A Little Point I Would Like to Make About Game Prices

In all of the complaining about the price of Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, I got to thinking. Think back to the mid-90's. I remember shopping for Nintendo 64 games at Kmart. They were $60 a piece. Think of something else. What was the price of gasoline then? About $1 to $1.50 or so. Now, games are still a max retail price of $60 however gasoline is at around $3 a gallon right now and has been up to $4.50 or so within the last year. The point I am making is whether its gasoline (a somewhat overly fluctuating resource) or a more solid example like a bag of chips or a bottle of Coke, most everything has increase in price along with the natural increase in wages up probable over $2 per hour since the mid-90's. So, in comparison, a game for $60 now is nothing compared to what it was then. We should be thankful that games are not a victim of inflation (yet) and that they are barely over the price of a tank of gas.

I didn't play alot of console games in the mid to early nineties, mostly PC games and those were $20-$25. I have no problem with inflation, I do have a problem with getting less and paying more. So the question becomes, is this simply inflation? If that's the case why did only the price of the PC version go up?

Its not like it is the only $60 on PC. That depends on a lot. Also, in all fairness, why would so many people expect more from the PC version for less money. How would console owners feel if they paid more for their version?

There are a lot of factors to take into consideration when setting the price, not just inflation. The cost of production, expected number of sales, what the market will endure, etc. For example, software like Maya is highly priced because it is a very niche market - if the market was larger, the price could come down. For the games market, consumers have been relatively inflexible for a number of years. That is now changing with the prevalence of MMOs and games like Guitar Hero where you pay over the odds for silly peripheral controllers.

So yes, games may well have been $60 a decade ago, but with some games coming on specialised cartridges, that increased the cost of production, and the gaming market was smaller overall. Now the media is extremely cheap, and publishers blow twice as much money on marketing as they do on actual game development. It's all swings and roundabouts.

In the particular case of MW2, I think it is undeserving of a price hike, considering they have stripped down on features, and the single player campaign is the length of a Half-Life 2 Episode (ie, the length of an expansion pack). It is not good value for money.

I understand, I just think everyone is blowing it out of proportion. Ill say it again too. The length of the game is not always in direct relation to value...in my opinion anyway.

Its not like it is the only $60 on PC. That depends on a lot. Also, in all fairness, why would so many people expect more from the PC version for less money. How would console owners feel if they paid more for their version?

KeithTobberman

Console games are more expensive due to licensing fees. Microsoft and SONY get a cut of every game sold but that's not the case for the PC. So, actually, the scumbags and Activision-Blizzard are REALLY ripping off PC gamers. Not only are they giving us less and charging us more, they are also making a larger profit off of the sales. I won't buy another game they publish.

Well, developers set the prices.dakan45

I think its pretty weird...they were expecting this to be the best selling game in history period.....so i can see both sides of the story. most hyped game ever....most expected sales....so raise the price, cause people are going to buy it anyway...more money for me. but, on the other hand, i think its interesting that they raised the pc price but not the ps3 360 price. if you excuse was to get more money from sales....then why not raise the price of the most popular sale point....the 360?

if you excuse was to get more money from sales....then why not raise the price of the most popular sale point....the 360?

lpjazzman220

They don't need to, because they will be charging for DLC (not just map packs, but Avatar gear, backgrounds, gamer pictures, etc) - and because the consoles are the majority of sales, so the sales of DLC will be much higher on those platforms. Also, due to the way they alter playlists after map pack DLC is released, many gamers who want to continue playing MP will be forced into purchasing certain DLC packs, or give up the online experience. They are 'locked in' to that system, so sales are pretty much guaranteed.

With the PC version they are testing the waters, and experimenting with an Xbox LIVE model and price point to see how it is received. It is not a 'sure thing'.

QUOTE="RobertBowen"

There are a lot of factors to take into consideration when setting the price, not just inflation. The cost of production, expected number of sales, what the market will endure, etc. For example, software like Maya is highly priced because it is a very niche market - if the market was larger, the price could come down. For the games market, consumers have been relatively inflexible for a number of years. That is now changing with the prevalence of MMOs and games like Guitar Hero where you pay over the odds for silly peripheral controllers.

So yes, games may well have been $60 a decade ago, but with some games coming on specialised cartridges, that increased the cost of production, and the gaming market was smaller overall. Now the media is extremely cheap, and publishers blow twice as much money on marketing as they do on actual game development. It's all swings and roundabouts.

