I totally agree. And what about other pricing points like $12.99, $14.99, or $17.99? I think each game needs to be tested to find the perfect price point in this economic environment at which net revenues are maximized. Hopefully data driven companies like Amazon and Reflexive will be able to measure and come up with this rather than driving the value down for all games. It just seems to me that driving almost everything (except Playfirst and PopCap titles who either had clauses in the contracts or were communicated with beforehand) down to $9.99 is a tactic to brand a site as being the lowest retail price rather than to maximize profit. This kind of tactic kind of smells like undercutting competition to drive some out of the market. If this was such a great economic move for everyone, why didn't Reflexive do it before the Amazon acquisition? Now that a deep pocketed parent company is involved, could it be Reflexive/Amazon are willing to accept less net profit in an effort to drive out competition, especially small developers trying to sell the same games on their own sites for higher prices? I am not saying this is the sole reason Reflexive/Amazon did this. I am sure it is to compete with the subscription programs that started this whole price war in the first place. However, I just can't see the reasoning behind dropping the price by half on even your best selling titles if you know you aren't going to increase net revenue by doing so. Therefore, there must be another agenda besides increasing profit for Reflexive, Developers, and Affiliates.