part 2.
Comparing that to not being able to buy a Ferrari is silly; in that analogy, you can easily buy a car, you just want a cheaper price, even if that would mean many people in poor countries can't afford cars.
I'm not getting what you want to say here. Yes, if a Ferrari could be bought really cheaply in India, I would order/buy it. I CAN NOT 'easily buy' a Ferrari now, but if Ferrari made a Ferrari - which would cost 100000 here - and sold it for 1000 Euro in India, I would certainly buy it, in India.
Of course I want a cheaper price; who doesn't? And of course you'll always have people somewhere that won't be able to buy it, just like I can't buy a Ferrari.
But if Ferrari made them available for a cheaper price in Belgium, even when not cheap enough for me to buy it, I wouldn't envy or hold a grudge to people who are, then, in the possibility to buy it. Nor would I complain about their right to buy it (more) cheaply, even if it were foreigners. And I *certainly* would consider it unfair if Ferrari would say to them that, while they bought it legally, they can't use the Ferrari, because they want to maximise their profit. Scuze me; because they want the Belgian people to be able to afford a Ferrari, not some wealthy millionaires from Lichtenstein.
So...what exactly is your point?
The budget of an independent developer's next game comes from the profits of the previous, and the largest expense is manpower. Saying you can arbitrarily cut the price in half because they must be making a profit is rather short sighted. If you want to decide a company is making too much profit, wait until they start doing stupid things with it, rather than investing it in future games.
In principle, I can't judge when it's 'too much' profits. Every company tries to maximise its profits. On itself, that isn't strange, and I'm a proponent of the free market. Ea, Ubisoft, and certainly Larian may try to maximise their profits, sure. They have that right. I recognise that. But I also want recognition of the right of the consumers. And as a consumer, I should have the right to buy a good for the cheapest price available, and being able to use it.
Where those two views clash, as a consumer, I obviously take the consumers' side. This is where consumers-rights and laws come into play. That's because these laws are needed, or companies would know no bounds when it comes to various ways to make profits, even if they have to curb a natural right of a consumer (such as the choice to buy where it's cheapest, or the right to use a legally bought product as one wishes). So I understand Larian or others trying to maximise their profits, but that doesn't mean we have to go along with it. Forbidding people to buy somewhere (cheap) else and prohibiting the normal use of a legally bought product (regional codes) are practises that inhibit the rights of consumers. I simply do not consider the lust for maximising their (the companies) profits a viable goal to offer these rights to.
A company with a good product can survive without resorting to such dubious practises, as Larian has proven themselves. So I wouldn't start complaining about people buying the game cheap, because you offered it cheap somewhere: that is only to be expected, AND a consumer has the principle right to buy something as cheap as he can.
Just because something can be sold at a certain price in a region doesn't mean that price would be sufficient to cover the development costs.
Then augment your prices. That's exactly what I was saying. Every company should very well know what their costs were, and how much they need to ask to still have a profit. No company can stay afloat when it continuously sells below their cost-price. Because if you keep doing that, and the product costs more than one gains by selling it, you're just going for chapter 11.
I'm really not seeing your issue. If you *can't* sell it at such a low price to make a profit from it, then don't sell it at that price.
Before Steam had regional pricing Russia had a large piracy problem (which is an issue unique to digital goods); by making prices affordable and buying games easier than stealing, Russia is now one of the largest markets for Steam.
So... We should all be more inclined to use pirated versions, so that prices come down here too, is what the logical conclusion would be of that story.
Anyway: that's good news for Steam and their quest for maximising profits. But why would that be good news for people who want to buy it at the same prices, but aren't allowed due to artificial protectionist-measures to safeguard Steams' profit, but not consumers' rights?
Virtually nobody in India steals European tea bags if they can not afford them.
On the contrary. If they are expensive enough that few can afford them, they would get stolen by the droves, just *because* they were so expensive.
It seems, through this whole discussion, you seem to have misunderstood my contention. I'm not denying Larian or any other studio has the right to set its prices. I'm just denying them the right to decide that some consumers can, and some can't buy it at those prices, nor may they deny the normal use of a product a consumer legally bought.
