Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Yes, we should only be able to resell things if they degrade. And if the buyer of used goods knows that it is explicitly less good than the previous owners' version [I'm thinking we remove 1 feature per person down the chain it goes!]. That will satisfy copyright fascism advocates.

Just kidding. Its simply profit driven. Less resold goods = more 'new' improved goods acquired, correct? Unless the people who couldn't acquire the improved goods simply can't afford them, they'll just miss out on any of the versions of said products, eliminating a stream of revenue from 'older' products [in this case, second-owned games].


Then there's the issue that it is explicitly anti-free market to cut people off from gifting/reselling/copying their own goods that they spent money on.

It's like telling people they can't resell their furniture.

.. Or telling junkyards they can't scrap old cars without giving a part of their money to the original manufacturer.

[WealthyRadish]

It's worth noting that I would have no problem buying most games on launch if I had any hope of reselling them. Instead, I haven't bought a single thing that wasn't 75% off. Except SCII, but I sold my Blizzard account to a friend a week after buying it. Before Steam sales, I pirated everything. Truly, capitalism is safe for another day.

People seriously overestimate the intelligence of corporations in putting forth these kinds of restrictions. It's befuddled boneheads trying to do something to address murky issues that their superior boneheads perceive as a threat. I doubt most people who work in games publishing have anything more than a vague understanding of either their demographic or of gaming in general, and the fact that DRM remains standard industry practice is a pretty clear indication of this.

You also have to keep in mind that for most publishers, the PC market is a sideshow to squeeze a little extra money out of after the initial console release, and that they don't really have any reason to care about PC gamers yet. It's for this reason that I've always been disappointed in all the wasted opportunities Valve has had to push for a better industry, despite their progress made with Steam, in that they allow the PC market to remain at the whims of publishers who really don't know what they're doing.

[Tilla]

I know we're all busy being mad but EU prices are at par because of VAT I thought, which is added automatically? No conspiracy, nothing to get mad at Steam about: all EU prices have to include the VAT.

[Neyvn]

Heres a good point of view.
Looking at the SteamPrices.com site I looked at the sales of late.

Alot of the games had a 20-25% increase in USD value for the GBP.
BUT when it comes to games such as Bioshock Infinite. THIS I Love...
USA - 9.99USD
GB - 5.99GBP (10.21USD) +2.2%
AUS - 19.00USD (19.00USD) +90.19%

YEP for a AAA game such as this, AUSTRALIANS Have to pay way more then the Brits and such would ever dream. At FULL price, Bioshock Infinite is 99.99USD. THATS 1 HUNDRED DOLLARS USD, THEN Change it to AUD which at the moment of this post is 1.12. Meaning that if I bought Bioshock Infinite at its full price, I would be looking at 112.12AUD. Box prices are just as bad too...

When I bought Bioshock Infinite I bought it through one of the American Bay12ers at the cheaper price. If region locking hits gifts, welp... YEAH...

[alexandertnt]

I can confirm that games are nearly twice as expensive here in Australia than anywhere else. Its ridiculous.

It was like this when the Australian dollar was above the US dollar as well.

[scriver]

Your right, I am sorry.  I didn't read the authors name, hehe.

I am not okay with it.  Of course I am not, it's stupid.  I never said otherwise.

I am talking about the title of the thread here.  You know, the topic.

Edit:  Although, looking at it...

http://store.steampowered.com/?cc=uk
http://store.steampowered.com/?cc=us

It looks like the prices reflect the currency for most, if not all, of the games.

Those are Pounds, not Euros.

[Sappho]

I know we're all busy being mad but EU prices are at par because of VAT I thought, which is added automatically? No conspiracy, nothing to get mad at Steam about: all EU prices have to include the VAT.

Nope. VAT is separate and, as far as I know, it only applies to physical goods. Steam does not pay VAT, we are not charged VAT on Steam games when we buy them. The price difference is because they equate the dollar and euro by default, despite the approximately 30% difference in value. They figure most people won't notice, or not enough people will notice to do anything about it, and they ensure this by immediately deleting any threads on their forums that point out the discrepancy.

Publishers are given the opportunity to set their own regional prices, but many do not, either because they don't realize the difference, don't care, or want to take extra money from Europeans and Australians for no reason other than they can. If they don't explicitly set fair prices, Steam will automatically charge more for non-US purchases.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with taxes.

[Tilla]

I know we're all busy being mad but EU prices are at par because of VAT I thought, which is added automatically? No conspiracy, nothing to get mad at Steam about: all EU prices have to include the VAT.

