THIS IS SHIT SHIT SHITBALLS

[Lias]

The fatal flaw in that plan is the internet.

They could get away with that when there was limited global communications, but now we know they are selling at at $20 in Fuckistan, so we value the game at $20. If EvilCorp attempts to sell the game for $80 in NZ, we feel ripped off, and either pirate it (they make $0) or obtain it from a grey market CD key vendor (say $30, of which they still only get $20).

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

The fatal flaw in that plan is the internet.

They could get away with that when there was limited global communications, but now we know they are selling at at $20 in Fuckistan, so we value the game at $20. If EvilCorp attempts to sell the game for $80 in NZ, we feel ripped off, and either pirate it (they make $0) or obtain it from a grey market CD key vendor (say $30, of which they still only get $20).

Exactly, there are ways to work around it. So there is no need for legalization.

And they are "getting away with it", if their business model wasn't working, then they wouldn't be making any money.

Selling a game for $80 does not make a company evil.
Selling AIDs medication for $750 a pill does however.

[Xenolightning]

Maybe EvilCorp intended to sell the game at $40. Then two people arbitrarily decided $40 was too expensive and pirated it. Leaving them to recoup $40, which is the extra they charge the next man through the door.

Just because you feel hard done by is not a reason to pirate goods.

In my opinion, the only valid reason for piracy is if a digital media is deliberately made unavailable by the manufacturer without a "just reason". And this doesn't include things being "delayed to market", because international compliance and law is complex, and time consuming.

[Lias]

Selling a game for $80 does not make a company evil.
Selling AIDs medication for $750 a pill does however.

Selling a $80 game for $80 isn't evil, Selling a $20 game for $80.. getting there.
But yes selling a $10 pill for $750 is monstrous.

[Xenolightning]

The point (I think) SM is making.

You aren't going to die if you don't play game xyz.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Selling a $80 game for $80 isn't evil, Selling a $20 game for $80.. getting there.

How do you put a value on a game? Surly it's worth whatever someone is prepared to pay for it?

The point (I think) SM is making.

You aren't going to die if you don't play game xyz.

Pretty much, it's not the end of the world if someone can't buy a game, so it's a bit extreme to have a law which sets the price.

Things like basic food, electricity, water, even broadband, I agree need regulation. Overcharging on necessities is price gouging.

 But for things like movies, games, and music, it should be left up to the market.

[Lias]

Meh I see your point, I just don't agree.

Mind you I'm turning into a raging anti capitalist as I age.

[Clin]

clearly

[Lias]

It's funny because I still dislike most of the left wing social policies, but economically I'm rapidly moving left :-)

[Xenolightning]

Communism isn't left wing.

I don't think it's even a wing.

(I kid of course, only because communism isn't a thing)

[The Demon Lord]

If the game developers make enough profit off a $20 sale in Poverty-stan for it to be viable to sell at $20 (for a given number of units), then they can make the same profit by selling it in NZ at $20.

It's not viable to only sell at $20 in Poverty-stan, that market is not enough to pay for the development of the game.
That is why they also have to sell in in NZ for $80.

Digital media is not a physical good, you don't get profit per sale, because, unlike physical good, there is no cost per sale.

The cost is the development of the game, the revenue is to total of all sales worldwide, and the profit makes the difference.

It's ironic that you reference the legacy of the physical media age as a factor, where in fact, you are the one treating a digital product as a physical one.

So, what you are saying in your scenario, is that I am financing the Development of a game so that other people can play it for cheap?

Am I going to be rewarded in game for bankrolling it (ie additional content and/or features)?

Because if not, then no thank you - Either Poverty-stan can pay the full price or go without (as you keep reminding us, its not a necessity)

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

So, what you are saying in your scenario, is that I am financing the Development of a game so that other people can play it for cheap?

Exactly.

I'm not saying it's fair, I don't like regional pricing either.

But it's why we have regional pricing, and it's reasonable that a company will want to maximize it's return in each region, after all they're there to make money.

[The Demon Lord]

So, what you are saying in your scenario, is that I am financing the Development of a game so that other people can play it for cheap?

Exactly.

I'm not saying it's fair, I don't like regional pricing either.

But it's why we have regional pricing, and it's reasonable that a company will want to maximize it's return in each region, after all they're there to make money.

And its reasonable that I will want to minimize my expenditure to a level that is acceptable to me - I'm not a charity either and so I object to paying a rip-off price, solely to subsidise others to enjoy the same content.

[Xenolightning]

And its reasonable that I will want to minimize my expenditure to a level that is acceptable to me - I'm not a charity either and so I object to paying a rip-off price, solely to subsidise others to enjoy the same content.

Your first sentence holds merit. The rest, not so much. Classic case of FOMO.

Would it make you happy if they didn't publish any prices except for the one you are paying?

You only perceive it to be a rip-off because you see someone else getting it cheaper.

If you don't want to pay the sticker price for a game, then don't. Simple as that. minimize my expenditure to a level that is acceptable to me. Do exactly that, by not purchasing the game.

