After reading the Blues News post, the article in question, and everyone's comments I highly recommend watching the first 2 seasons of Mythic Quest.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

One of the reasons this old man games is to forget about all the BS in the world, if only for a few hours. No one in this thread has any way of really knowing what is happening on the other side of the globe, much less in the US (if you are in the US) with any certainty. There is no way to get news that is trustworthy, none at all, even our understanding of history is being changed to suit today's political agendas. When faced with the realities of war we all agree war is terrible, yet somehow 66% of the American public cheered on Shock and Awe in Iraq. Not me, however, when Iraq was unfolding I was certain that my fellow citizens were too smart to fall for the BS (the UN presentation evidence of Iraqi chemical warfare mobile labs was rendered models rather than actual photographs of said units) after having gone through Vietnam. Apparently we are all still hanging out in Plato's cave...

It is sad for this old guy who lived through the "free speech era" as a youngster to see censorship run amok... I am all for treating everyone with dignity and respect but that doesn't mean adopting their worldview, especially when it conflicts with reality.

I have, as a matter of course, talked to many right wing types. With most we have been able to focus on the things that we agree on about what is ailing our country. None of these reasonable people used terms like "socialist loving douches". I think your partisan attitude is a huge part of the problem because most of what ails us is beyond right vs left, and right vs left is right where the powers that be want to keep us. Head on over to Rolling Stone and read Taibbi's latest on Wall Street crime and tell us again how babysitting is the big problem we face...

socialist loving douches???

What is wrong with socialism? You don't approve of the commons? You don't approve of your local police department? Nor our military? Nor fire departments? Nor our highway system? Libraries? Schools? Parks?

and no, I'm not voting Democrat or Republican...

I'm making a tee shirt:

Just say NO
to organized crime
vote 3rd party

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I will say that I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for this developer. They now have the same excuse (piracy) as the last time they released a game and refused to support it (Crysis - bad net code)in order to sell the fixed version (Crysis Warhead). Personally, I don't care if they never release another pc game.

It's one of my mainstays. Questions?

Here we go again. Somehow it's the consumer's fault that marketing types decided to create regional market prices in these days of a global economy. See, as a consumer you're supposed to understand that the schmoes over there get your job because they'll work cheaper than you, it's the global economy at work. But when you, as a consumer, try to take advantage of the fact that it's a global economy they create "regional markets" to keep you paying higher prices in the global economy.

Who would devote themselves to a market like that? A better question is who would treat their customers like that?

This isn't about piracy, it's about the price paying customers pay. The people who pirate will do so regardless of pricing schemes.

Kosumo, I read the links, I reference Valve because they are the ones who run steam and they have done this before after the Orange Box release.

I'll never buy another premium priced product from anyone, not just Valve, who thinks I should pay more for a game because of where I live.

Gdiguy, we agree about most of the underlying concepts, however...

As you mentioned unit prices, especially on direct download, are low and close to the same regarless of region. The question becomes one of profit per unit. If the profit per unit sold at the lower rate isn't enough to make the venture profitable, then clearly those paying the higher rate are subsidizing those paying the lesser rate.

Although, given how quickly game prices drop after "hitting the shelf" and coupled with how much more profit Valve has self-reportedly made by selling games on sale I'd have to question the necessity of entering into a multi-tiered price structure to begin with.

Anyway, I don't need Valve games, I certainly didn't buy this game and won't based on all the details of its release. I have my favorite game and more than enough 1st person shooters to keep me happy for quite some time. I may buy a bargain bin version of HL3 at some point. But I will never pay a premium price for any game that is sold for less to someone else based on where they live.

This comment was edited on Nov 23, 2009, 21:10.

To everyone that thinks Valve is wrong here:
blah blah blah...

My favorite game is published by its developer. They are only selling online from their website after having done a limited retail deal. There are people from 3rd world countries who purchase the game for the same price everyone else does. This company, by their account, doesn't have a pirating problem and I find their copy protection/licensing scheme to be non-invasive. This company, by their account, is doing quite well to the point of delaying a major new release until after the Christmas season so they can enjoy the time with their families.

What we have here is a case of a company saying they want to make more of a profit off of people who can afford to pay more and they are willing to make less of a profit off of people who can't afford to pay as much. Valve is determining the market rather than the consumer. This is a perverse notion in a "free market society", if a market is going to be regulated I'd rather have it regulated by the government than by a company.

They say that charging people overseas the same price would result in more piracy because they can't afford to pay our price. Not once have they mentioned the possibility of lowering prices here to match prices in 3rd world countries.

They would rather say there is something wrong with people trying to find the lowest price. They never stopped to consider that if these people can't buy the game at a reduced price maybe their only other option if they want the game is to resort to piracy like the 3rd world folks they think are entitled to a lower price.

So, if Valve wants to charge me more because they think it's okay to make more money off of me than another customer based on marketing research they are going to be disappointed. I'll stick to supporting software companies who's goal isn't to become richer by suckering chumps, but to make great pc games.

I don't care about your beliefs, mostly because you're so far out of left field here that I'd have trouble believing your beliefs are grounded in reality.

