Beamer wrote on Nov 30, 2021, 09:10:
Baenwort wrote on Nov 30, 2021, 08:04:
jdreyer wrote on Nov 29, 2021, 23:56:
The Half Elf wrote on Nov 29, 2021, 23:41:
El Pit wrote on Nov 29, 2021, 18:51:
If it's not on Steam, people won't buy it. Not even DRM free. It must be on Steam. THIS is a pseudo-monopoly that people actually want and seem to like. Which is bad for competitors. But people seem to care more about having their stuff in one place than about DRM.
How is a pseudeo-monopoly when people choose the best option?
Steam forces a MFN clause in its contracts, so no publisher can offer a lower price on GoG than they have on Steam. That's monopolistic behavior, because no one can afford to tell Steam to fuck off.
I'd say the problem is the other way around.
It makes some sense in the physical world to price markets differently due to the cost of transport, handling, and other stock related costs. It also makes sense due to different marketing spends due to the limited reach of advertising distribution.
In a digital store none of those apply. You should have to offer it at the same price at all same language store fronts. (Due to marketing costs being different in each language you advertise in)
Why should the store front pay the cost of the game companies price trickery to increase profits?
Regional pricing isn't entirely around cost. It's also around ability to pay
Asking someone to pay $60 in a nation where the average weekly take-home is $60 isnt going to sell you many games in that region. Instead, people there will pirate. This has a triple effect of legitimizing piracy in that nation as the only way to play, making piracy more accessible globally, and creating major multiplayer and version issues.
So the other option is to price games lower everywhere. Have you seen how long the credits are for AAA games these days? Can't have 400 people in Montreal and California making a game that you sell for $15. The budgeting doesn't work.
So we have games priced according to what people can pay.
It makes sense. If you don't like it, maybe you're the type that thinks a flat tax makes sense. I disagree. Everyone is better in the current system. People in wealthier counties both get more advanced/bigger games, as well as an industry that pays their peers to make games, and people in less wealthy nations aren't excluded from the hobby entirely by being absolutely priced out.
I don't think flat tax is good.
I don't think games that cost $60 are better than $15 dollar ones.
I think if this was about reducing piracy or doing good for poor people they would donate keys and help NGOs with a gaming focus.
I don't think a price difference between Steam and GoG, Epic, and CDKeys are due to trying to sell low priced access to games subsidized by first world consumers. (I do think direct giving and NGO systems are better than a subsidies) that is what I am arguing against. Not region locking (which is what you are describing) .
As someone who lives below the median income for my community I wait on average 2 years to get a game. As a adult this isn't a problem as I'm not trying to play with friends who only want the latest and biggest games and don't want to revisit "old" ones. This keeps gaming in my reach. I'm more impacted by the death of the used game market being caused by digital store fronts.