In the particular case of MW2, I think it is undeserving of a price hike, considering they have stripped down on features, and the single player campaign is the length of a Half-Life 2 Episode (ie, the length of an expansion pack). It is not good value for money.

/QUOTE

Actually, your wrong. The cost of production does not set the price of a game. Otherwise N64 games would not have been $60, seeing as how they had much lower development costs at the time. You're getting on track with the comment about market size, although it would be more specific to state that you'd need demand to rise and/or supply to drop in order to force the price higher.

[QUOTE="dakan45"]Well, developers set the prices.fudgeblood

Nope. You're both wrong. Publishers AND consumers both have an effect on the overall price of a product.

I think its pretty weird...they were expecting this to be the best selling game in history period.....so i can see both sides of the story. most hyped game ever....most expected sales....so raise the price, cause people are going to buy it anyway...more money for me. but, on the other hand, i think its interesting that they raised the pc price but not the ps3 360 price. if you excuse was to get more money from sales....then why not raise the price of the most popular sale point....the 360?

lpjazzman220

It's not actually based on how popular the game is. That factor did probably have an effect on the decision though. They're testing the elasticity of the demand curve for the PC version. IW was clearly trying to make each version as identical to its counterparts as possible.

In all of the complaining about the price of Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, I got to thinking. Think back to the mid-90's. I remember shopping for Nintendo 64 games at Kmart. They were $60 a piece. [...] So, in comparison, a game for $60 now is nothing compared to what it was then. ...KeithTobberman

you left out the part about game length in the mid-90s: PC FPSes (Quake II, Unreal, etc.) featured campaigns of 25hrs or more, and expansion/mission packs were twice the length of MW's 5hr SP.

I'd gladly pay $70 per title for a return to the mid-90's "week-long" SP campaigns instead of today's ultra-short (and easy) games, most of which can be finished in a weekend.

I'd gladly pay $70 per title for a return to the mid-90's "week-long" SP campaigns instead of today's ultra-short (and easy) games, most of which can be finished in a weekend.

JackBurton

Actually, your wrong. The cost of production does not set the price of a game. Otherwise N64 games would not have been $60, seeing as how they had much lower development costs at the time. You're getting on track with the comment about market size, although it would be more specific to state that you'd need demand to rise and/or supply to drop in order to force the price higher.

SemperFi10

I know the point you are trying to make regarding supply and demand, and the potential to increase prices for products in short supply, but I respectfully disagree that costs have nothing to do with the equation.

The overall production cost (and I'm including company overheads) is one of the factors that must be taken into consideration to set a minimum price, because if you price the game too low in relation to projected sales targets, you will not claw back those costs and you will make a loss. Knowing the size and expectation of your market is crucial in this regard, especially for niche titles. If you are a large publishing house able to absorb losses in the short term, you may still be able to break even or turn a profit in the longer term by increasing the longevity of that title's shelf life, but that too will incur costs, such as marketing drives and sweeteners to retailers.

This is one of the issues that has plagued the game industry for more than a decade. Publishers have frequently overestimated the market potential for a particular game, and either projected sales targets were not realised, or the price point was set too low in relation to market size, and they made a loss because they could not sell enough units to recoup the development costs.

If you are talking about the maximum price that the market will endure, then of course that is reliant on supply and demand, and some clever marketing, hence the reason why EA sometimes spends twice as much to market some games than they cost to develop. Of course high profile AAA titles can maintain a higher price point for longer, particularly if they are good quality and/or part of a franchise, because the market is willing to sustain that. But raising the price point beyond market expectation, especially during economic recession, could lead to a drop in sales unless you handle the marketing correctly.

It is not sufficient to say that low supply or high demand can automatically increase prices, or that high supply will lead to a drop in prices. Market sustainability and expectations, ie, what customers are willing to pay, must still factor into that equation, especially for 'non-essential leisure' products such as games.

I loved how back in the 90's even through early 2000s computer games were always $29.99 the first week they were released in at least one of the major local chain stores (then they'd usually go to the MSRP of $49.99 till price drop, which is still the standard price these days for just-released PC games, bar the occassional first-week $39.99 price.)

