary sale and people know it's a temporary sale, then behavior will be different than a permanent price change. If people don't know it's a temporary sale, there will be an uproar and PR hit when it ends.

"100% of nothing or x% of something" is viewing it from the perspective of a single player or a single class of player. They are looking at a non-linear demand curve (and that curve will change over time if GC experiences in-game inflation) with an infinite supply curve (the cost to change the supply is inconsequential). Chances are they have a better idea of where the maximal profit range is than any of us.

The problem with theories about how much sales would increase based on a reduction in price is that they have no data behind them, just a series of assumptions about what the data would be. We have no idea how many people stay in the "I just need a couple hundred GC to get this car and I'll figure it out from here" state for release after release. The class of player that grows out of that by realizing the scarcity of GC and how little a few hundred do beyond one day is going to be overrepresented on this forum so it can seem like everyone gets there, but I doubt it. The few people I've known who play didn't know about this site because apparently most people don't know there's a wiki for everything.

If sound reasoning suggested a lower price for IAPs would help out, I'm sure a company like EA would have MBAs all over that long ago. It just has to be that their internal data shows otherwise. Honestly if they suddenly lowered the price of IAPs, that would probably indicate a sort of fire sale, letting GC inflate and selling what they can before choosing to not support the game any longer and moving on (and I don't mean to RR4).