There are all kinds of price differences that have nothing to do with charity, and charity is not a requirement for price differences.
True. I focussed on the charity one, because you kept implying it has a connection to that. You know, the 'it's to allow poor people to play too'. My point was, that that (the charity aspect) was NOT the goal of the game-distributor. I also made the point that charity is a well accepted area in which price-cuts are allowed, in a societal context. You have others - like from the state, and you have still others from the private industry, but those are limited and well defined. They can't just put whatever in their terms of services, and then claim people should adhere to it, because they did.
Don't pretend user agreements are the same as letting companies make laws.
Well, I'm sure happy to read that. ;-) Some companies *DO* act as if it are laws, or has the same or more weight than laws, though. I mean: if one knows something is AGAINST the law, wouldn't it make sense to remove it from your licence/terms of service, etc.?
This is not only related to the game-industry, btw; TA (a consumers-group) found a lot of 'terms' in violation with the EU laws from airline companies. Those knew full well they weren't in order (TA send them letters about it), but they kept it up until they were formally ordered by the court(s).
I mean: it's trying, isn't it? Bending as far as they can, and than pretending people should do as what is said in their terms, even when they know it ain't really in accordance with the law.
Everything you join, every financial deal you make, every contract you sign has terms and conditions. They all operate within the law of every territory they are available in.
If you believe regional pricing on digital goods violates the law, you are welcome to challenge it in court.
Sure. But the law supersedes any terms one puts into there; agreed? I was just pointing out that the rationale most companies use for their argument is far from being 'obvious' in a societal context. If you put a certain 'condition' in there, why would it make inherently and logically sense (*outside* of the goal of maximising profit and marketshare), for instance?
I do think a good case could be made for refuting regional coding, seen the first above link, do you not agree? But, let's focus on the 'no reselling' argument, for now. Seen the fact that there are already court-decisions which make it abundantly clear that people may, indeed, resell their goods, even when digital downloads, and seen the fact (I presume) that you agree that laws supersedes terms of services... isn't the logical conclusion that those particular terms are null and void, and thus, should be removed?
I mean, you can still try to make the case that regional coding 'is allowed' (though the first link isn't really indicative of this, but rather the opposite), but there can be little doubt Larian, nor other companies, can prohibit people from reselling their game, agreed?
So... isn't regional coding, in effect, trying to circumvent this? It's like saying: ah, you can resell? But that will hurt our selling business (which is NOT an argument the court followed, otherwise reselling would already be disallowed, since that hurts ones' business too, obviously). That's akin to saying: ah, ok, the court decided you can resell books, but you know what? We're going to disallow *reading* books.
It makes no logical sense. If reselling is allowed, then obviously (and I mean this in a logical sense), the *use* of that good should also be allowed.
The analogy with student software is the same. Steam and GOG's regional pricing is not based on an individual means test, it is based on the region. You have to be Russian to buy the cheaper Russian keys, just like you have to be a student to get the cheaper student pricing.
The reason for the regional pricing is the difference in economies in different regions, but it can not be implemented on an individual level.
Then don't use emotional-driven argumentation as "it's for the poor people", and compare it with charity. And it's not the same: 'students' are a subgroup within a given populace, and you can find those in ANY given populace. "Russians" are not a subgroup; they are a populace itself. In effect, you make a distinction based on ethnicity, then. Try saying: we'll give products cheaper to white students, and not to black students, and see how well one fares with such a terms of service, then...
There are physical goods that can not be imported into certain regions, others that you need a special permit or licence for, etc. There are physical goods manufactured to only be sold in specified regions. Regional restriction existed for physical goods before there were digital goods.
Within the context of them being sold on the free market publicly, can you name three, that are 1)introduced before the advent of digital media, 2)not due to commonly accepted reasons such as charity, and 3) that are not imposed by the state? (And, of course: 4) that have turned out to be legally binding)?
My contention was that digital media business is acting as if it has the right to impose limits where no such rights are accepted with normal physical goods. So examples of physical goods where the digital media are being restricted in this way (like on DVD's) is NOT an example in support of it, but, on the contrary, rather substantiates my claim.
If a digital distributor's terms of service are not acceptable, people are free not to use their service. Regional restrictions exist because regional prices exist because different economies exist.
But why would that matter, outside the scope and goal that companies seek out? Your first sentence is wrong, btw. I gave you the links. A distributor's terms of service CAN NOT be enforced if it goes against the law. If the law says (as it does; I gave you the quotes) that if someone who bought a good, even a digital one, may resell it *regardless* of the restrictions of the distributor, then this obviously means one CAN resell it, EVEN if it's in the terms of services. Agreed?
You seem to miss the point that it's not for people to respect and uphold the terms of services and whatever is in there, but that it's for *the distributors* to adapt their terms of services to the law in the first place! This is regardless if consumers 'agreed' to it or not!