Problem is these days games are way shorter and have less content than they did back then, especially in the genre I prefer (RPG.) Though this is in part due to multi-platform releases and the insistence by many that absolutely every piece of text be voiced. Finishing what was considered a decent-length story-driven RPG in less than a week, for example, used to be nigh impossible, but these days it's pretty much always more than likely.

So basically we're paying the same dollar amount today for less content than we did before. Therefore, regardless of development costs we are paying inflation-adjusted prices per hour of content.

So, I'd love to pay double, or whatever inflation-adjusted price for the length and amount of content in old-school games -today-.

Problem is these days games are way shorter and have less content than they did back then, especially in the genre I prefer (RPG.) Though this is in part due to multi-platform releases and the insistence by many that absolutely every piece of text be voiced. Finishing what was considered a decent-length story-driven RPG in less than a week, for example, used to be nigh impossible, but these days it's pretty much always more than likely.

So basically we're paying the same dollar amount today for less content than we did before. Therefore, regardless of development costs we are paying inflation-adjusted prices per hour of content.

AlphaHumana

I think you are being a bit disingenuous there, because you are dismissing the sheer amount and quality of work needed to produce a modern game title. For example, it is undeniable that the technical quality of games has improved dramatically, in terms of graphics, music, sound effects and voice work. Well known writers, or at least writers with more experience, are being hired to flesh out plots (and in some cases write accompanying novels), and well-known actors are being hired more frequently to bring characters to life on screen. Well-known or respected musicians/composers and sometimes entire orchestras are employed to record the soundtracks, instead of some guy messing around with a computer synthesizer producing midi files. Specialist CGI studios are sometimes employed to produce high-quality rendered cut scenes. All these resources cost a considerable amount of money.

The key thing to remember is that development teams are no longer made up of just 10 or 20 guys in a small studio somewhere sweating blood over their creation for a year or two. Nowadays, you can have teams of 100 or more working on a single project for three or more years (just look at the end credits for a recent game). That massively increases costs.

If you are reminiscing about basically 2D isometric RPGs, you are also forgetting the demands of switching to a 3D driven game engine. Instead of a small team of 2D artists doing most of the artwork for a game, you now have whole teams of 3D modellers, texture artists, shader programmers, and all the rest, just working on making a particular character or piece of furniture look good on screen.

The irony is that you have far more people involved in content production these days, but on screen it simply fades into the background and is forgotten because the gamer focuses on the story, the character interaction, the combat and how long the game takes to finish. Don't get me wrong, because I'm one of those gamers who wants much longer games to play, but I realise that times have changed and so has the game development process.

The reason why we have seen a shift to more 'accessible' games and multiplatform development is because the average AAA title now costs around $25 million to produce. That means they have to maximise sales potential, and that means widening the potential consumer base.

On the bright side, there are still some of those indie developers out there trying to make 2D or semi-2D isometric RPGs, but they're much harder to find because it is now a niche market catering to hardcore RPG gamers.

I remember buying Legend Of Zelda:Majoras Mask for 70$ >.< haha

Now, I would never buy a 70$ game haha

[QUOTE="KeithTobberman"]

Its not like it is the only $60 on PC. That depends on a lot. Also, in all fairness, why would so many people expect more from the PC version for less money. How would console owners feel if they paid more for their version?

-wildflower-

Console games are more expensive due to licensing fees. Microsoft and SONY get a cut of every game sold but that's not the case for the PC. So, actually, the scumbags and Activision-Blizzard are REALLY ripping off PC gamers. Not only are they giving us less and charging us more, they are also making a larger profit off of the sales. I won't buy another game they publish.

[QUOTE="SemperFi10"]

Actually, your wrong. The cost of production does not set the price of a game. Otherwise N64 games would not have been $60, seeing as how they had much lower development costs at the time. You're getting on track with the comment about market size, although it would be more specific to state that you'd need demand to rise and/or supply to drop in order to force the price higher.

RobertBowen

I know the point you are trying to make regarding supply and demand, and the potential to increase prices for products in short supply, but I respectfully disagree that costs have nothing to do with the equation.

The overall production cost (and I'm including company overheads) is one of the factors that must be taken into consideration to set a minimum price, because if you price the game too low in relation to projected sales targets, you will not claw back those costs and you will make a loss. Knowing the size and expectation of your market is crucial in this regard, especially for niche titles. If you are a large publishing house able to absorb losses in the short term, you may still be able to break even or turn a profit in the longer term by increasing the longevity of that title's shelf life, but that too will incur costs, such as marketing drives and sweeteners to retailers.