Next thing you'll be running to Mitre 10, and demanding trade prices because "that other guy got trade prices". It's not how shit works.

[Lias]

You only perceive it to be a rip-off because you see someone else getting it cheaper.

Your wandering into one of my other theories here, that people should only ever pay what they feel is appropriate for digital content.

Imagine if every game, movie, tv show, mp3, etc was sold like a humble bundle style of pay what you want. Perfection.

[Xenolightning]

Your wandering into one of my other theories here, that people should only ever pay what they feel is appropriate for digital content.

Imagine if every game, movie, tv show, mp3, etc was sold like a humble bundle style of pay what you want. Perfection.

*Perfection for the consumer.

That's fine and dandy after you've recouped your costs, and most likely some profit. (most) People don't work for free.

You neglect the fact most games have already had an official release, with a sticker price. In which the developer has most likely made their investment, and some.

I like HumbleBundle, and I am fairly generous when I use their service.

[The Demon Lord]

And its reasonable that I will want to minimize my expenditure to a level that is acceptable to me - I'm not a charity either and so I object to paying a rip-off price, solely to subsidise others to enjoy the same content.

Your first sentence holds merit. The rest, not so much. Classic case of FOMO.

Would it make you happy if they didn't publish any prices except for the one you are paying?

You only perceive it to be a rip-off because you see someone else getting it cheaper.

If you don't want to pay the sticker price for a game, then don't. Simple as that. minimize my expenditure to a level that is acceptable to me. Do exactly that, by not purchasing the game.

Next thing you'll be running to Mitre 10, and demanding trade prices because "that other guy got trade prices". It's not how shit works.

Sure I'd be happy - because only one price would be published, which is the one price everyone would be paying.

Damn straight I perceive it as a rip-off if someone else is getting it cheaper - I'm happy to pay for a Companies profit - you develop a game, your per-unit cost should cover the costs to develop that game, costs for future developments and a good percentage markup for Profit. I'm okay with that. If you tell me that when you factor in the number of units you expect to sell and to meet all of those requirements, its going to be $80 - I'll open my Wallet and cough up my $80.

Now, my acceptance of that $80 is based on the above premise, that this is the amount based on the number of Units you expect to sell. If you then turn around and in another country put the cost at $20 (to cover the above) - then that means you are attempting to extort $60 out of me - without giving me anything to justify the increased cost.

Trade pricing is different - that is done on the basis of Economies of Scale - I'll probably spend maybe $200 a year at Mitre 10, I'm happy paying full price for that. If I was in trade and spending $1-2K a week at Mitre 10, I'd be expecting some form of discount, based on the volume of sales that I represent.

[Retardobot]

"I don't really see why we shouldn't extend the pricing requirements to physical goods, I they sell it anywhere in the world at Cost X, the price in NZ should only ever be Cost X + shipping to NZ."

I understand that NZ is an out of the way market and it costs a lot more to physically bring products to our shores, however a lot of it is also bullshit. Companies will often see NZ as an opportunity to mop up lost profits in markets where they have to competitively price their product, they're able to get away with a multitude of compounded excuses "shipping costs, exchange rates, small market".

Companies are also able to get away with stocking older models, probably due to the fact that consumers aren't always as 'savvy' as we like to think. "Mum & pop" shoppers put too much faith in their Noel Leemings and Harvey Norman salesman when they throw up a "THIS WEEKEND ONLY SALE". Old stock sells for an inflated price.

Like most people here, I know how to research a product and where to get it from to ensure I'm getting my money's worth so what I've outlined doesn't really effect me. Just an observation after working in several small tech shops that have to purchase from local distributors.

[Xenolightning]

Sure I'd be happy - because only one price would be published, which is the one price everyone would be paying.

I didn't say that everyone would be paying the same price. I said you would only know of one price. Big difference.

Damn straight I perceive it as a rip-off if someone else is getting it cheaper - I'm happy to pay for a Companies profit - you develop a game, your per-unit cost should cover the costs to develop that game, costs for future developments and a good percentage markup for Profit. I'm okay with that. If you tell me that when you factor in the number of units you expect to sell and to meet all of those requirements, its going to be $80 - I'll open my Wallet and cough up my $80.

Now, my acceptance of that $80 is based on the above premise, that this is the amount based on the number of Units you expect to sell. If you then turn around and in another country put the cost at $20 (to cover the above) - then that means you are attempting to extort $60 out of me - without giving me anything to justify the increased cost.

Trade pricing is different - that is done on the basis of Economies of Scale - I'll probably spend maybe $200 a year at Mitre 10, I'm happy paying full price for that. If I was in trade and spending $1-2K a week at Mitre 10, I'd be expecting some form of discount, based on the volume of sales that I represent.

Wait you understand how Economies of Scale affects trade prices, but you can't see that there may be other factors driving the price difference?

Trade pricing is the same exact same scenario. We don't know why the price is different in games, so we have to exclude that from the trade price scenario (Economies of Scale). When we do that we have someone getting the same item cheaper than someone else.

[The Demon Lord]

Sure I'd be happy - because only one price would be published, which is the one price everyone would be paying.