Nope. VAT is separate and, as far as I know, it only applies to physical goods. Steam does not pay VAT, we are not charged VAT on Steam games when we buy them. The price difference is because they equate the dollar and euro by default, despite the approximately 30% difference in value. They figure most people won't notice, or not enough people will notice to do anything about it, and they ensure this by immediately deleting any threads on their forums that point out the discrepancy.

Publishers are given the opportunity to set their own regional prices, but many do not, either because they don't realize the difference, don't care, or want to take extra money from Europeans and Australians for no reason other than they can. If they don't explicitly set fair prices, Steam will automatically charge more for non-US purchases.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with taxes.

Valve says otherwise:
https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8360-WEJC-2625#taxes

[Sappho]

From that, I quote:

To the extent VAT applies to a transaction, Valve absorbs that cost and pays VAT itself.

Which means they are not charging European customers VAT. The difference in price has nothing to do with taxes.

[Niveras]

I talked to a game publisher. They are given the option to set the regional prices if they want to. If they decline or don't bother, then Steam defaults to one dollar equals one euro, which is a very nice way of saying "fuck you, everyone who doesn't live in America!"

I can see there being legal issues with making sure taxes are paid in the proper places, but there is no reason whatsoever why games sold in a system like this should cost different amounts in different regions.

I find this premise very strange. As a Canadian, I get USD prices in Steam. But when I actually go to pay it, it gets automatically converted to $CAN by Paypal. Now, I've only ever used Paypal in paying with steam, and I can certainly imagine that Paypal might be adding something on top of the currency conversion for a free profit (even if they don't express it as an independent charge). My personal credit card, for example, expressly charges 2.5% on all currency conversions.

What I don't understand is why Steam would do this for one currency but not others. That is to say, list the price in USD and leave the pricing conversion to whatever financial institution that is handling the transaction.

Now, if it's more than just a conversion issue - that some countries or regions apply taxes to imports or to particular products - I could understand. But if its for tax/tarif purposes you'd need a much more detailed paper trail than simply charging a different amount and pocketing the difference.

[Bauglir]

All this has been dealt with centuries ago with book publishing. People have the right to resell, and the industry can survive despite it.

Physical goods are very, very different then digital goods and it's shortsighted to treat them the same.

Books (and other physical goods) have costs associated with transferring them. I have to mail it, or drive it there, or go to a used book store and sell it (and then the store has to maintain storage, hire someone to keep track of it, etc etc), or sit in my lawn having a yardsale, or whatever. My market is also probably pretty limited to people in the general area, though with the internet and ebay and such this is less of an issue then it used to be.

Meanwhile, books degrade over time. Yes, a well-kept book can last a very very long time... but if it's being resold and used constantly, there's going to be wear and tear and eventually it will fall apart.

However, I can transfer a digital good to anyone on earth (with a computer) instantly, for free. It also never degrades, it can be transferred unlimited times and enjoyed *exactly* the same as the first time.

Even ignoring the philosophical differences (selling the right to use software vs selling a physical book) the two are still incredibly different and need different rules to accommodate that.

And, Yes, I have no doubt the industry will survive - I just highly doubt you will like what it has to do and what it turns into.

The difference between digital goods and printed ones is similar to the one between printed goods and hand-copied ones. You act like electricity and internet access are free, computers never experience catastrophic errors or data loss, and as if there's a philosophical difference between information displayed on a screen and information displayed on paper. I don't think the industry has to become what you think it does, unless it wants to continue being paranoid and mindlessly greedy (and of course it does, because that's the definition of a successful corporate mindset, but that's the problem).

The solution to their problems is to produce better product, not to abuse legal loopholes at the obvious expense of consumers (who will, given time, stop consuming). But producing better product isn't possible under the current creation paradigm they use. Risk aversion is a chronic problem here, so they go with what they feel safe with - what's already worked, or what makes obvious sense. This is akin to throwing water on an electrical fire - it makes sense*, but it's not going to solve the problem. That is, it's not going to make anyone give a shit about anyone else, and that's the problem. Game publishers ignoring their customers, and players ignoring game creators. This thread just seems to be about an example of publishers ignoring their customers.

*If you don't understand the problem's root very well but have a good grasp of what sort of damage is going on

[ekolis]

I wonder why publishers even bother with region locking. Don't they *want* our money? They're only encouraging piracy if they prevent people from buying things that they want to buy! Is this something shoved in their faces by the ratings boards?