This is one of the issues that has plagued the game industry for more than a decade. Publishers have frequently overestimated the market potential for a particular game, and either projected sales targets were not realised, or the price point was set too low in relation to market size, and they made a loss because they could not sell enough units to recoup the development costs.

If you are talking about the maximum price that the market will endure, then of course that is reliant on supply and demand, and some clever marketing, hence the reason why EA sometimes spends twice as much to market some games than they cost to develop. Of course high profile AAA titles can maintain a higher price point for longer, particularly if they are good quality and/or part of a franchise, because the market is willing to sustain that. But raising the price point beyond market expectation, especially during economic recession, could lead to a drop in sales unless you handle the marketing correctly.

I realize that you have an opinion that development costs effect the end price on a product. But you're wrong. If cost of production set a price on the final product, you'd be following principles of the Classical school of economics, which was completely destroyed by Carl Menger's school of Marginalism in a book titled "The Principles of Economics". This was written in 1871 and explained why costs of production can have absolutely no effect on the pricing of goods. It destroyed "The Wealth of Nations," which was the written by Adam Smith a century earlier.

The issue with saying that production has an effect on the price of goods is that it leads into an error called the "infinite regression of value."

For example, if I was to try to explain the price of Torchlight, a $20 game, using factors of production, we can ask a series of questions:

Who set the value of including a main town in Torchlight? What is it's price?

Who set the value of including a shared storage box in the main town? Where did the price come from for this?

Who set the price on the inclusion of randomized dungeons? Where does this come from?

etc.

... we can go further here, suggest that the price of each feature is set by each developer's wages...

Who set the animator's wages? (labor price)

Where does the 3D modeler's wage come from? (labor price)

Where did the programmers wage come from? (labor price)

etc.

... lets say that the wage (price) of developers comes from their education costs...

Who set the price of education?

etc.

This goes on and on and on. Forever. Thus, an "infinite regression of value." This leads us to conclude that all prices come from the price decided on the final product, and all prices up the structure of production are set from there.

You have to remember that not all products are successful in the market. And believe it or not, even if the product is not able to make more than it cost to develop it, the publishers will still continue to lower the price until it sells. Publishers would much rather make SOME of the money back than NONE of the money back.

It is not sufficient to say that low supply or high demand can automatically increase prices, or that high supply will lead to a drop in prices. Market sustainability and expectations, ie, what customers are willing to pay, must still factor into that equation, especially for 'non-essential leisure' products such as games.

RobertBowen

Actually "what customers are willing to pay" IS the demand curve. The demand curve is defined as a set of maximum buying points for the consumer.

Supply and demand set the prices. The only way that cost of production has any effect on the price of a good is indirectly, through shifts on the supply side of the market. For example, if the publisher does not have enough money to make large quantities, the price may go up. There are millions of factors that adjust the supply and demand curves. Demand curves are adjusted by available substitutes, available complementary goods, the values of the buyers, the number of buyers, etc. Supply curves are adjusted by number of sellers, values of sellers, available taxes and subsidiaries, etc.

Its not like it is the only $60 on PC. That depends on a lot. Also, in all fairness, why would so many people expect more from the PC version for less money. How would console owners feel if they paid more for their version?

KeithTobberman

I realize that you have an opinion that development costs effect the end price on a product. But you're wrong. If cost of production set a price on the final product, you'd be following principles of the Classical school of economics, which was completely destroyed by Carl Menger's school of Marginalism in a book titled "The Principles of Economics". This was written in 1871 and explained why costs of production can have absolutely no effect on the pricing of goods. It destroyed "The Wealth of Nations," which was the written by Adam Smith a century earlier.

This goes on and on and on. Forever. Thus, an "infinite regression of value." This leads us to conclude that all prices come from the price decided on the final product, and all prices up the structure of production are set from there.

Actually "what customers are willing to pay" IS the demand curve. The demand curve is defined as a set of maximum buying points for the consumer.

Supply and demand set the prices. The only way that cost of production has any effect on the price of a good is indirectly, through shifts on the supply side of the market. For example, if the publisher does not have enough money to make large quantities, the price may go up. There are millions of factors that adjust the supply and demand curves. Demand curves are adjusted by available substitutes, available complementary goods, the values of the buyers, the number of buyers, etc. Supply curves are adjusted by number of sellers, values of sellers, available taxes and subsidiaries, etc.