Companies are allowed to put *certain* conditions in there, while not others. They are allowed to do that by the state (aka; indirectly by the people). They are *not* the ones who tell others what is allowed or not, whether they agreed to it or not.
Otherwise, one could as well argue that slavery should be allowed again, if people signed up that they could become a slave and it was 'mentioned in the terms of service'. An extreme example, just to clearly show you the 'if you don't like it, you are free not to use/sign up' is not correct.
No, it doesn't work like that. You can not put that in there, and even if you do agree to it, no one can be compelled to be hold to that, because it's an illegal demand. Surely you can see that?
Well, it's similar for not allowing to resell a game.
similar restrictions of physical goods would never be accepted?
Really? Then why were there regional pricing for physical games long before digital distributors existed?
Well, isn't that for the same reason that the very same digital distributors try it with their downloads: because of their goal of maximising their profit and marketshare?
I think it's exactly the same reasons. And that's also exactly what I'm saying: they shouldn't be allowed to do it - just as it's not allowed with other, physical, goods - because they want even 'more profit'. The fact that they've been trying for a while now, doesn't change the fact it's contrary to the normal practises. I repeat: would you think it normal that, if you bought a car in another country where people are not as rich in the West, you are forbidden to drive it in the EU? Because I sure as hell don't.
Wait... 'obviously'? Why obviously?
Because it is blatantly obvious.
Add regional pricing, but no restrictions. Which price would most people pick?
Well, the cheaper of course. I don't know what you're getting at, here. You're arguing the same as I: that it's obvious from a companies standpoint who wants to maximise their profit and marketshare. My point was: why would that mean anything *outside* that particular goal? For instance, it's *obvious* that a monopolist wants to keep his monopoly (for the same reasons). So one could say: "Isn't it blatantly obvious? If we have competition, our prices will drop!" Yes, it's all obvious, looking at it from their perspective. Only: what is that to us, the buyers? Or society at large? Or the law?
The point, Raze, was not that I don't understand that *you* (well, companies) think of it as obvious, but that that doesn't mean we should accept the premise they start with.
Can game companies survive with that business model?
Then don't use that business model. Wasn't that what I was saying from the start?
I mean, that's just the point: why would we have to pay more than we should in any normal competitive free market with physical goods, just because digital companies want even more profit and marketshare and use a business-model that infringes upon our rights, just so they can achieve their goal?
There are a lot of other options, Raze. Let's not pretend companies can not survive without regional codes: they have done so in the past, and still do so now. 'Regional codes' are a relative recent invention, I'll let you know. Vinyl was sold before the CD, didn't have regional codes, and yet you had plenty of companies that did perfectly well without it. No, they couldn't maximise their profits on all markets by introducing artificial restrictions, granted... but they still did well in their time. Even CD's didn't have regional codes, that only started with the DVD. But now, suddenly, one would have to believe DVD's can't survive anymore, and digital downloads neither, without regional codes?
That's not really true, Raze, and I think you realise it too. It's equally possible to remain afloat as a company and have a reasonable profit *without* regional codes. It's just that one wants *more* profit, even if it means introducing systems that aren't necessary for their survival, and even if it means introducing artificial restrictions on the free market.
For instance, you could make an average price, as I said. That would mean you can sell a reasonable amount of games worldwide. It would mean less selling in those other 'less rich' markets, yes, but it wouldn't mean you couldn't earn enough to make a profit. If you have a good product that has some popularity, you can *always* survive, Raze.
Another option would be to go like casual games do: instead of asking one large sum of money, you could sell it very cheap. The loss one gets from selling cheap is offset by the fact you sell more of it. That's why 'angry birds' had a revenue of hundreds of millions, while they only asked less than an Euro. The same can be applied to any game. I, for instance - and I don't think I'm the only one - have the tendency to not pay more than 10-15 euro for a game, some very few exceptions not withstanding. (And a Russian or Chinese also not, obviously). As long as it doesn't drops in price to that point, I don't buy it. (alternatively, one could play a hacked version, like you said Russians do).
So, how more more would one sell if Larian sold it's games, not for 40-50 euro, but for 10-15? A hell of a lot more. In total, you'd probably earn more than you otherwise would. And don't say it's impossible. Torchlight 2 was sold for less than half of the normal price for such a game, and they did that on purpose, for the same reasons as I just said. And it was, indeed, a huge success.
But now, one is trying to eat the cake from both sides: to squeeze out the most they can from those that are presumed to be rich enough to pay premium for the same product, and then try to squeeze out the most they can from 'poorer' regions. And, as said, I understand that: they want to maximise their profits as much as they can, regardless of consumer-rights or first doctrine, or normal practises with physical goods, etc.
But do they *need* that to 'survive'? No. They *want* that because every company wants as much profit s they can. But let's not confound the two.
