$100 is a fair asking price for a AAA game of this size and scope. Not all games should cost the same.
People forget that almost all new games cost $60 in the 90s and a lot of them weren't even that good. $60 in 1992 is over $130 today. We're downright lucky that most new releases still cost the same and have resisted the effects of inflation.
Sure, wait for a sale if you don't want to pay $100 on day one. But don't go thinking $100 is some outrageous cash grab. The game cost over a billion dollars to develop and will likely give you hundreds of hours of entertainment.
This sounds like an Induced Demand scenario if you ask me. Sure, you can increase average selling prices, but then you need even higher budgets to convince people to buy on day/week/month one over just waiting until discount, especially if you don't have the GTA brand to boost people's urgency of buying it NOW.pushing up average selling prices to offset rising development costs.
For those who don't know the story, it was priced that high because Sega US wanted the game to flop in the west. Sega US and Sega Japan used to have a weird rivalry and the game was not supposed to be released in the west.I remember when Phantasy Star IV cost a 100 bucks on launch way back in 1993.
I remember when Phantasy Star IV cost a 100 bucks on launch way back in 1993.
It also suffered because the additional content was priced so high (was it $140 for everything?) but it was included if you paid for Ubisofts subscription service. That had people look at the sub and consider the value, then if they weren’t interested (I think it’s one of the higher priced/lower value subs considering what you get for it) then they felt over a barrel and didn’t bother to buy, waiting for the eventual sales.Ubi felt the pain when Star Wars Outlaws launched at $70. They cried about how the game isn't doing well with sales.