SemperFi10

Thanks for refreshing my memory on economic theory. In truth I haven't really touched on it since I left university over 20 years ago, but you do raise some relevant points.

You have to remember that not all products are successful in the market. And believe it or not, even if the product is not able to make more than it cost to develop it, the publishers will still continue to lower the price until it sells. Publishers would much rather make SOME of the money back than NONE of the money back.

SemperFi10

I am aware of that. But I am also aware that if any company consistently fails to meet its operating costs it will go bankrupt.

Anyway, well debated.

Thanks for refreshing my memory on economic theory. In truth I haven't really touched on it since I left university over 20 years ago, but you do raise some relevant points.

I am aware of that. But I am also aware that if any company consistently fails to meet its operating costs it will go bankrupt.

Anyway, well debated.

RobertBowen

It was a pleasure debating with you Robert. Also, your art is pretty good, I saw it a few days ago.

You make a valid point as well.

[QUOTE="RobertBowen"]

[QUOTE="SemperFi10"]

I know the point you are trying to make regarding supply and demand, and the potential to increase prices for products in short supply, but I respectfully disagree that costs have nothing to do with the equation.

The overall production cost (and I'm including company overheads) is one of the factors that must be taken into consideration to set a minimum price, because if you price the game too low in relation to projected sales targets, you will not claw back those costs and you will make a loss. Knowing the size and expectation of your market is crucial in this regard, especially for niche titles. If you are a large publishing house able to absorb losses in the short term, you may still be able to break even or turn a profit in the longer term by increasing the longevity of that title's shelf life, but that too will incur costs, such as marketing drives and sweeteners to retailers.

This is one of the issues that has plagued the game industry for more than a decade. Publishers have frequently overestimated the market potential for a particular game, and either projected sales targets were not realised, or the price point was set too low in relation to market size, and they made a loss because they could not sell enough units to recoup the development costs.

If you are talking about the maximum price that the market will endure, then of course that is reliant on supply and demand, and some clever marketing, hence the reason why EA sometimes spends twice as much to market some games than they cost to develop. Of course high profile AAA titles can maintain a higher price point for longer, particularly if they are good quality and/or part of a franchise, because the market is willing to sustain that. But raising the price point beyond market expectation, especially during economic recession, could lead to a drop in sales unless you handle the marketing correctly.

SemperFi10

I realize that you have an opinion that development costs effect the end price on a product. But you're wrong. If cost of production set a price on the final product, you'd be following principles of the Classical school of economics, which was completely destroyed by Carl Menger's school of Marginalism in a book titled "The Principles of Economics". This was written in 1871 and explained why costs of production can have absolutely no effect on the pricing of goods. It destroyed "The Wealth of Nations," which was the written by Adam Smith a century earlier.

The issue with saying that production has an effect on the price of goods is that it leads into an error called the "infinite regression of value."

For example, if I was to try to explain the price of Torchlight, a $20 game, using factors of production, we can ask a series of questions:

Who set the value of including a main town in Torchlight? What is it's price?

Who set the value of including a shared storage box in the main town? Where did the price come from for this?

Who set the price on the inclusion of randomized dungeons? Where does this come from?

etc.

... we can go further here, suggest that the price of each feature is set by each developer's wages...

Who set the animator's wages? (labor price)

Where does the 3D modeler's wage come from? (labor price)

Where did the programmers wage come from? (labor price)

etc.

... lets say that the wage (price) of developers comes from their education costs...

Who set the price of education?

etc.

This goes on and on and on. Forever. Thus, an "infinite regression of value." This leads us to conclude that all prices come from the price decided on the final product, and all prices up the structure of production are set from there.

You have to remember that not all products are successful in the market. And believe it or not, even if the product is not able to make more than it cost to develop it, the publishers will still continue to lower the price until it sells. Publishers would much rather make SOME of the money back than NONE of the money back.

It is not sufficient to say that low supply or high demand can automatically increase prices, or that high supply will lead to a drop in prices. Market sustainability and expectations, ie, what customers are willing to pay, must still factor into that equation, especially for 'non-essential leisure' products such as games.