There certainly are options, Raze, where Larian and other companies can survive just fine, and have a *reasonable* profit even, without trying to curb ones' rights or resort to lock-ins like regional codes. The prerequisite for that is having a good and popular game. It's not by having regional codes.
If Larian can only survive through regional codes, it's a company that deserves to go down, in any free market. I don't think Larian is such a company, though. If they continue to make good games, and don't make the mistakes they did in the 90'ies, they'll do just fine.
If you significantly cut the revenue of every game company, what would that do for their next projects? How many game publishers would put out retail releases knowing they would have to compete with the digital versions at a fraction of the price?
Then don't put them out. Or make up by 'total sold numbers' what you lose at the individual price.
Raze; a company has a right to make a profit. It has no inherent right to make an even bigger profit that ensures it's survival by curbing other rights. If that would be the case, monopolists would be welcomed. The thing you are saying - and I'm not sure if you are aware of it- is actually contrary to the free market. If another company made a similar RPG game and sold it much cheaper around the same time, and people bought that instead of yours... are you then also going to cry that it significantly cuts the revenue of your game company?
The only difference here, is that you're competing with yourself. So..why shouldn't that invoke the same consequences that competition has on your selling-numbers, again? It stands to reason that, if you choose to compete in price with yourself, you should also accept what that entails in a free market, rather than invent ways to prohibit the consequences of your own actions.
With your reasoning, if you could do it (as a monopolist can) you could and would claim with exactly the same argument that it hurts your business-model if other game-developers put similar games more cheaply on the market.
Yes, and? That's the free market for you. And what you are doing with regional codes, is trying to curb and withhold the free market and the consequences of competition. That it's your own introduced competition of your own product doesn't make any difference in that. The argument that 'it otherwise would cut in our profit' is ALWAYS true if one introduces ANY competition from WHATEVER source. The answer is: yes, competition cuts in your profits; that's how the free market is supposed to work.
Objectively, what exactly do you think would happen to the game industry as a whole without regional restrictions?
See above.
Do you think regional pricing could survive?
That would depend on what model you follow. If it's cheap to begin with, you wouldn't lose the market there, you'd only lose the full maximisation of your profits here. But that's true for any other product, and that's why products made in the West have it though with similar products made in China which are far cheaper. Yes, you throw in quality and all that, but the same was said of Japan in the 70'ies, and no-one is complaining about the quality of Japanese products now. The point is, even with the same quality, the Chinese products are still a lot cheaper.
Should Western cars now be made 'regionally coded' so that they can still compete? Are car-manufacturers selling their cars in China where they're cheaper now allowed to place in their terms of service you can't drive in the EU with it? I never get an answer from you on this part, but would you *really* think it normal that, if you bought say, a glass in/from China (even when made in the West), that you couldn't drink out of it in the EU or US, because its 'terms of service' said so?
It makes no sense. Yet, you continue to claim it does with games. But I already gave you the link to the court where there is no distinction made between physical goods and digital goods, so I don't understand why you keep insisting what is deemed not normal practises, should be deemed normal in your case.
Yes, your profits will go down. And it goes down for any other manufacturer that sells it's own goods cheaper elsewhere and where there is a free market. So what's your point? The solution is to find a way to survive in spite of that, and *not* trying to curb the free market itself in your advantage.
Would it be better for the game industry if there were a single price, and poorer regions went back to piracy predominantly rather than being a significant portion of the market?
You could explore other options. But regardless, IF the only other alternative would be to use lock-ins such as regional codes, I would say to your question: it would be better for the free market and for consumers' rights. Haven't you understood that was my point all along?
Would it be better for the game industry? Probably not, if maximising profits is what you consider 'better'. But then again: would it be better for a monopolist to lose its monopoly? Well, there too one would have to say: no, if maximising profits would be considered as the definition for 'better'.
You don't seem to realise this line of questioning doesn't amount to much, thus.
What I think is, that a company has a right to make a profit, but not that it has the right to maximise its profits by trying to restrict the free market, to restrict the consequences of their own self-introduced competition, and to prohibit consumer rights such as the ability to use a good you bought and the first sale doctrine.
Now, I didn't go in to the specifics of the legality of regional codes, so I'll leave that for the moment. But it IS clear you have the right to resell a good. You spoke about going to court bout the former, but do you include the latter too?
To make it clear: does Larian disputes this right, and is it in their terms of service that one can not resell it (a game of theirs)? Because if they REALLY forbid it, and if you honestly ask me to challenge that (even though it's already been settled in court), I'm actually willing to do that. Not because I have anything against Larian, rest assured, but because I don't want this right to be infringed upon. And well, if you ask for it, it's better to do it with a company that seeks it (and legal clarity) out itself than a company who's going to be recalcitrant about it.
Note that I'm not asking about the regional codes this time, since that inhibits playing it, but not necessarily 'reselling' it.
So what about reselling? Raze; what is the official position of Larian on this specific matter: does it allow reselling of its games, yes or no?