I didn't say that everyone would be paying the same price. I said you would only know of one price. Big difference.

Damn straight I perceive it as a rip-off if someone else is getting it cheaper - I'm happy to pay for a Companies profit - you develop a game, your per-unit cost should cover the costs to develop that game, costs for future developments and a good percentage markup for Profit. I'm okay with that. If you tell me that when you factor in the number of units you expect to sell and to meet all of those requirements, its going to be $80 - I'll open my Wallet and cough up my $80.

Now, my acceptance of that $80 is based on the above premise, that this is the amount based on the number of Units you expect to sell. If you then turn around and in another country put the cost at $20 (to cover the above) - then that means you are attempting to extort $60 out of me - without giving me anything to justify the increased cost.

Trade pricing is different - that is done on the basis of Economies of Scale - I'll probably spend maybe $200 a year at Mitre 10, I'm happy paying full price for that. If I was in trade and spending $1-2K a week at Mitre 10, I'd be expecting some form of discount, based on the volume of sales that I represent.

Wait you understand how Economies of Scale affects trade prices, but you can't see that there may be other factors driving the price difference?

Trade pricing is the same exact same scenario. We don't know why the price is different in games, so we have to exclude that from the trade price scenario (Economies of Scale). When we do that we have someone getting the same item cheaper than someone else.

I know the difference, but the only way that I would know of only one price was if there was only one price (or you execute your customers after they purchase, but that isn't a sustainable Business model  )

With a universal digital distribution - all the other factors that would drive price (excluding company greed) are mitigated. There is no Economies of Scale, No increased cost due to the haulage costs.

[Xenolightning]

I know the difference, but the only way that I would know of only one price was if there was only one price (or you execute your customers after they purchase, but that isn't a sustainable Business model  )

Or you hand out special glasses that replace the price for only you. Hypothetical scenario to illustrate my point. But yes I think you understood what I was getting at. Not against executing customers, after all you already have their money. They are no longer of use to you now

With a universal digital distribution - all the other factors that would drive price (excluding company greed) are mitigated. There is no Economies of Scale, No increased cost due to the haulage costs.

Got some non-anecdotal evidence for that? Otherwise it's just your opinion based on what you believe is the case.

Things are rarely as simple as they appear, and to think they are isn't particularly insightful.

Asking why is a great way to learn. Even if it doesn't give you an answer, it might give you more questions. Jumping to a conclusion that we should all pay the same for goods with very little (or no) evidence is not the way to spark intelligent conversation.

[The Demon Lord]

I know the difference, but the only way that I would know of only one price was if there was only one price (or you execute your customers after they purchase, but that isn't a sustainable Business model  )

Or you hand out special glasses that replace the price for only you. Hypothetical scenario to illustrate my point. But yes I think you understood what I was getting at. Not against executing customers, after all you already have their money. They are no longer of use to you now

Okay - I'll admit - that made me chuckle - but if you kill them, how are you going to sell them DLC?

With a universal digital distribution - all the other factors that would drive price (excluding company greed) are mitigated. There is no Economies of Scale, No increased cost due to the haulage costs.

Got some non-anecdotal evidence for that? Otherwise it's just your opinion based on what you believe is the case.

Things are rarely as simple as they appear, and to think they are isn't particularly insightful.

Asking why is a great way to learn. Even if it doesn't give you an answer, it might give you more questions. Jumping to a conclusion that we should all pay the same for goods with very little (or no) evidence is not the way to spark intelligent conversation.

Sure - I host websites at work, some even have downloads on them - there is no appreciable increase or decrease in cost to the company if someone from NZ access the site or someone outside of NZ. If there was a significant increase in the international bandwidth costs (so we became wildly popular overseas) then the cost associated with increasing our international Data limit would be distributed equally.

The only possible reason for charging more could be if you implemented some form of local (regional) caching for faster downloads - in which case the increase cost would be a premium service which one should be able to opt in or out of.

[Pyromanik]

LOSS MOTHER FUCKING LEADER
[/thread]

[Xenolightning]

Okay - I'll admit - that made me chuckle - but if you kill them, how are you going to sell them DLC?

Good point! Hmmm, and micro transactions. Then again, maybe EvilCorp doesn't value human life at more than $20.

Sure - I host websites at work, some even have downloads on them - there is no appreciable increase or decrease in cost to the company if someone from NZ access the site or someone outside of NZ. If there was a significant increase in the international bandwidth costs (so we became wildly popular overseas) then the cost associated with increasing our international Data limit would be distributed equally.

The only possible reason for charging more could be if you implemented some form of local (regional) caching for faster downloads - in which case the increase cost would be a premium service which one should be able to opt in or out of.

1) Non-anecdotal
2) Software distribution is not the same as hosting websites

In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:
    "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"
    "information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"

Not that^ I.e something that directly relates to the scenario at hand, with specific real world examples backed by actual facts.

I have no idea why the price differences can be so drastic, but without an actual example I'm unlikely to believe someone on an internet forum claiming its price gouging.

[Clin]