Larian Studios Forums Divinity - Original Sin Divinity - Original Sin - General Need help! I want to buy Original Sin.

Hmm... But does it make sense, though?

I can buy physical goods from India and China. They're pretty cheap too, compared to here. If one would follow the above logic, one could also say: "It's to make it possible for Indians and Chinese people to buy the goods without each taking a weeks' salaris, not for rich Westerners."

But that doesn't make sense. It would mean that we would be paying far more for exactly the same thing, just because we're not as poor as the next local guy. It would also mean, de facto, that one is imposing protectionism (aka, shielding of your market).

So, what? If you go to India you can't buy anything there if you can buy it here for triple the price, because it's 'not meant' to be sold to rich Western people? I can't *order* anything from India or China, because they're not as rich as us?

I'm not following that train of thought. With anything else but with digital media, no-one would ever seriously suggest this, yet some people see no problem in arguing as such when it comes to digital media.

Which makes even less sense, since the added cost of a digital copy after the game is made, is next to zero (compared to a physical object).

Meaning: if a commercial company sells in India, it's still because it can make profit. If it makes profit, it makes profit whether it's an Indian or an Westerner buying it. Only, one makes LESS profit. (since otherwise that Westerner would buy it at triple the price, while the cost remains the same).

So, let's be honest: it's not for the sake of people there - so that they can play the game - that is of primordial importance of the company. They're not charity. If that were the only concern, than they could as well give it free. And they *certainly* wouldn't mind other people buying it.

So...the *real* bottomline is that one wants to maximise their profit, NOT that they just have an inherent desire to let people enjoy their game. But...well, am I to blame that other people in other countries are not as rich? Or do I have the obligation to pay triple the amount of the price so that a company can maximise their profit?

From the point of view of a consumer: no. And mind you, that does not mean I don't think a company can't make profit, especially indie-companies like Larian. I wish them all the success, commercially and otherwise. I'm all for a free market, in fact. But than that market truly has to be free.

Look, Raze... imagine you bought a car in India (or China, or the US, for that matter), fulfilled all the taxes, customs and what not, but the car-manufacturer says to you: "well, sorry, you can't use that car in the West, because that was a cheap car made for Indians, not a car for people who are rich..." would you consider that fair, then?

I imagine not. At least, very few would argue it's normal that you can't use that car.

The same holds true for a game.This pervasive idea that somehow, for some reason, digital media should be exempt from practises that are considered normal with all other objects, I strongly dislike and refute. I think the law should be made more clear in this respect, and make digital objects fall under the same rights and obligations and rules as physical objects.


Every company should have the right to make a profit, but every consumer should have the right to buy and use something he bought, period. Consumers aren't there to maximise the profits of a company, in the end. And if a company can and continue to sell its goods at half the price, it's a sign they still make a profit on it. And if one claims that isn't true, and that they can only do that because Westerners pay triple the price for it, I can only say: that's mighty benevolent of that company, but why would I need to pay triple the price so people elsewhere might buy it cheaper? Why should I sponsor India? Am I a charity? And why would I do that? To let a company maximise its income and expand its marketshare, at my expense?

Now, I know you mean well, Raze, but you're viewing things from a companies' perspective (Larians). and I understand that. I appreciate Larian studios greatly myself. But that doesn't mean, seen in a general context, that things should always be looked at from that perspective.

Replace 'game' with an actual physical good - ANY physical good - and no-one would accept the sort of rationale you put up here. There is no way you can't buy a teabag - even one manufactured in Europe - in India because it's cheaper there, and be told one can't use it in Europe because the manufacturer is of the opinion only poor Indians can use it, in India. That would generally be regarded as absurd.

The solution is rather simple: make one key for a general minimum price where one, as a company, feel comfortable with the profit (you can average that out over the poor and richer countries). After all, you are ALREADY working with averages, because there are also a lot of Indians who are WAY richer than I am, and following your reasoning, one should ask a thousand times more to those millionaires, then. It's not to give millionaires a permanent sale after all, is it? ;-)

So, one is already working with averages. Well, then, do the same on a worldwide scale. One key, one 'region', no hassle anymore. Some people won't be able to buy the game, then? Well, I can't buy a Ferrari. I don't see the point of the argument, unless from the standpoint of a company wanting to even further maximise its profits and even further expand it's marketshare while we're de facto sponsoring it, as said. But I fail to see why that goal would be the goal of a consumer. And when push comes to shove, I still think the right of an end-consumer to use something he bought where and how he wants, outweighs maximising profit and marketshare of a company (aka, commonly referred to as 'moneygrabbing').

In fact, depending on the country you are in, that's exactly the right that is given to consumers thanks to laws that are based on consumer-rights. It's just necessary to make more clear in the law 'digital objects' fall under it too, and much of this sort of discussion would go away.