Socialized medicine has NOTHING to do with what I said. No one will EVERY charge the US the same for drugs they do Africa. Why? Because they sell to Africa out of the good of their hearts (to avoid a PR nightmare.) They sell to Africa with no intention of making money, in fact expecting to lose money. They sell to Africa knowing that if they don't there will be a very violent black market dedicated to their drugs (and these things become PR nightmares.)


But you seem to think price gouging is okay.
You're so dumb it isn't even funny. It isn't price gouging.






To everyone that thinks Valve is wrong here:
People went out of their way to buy from grey markets. No one did this innocently - people looked for the cheapest deal. Valve banned them for trying to game the system.
The alternative here would be Valve not allowing these grey market dealers. The only way to do this is to pull out of these markets completely, or treat these markets as they treat the US and charge similar prices.
The problem here is that these markets don't function like the US. People keep saying stupid things like "fair is fair," but in many of these markets the average weekly wage is 10% that of the US. You can't expect these people to pay $50 for a game. That's so far out of their price range it's not that they refuse but that they can't. So they'd pirate, as it's the only option. As a result piracy goes up on the PC platform. How do you guys think Valve will respond to that? How has every other company responded to that?

But if you think Valve should just let their stuff be pirated, don't cry when Valve starts focusing on consoles.

I understand you perfectly and you obviously can't understand a word I've said, yet I'm the dumb one here? Get over yourself. Your comparison of a humanitarian action to a business decision is the mose ridiculous thing I've ever read. Are you really so jaded by greed to think that the reason the drugs are sold cheaper in developing countries has to do primarily with PR rather than charity. And, Mr. Know-it-all, the last time I checked the drug companies are doing quite well, so maybe your hysterics about them going out of business is just a bunch of BS... gee, what a surprise.

What the software industry is doing is price gouging, i.e. charging a higher price to those who can afford it. Or aren't you familiar with the term. Games aren't a life saving product; they're luxury items. Tell me, does Ferrari sell their cars at a discount in Africa too?

Since you're so smart, and say it's not price gouging, why don't you tell us what price gouging is...

It's called price discrimination.
And it's a good thing.

Say a company comes out with a cure for AIDS. Do you think they should charge Americans the same they charge people in Africa?

If you answer "yes," then the companies will charge Africans more than they make in 5 years, as that's how much is necessary for the company to recoup their R&D costs. You just deprived a whole continent of life.
If you answer "no, but cures for AIDS and video games aren't comparable" then fine, we'll charge everyone the same for video games and developing nations will either have zero chance of playing these games or, more accurately, just pirate everything since it's the only reasonable way they can get the games.

Pharmaceuticals price discriminate like crazy, and find ways to very stiffly charge those that try to get around it. In fact, they've lobbied so that importing drugs from other countries is a federal crime in the US. Get caught and you're looking at jail time.
If you'd prefer, Valve could do that. You know, rather than people doing this simply getting banned they can do jail time. If that's what you'd prefer.

First of all I believe in socialized medicine, you know, like the rest of the industrialized world, so the question would be would they charge the US the same as they would another country. In my youth I would have wanted the US to pay more, but that was before we sent our manufacturing base overseas (you know, the only industrialized manufacturing base to survive WW2 intact, the one that gave us our competitive advantage over the rest of the world, the competitive advantage that no longer exists).

But you seem to think price gouging is okay. So tell me then, what about the people in the US living in poverty? They can't afford to buy the game at the "regional price". What are their options? Aren't they exactly the same as the options in a "developing" country (read: a country where ex-American manufacturing jobs are building their economy). Like I said in an earlier post, if finding cheaper labor overseas is a good thing for companies then finding good prices overseas is good for consumers.

And you ignore the fact that selling for less in different parts of the world still represents a profit for them. So what they are sayiing is that because you earn more they will price gouge a larger profit from you.

And the freaking free market is supposed to be what is controlling prices in the global economy - not companies.

You keep mentioning lower income nations like that should mean something. Why should some people be able to buy the game cheaper than others?

I must say I don't understand the coporate defenders here. We live in an age of globalization where in my lifetime we've witnessed our manufacturing base shipped overseas for profit. The whole reason Japanese cars started selling in the US is because they were cheaper. Our manufacturing went over there because they work cheaper. And we, as consumers, pretty much go along with this because for us it's cheaper.

But some here would defend selling these products at lower prices there, or higher prices here. Why? What happened to market forces dictating prices? You send my job over there because that guy will work for less, and then you'll sell him the stuff cheaper than you'll sell it to me. But I better not ever look for the best deal because somehow that is unethical?

Just so you know, with the exception of Silent hunter games, the only steam games I've bought are made by Valve. I haven't and won't buy MW2 (unless/until they make it as functional as CoD4-and I'm not holding my breath)

But seriously, if it's okay to use the global market for labor costs why isn't it okay for consumers to use the global market to their advantage as well? If a company can afford to sell their wares at a lower cost to potentially hundreds of thousands of users what possible complaint can they offer when someone else wants the same deal? Charging someone more because they can afford to pay more is called price gouging and I'm pretty surprised to hear consumers speaking out in favor of it.