I don't think the people that are worried that this is the beginning of conscious parallelism are as paranoid as others are intimating. Whether or not it's happening is anyone's guess, but it's a legitimate concern. I don't know if there is much that people can really do to prevent it (apart from exercising one's choice to not buy certain songs for certain reasons), but it has certainly launched a fairly lively conversation here.Quote:
For one thing, Methenitis talks about a phenomenon known as "conscious parallelism." In this hypothetical scenario, one publisher says, "Our new game Graylo 2 is so awesome that we are going to charge more money for it. Because it is worth it!"
All the other publishers go into their board meetings and moan:
"Hey! Our games are at least as good as Graylo 2. We should charge more too!"
And so it goes. One day games are $49.99; the next, $59.99. No one has broken the law and everyone is happy.
It actually took me a while to accept that $60 in the 2000s is a steal compared to $50 in the 1990s, but as I pointed out in another thread, inflation would make a lot more sense if normal Rock Band DLC has risen to $3 lately.
and then with instruments 200
That being said, at $3, I'd be a lot more selective. Still, I want Blondie at ANY price.
I would go as high as $10 for Atomic. Write that down Henry, and for the love of god bring it to the PS3!!!
Video game prices really haven't gone up that much on a long-term standard. NES games were $60 bucks back in their heyday.
Indie labels, with handshake deals and personal relationships between artists and management, often offer better - but at the expense of distribution. A better percentage, but less money overall because not as many units move. Also, a bit more risk of having your label go belly-up.