RobertBowen

Actually "what customers are willing to pay" IS the demand curve. The demand curve is defined as a set of maximum buying points for the consumer.

Supply and demand set the prices. The only way that cost of production has any effect on the price of a good is indirectly, through shifts on the supply side of the market. For example, if the publisher does not have enough money to make large quantities, the price may go up. There are millions of factors that adjust the supply and demand curves. Demand curves are adjusted by available substitutes, available complementary goods, the values of the buyers, the number of buyers, etc. Supply curves are adjusted by number of sellers, values of sellers, available taxes and subsidiaries, etc.

Sorry to break it for you, but nothing has "destroyed" Adam Smith's theories, so far.

Economists build on those theories, they don't destroy them. Any theory that can be taken seriously and is vastly accepted is one that builds upon the principles elaborated at that time, not those that destroy it.

Comparative advantage doesn't destroy absolute advantage, it improves on it.

Heckscher-Ohlin builds on comparative advantage, it explains why there's a difference between nations in labor productivity, which is the basis of the said comparative advantage.

Again, I dont want to break it for you, but your school of marginalism is (no pun intended) marginal.

I would'nt base my reasoning, if I were you, on something that people will surely not even quote anymore in 30 years, and that not many people even quote at all today.

Just saying it "destroyed" it invalids your whole reasoning. Quoting some theories is something anyone can do. Quoting theories that actually have some echo for most economists is another. Marginalism is not one of those.

Sorry to break it for you, but nothing has "destroyed" Adam Smith's theories, so far.

Economists build on those theories, they don't destroy them. Any theory that can be taken seriously and is vastly accepted is one that builds upon the principles elaborated at that time, not those that destroy it.

Comparative advantage doesn't destroy absolute advantage, it improves on it.

Heckscher-Ohlin builds on comparative advantage, it explains why there's a difference between nations in labor productivity, which is the basis of the said comparative advantage.

Again, I dont want to break it for you, but your school of marginalism is (no pun intended) marginal.

I would'nt base my reasoning, if I were you, on something that people will surely not even quote anymore in 30 years, and that not many people even quote at all today.

Just saying it "destroyed" it invalids your whole reasoning. Quoting some theories is something anyone can do. Quoting theories that actually have some echo for most economists is another. Marginalism is not one of those.

kalossimitar

Just because Aristotle developed the theory of "Equality of Exchange" before the idea of "Scholasticism" became prevalent does not mean that the Scholasticism built on the Equality of Exchange. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas actually proved Aristotle completely incorrect through rational thought in order for scholars to approve of his theory. J. Colbert and Mercantilism did the same to Scholasticism, and Adam Smith did so to the school of Mercantilism in his "The Wealth of Nations". The entire first six chapters of The Principles of Economics details the flaws of the Classical school of Economics.

But perhaps I am going a bit to far, some theories can build on others, but we are talking about basic price theory that happened to have developed in a particular era though.

David Recardo details what was fundementally wrong with Adam Smith's theory. Absolute Advantage makes no sense.

We can all agree that your gains come from imports. Exports are entirely your expenses. I hope we can, because this was Mercantilist thought, and is ages old. Absolute advantage states that whatever you can export more efficiently when compared to importing, you export, and vise versa. This means that you will export anything that you can make better than any other country. That means that the richest countries would certainly spend most of their time exporting. This causes an imbalance of trade.

Instead, David Recardo said that we export whatever we do best, and import the rest. This formed the idea of specialization, and results in a benefit to all parties.

A simple example:

Joe and Smith both mow lawns and tend gardens. Joe does gardens in 60mins, and lawns 40mins. Smith does gardens 100 mins, and lawns 120mins. If Joe exports all his services because he does both better, then he will get no gain from any trade, trade is not possible under absolute advantage.

Total cost for Joe is 100 mins, and total cost for Smith is 220mins. If Joe does Smith's lawn because it's what he does best, and Smith does Joe's garden because its what Smith does best, the total cost for Joe is 80mins, and Smith's cost is 200mins. They both gain 20 mins each for the trade under comparative advantage.

A lot of theories destroy other theories, just like Adam Smith systematically did to the school of Mercantilism in "The Wealth of Nations" for many pages.

I never said that all theories destroy the theories before them, just that Carl Menger did pick apart and invalidate Adam Smith's theory, that is all. I'm not trying to echo anything either. :P