Print

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

[Sappho]

That's because everyone knows you're wonderful.

Awww. *virtual hugs*

Maybe I need to try harder. I repeat what I said before:

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.

And add that in these discussions I have found that the overwhelming majority of people who don't see a problem with this system live in America, and those who live in Europe almost universally are pretty pissed off about it. I guarantee that if it was the other way around, and Americans were the ones paying 30% more for games whose publishers didn't go out of their way to ensure fair pricing, all hell would break loose.

[Puzzlemaker]

And they're trying real hard to crack down on the used game market. If they thought they could get away with it, they'd require online validation for a game purchase and associate the game with the console, so no other console can validate that copy of that game. You'd have to modify your console to bypass the check or set all games to "validated", which of course is against the EULA and illegal in the US regardless.

Of course they'd prefer the DRM to check online throughout play, such as they've done with a lot of PC games lately. But that ends up ruining the play experience because the connection isn't 100% foolproof so it shuts down frequently.

Their desire for control has no effective limit beyond the limits of our submission. If we didn't complain they'd control us as much as they're physically able to, like crushing someone in a vise. They control us as much as they can before we cry out and revolt.

Yeah it's only games blah blah, not worth complaining about, if you don't like it don't buy, just go to the park or play a board game if you don't like the deal. Who cares if heartless beasts destroy something wonderful for everyone?

Augh, go put on a tinfoil hat.

"Heartless beasts?"  These are people you are talking about.  People with jobs, lives, and who are trying their best to make a living.

You ever play Papers Please?  You should.

They have done a lot of things badly but they have done a lot of things well too.  Look at the greenlight system.  It jumpstarted indie gaming in a big way.

You basically just sidestepped my point about tax evasion, then made a nice strawman about DRM.

No, I don't agree with DRM.  But I do understand it.  I'll complain about it, but I wont call them evil for implementing it.

1: I didn't say evil. A suit who lets his programmers make a wonderful game, lets his PR team make everyone salivate for it, and then slaps always-on-internet DRM on it is exactly like a man who offers a child an ice cream and then shits in it.

They shit in our ice cream.

And it's not necessary. They're just paranoid that someone might play the game without paying for it - for example, if you get tired of it and hand it to someone else. That represents a player who would have otherwise paid for the game, and revenue for the company.

Yes, I don't agree with DRM.  But I don't think it's like shitting in ice cream.  Like you said, it's about making money.  Oh hey, it's a company, it makes money.  It wouldn't exist otherwise.  They wouldn't be able to make any of those games otherwise.  It's kind of how the whole system works, and it's understandable if they want to defend it.

2: A corporation can be shitty because of its corporate culture, and because everyone in it is working to benefit the company and ignoring their moral compass. You get a million hands holding up an empty throne. Sure those people are just keeping their heads down and trying to get through the working day. But that rationale doesn't work: if you do something lame because you were ordered to, you are still responsible for doing that thing.

When a high level manager at Nestle buys a local water supply and screws over the local population, then orders too much water pumped out - way more than the contract allowed - and screws them over even more ... that's a bad thing happening and a human is doing it.

I don't give a shit about corporations because they don't give a shit about me. I'm a potential giver of money, consumer of goods. I am not a human being from a corporate perspective; and to me, corporations are ready excuses for organized malfeasance.

This is one of the major problems with capitalism.  It does tend to de-humanize people just due to it's very nature.  I wont argue with that.  But you did call them "Heartless Beasts".  A bit of hyperbole there.

3: I'm not using DRM as a strawman. Steam is a DRM system, and now they're trying to restrict people from doing something they used to be able to. The tool they're using to enable that restriction is already in place in the Steam DRM.

This is true, but you weren't referring to that aspect of it.  You said:  " DRM to check online throughout play", which is referring to something other then the new regional trading.  So yes, it is a straw man, albeit related.

4: If Steam or GOG are not paying the required taxes, or the publisher doesn't pay the required taxes, I'm sure the country will ask politely for them to obey the law and if they refuse the country will sue and/or sanction them appropriately. I trust that when I buy a candy bar, the store will pay the appropriate sales taxes out of whatever they charged me for that candy bar.

They can explicitly add the tax to the bill so when you pick up the candy you think it's $1 but you actually have to pay $1.09, but the customer doesn't pay that 9-cent tax - the final seller does. It shows up on their tax return. The buyer is supposed to deduct the sales tax as an exemption, or it's included in the general exemption on an "easy" tax form.

I don't exactly understand what point you are trying to make here.  That the extra tax should be payed by the publisher?  Wouldn't they just raise the price to compensate?  And it still doesn't address regional trading, where someone guys it and trades it to someone else.  It would allow them to tax-dodge the purchase.

5: Tinfoil hat? Now who is arguing dirty?

You are right, I am sorry.  I overreacted to how you were talking.

6: Steam Greenlight was created because Steam knew it would make them money and further entrench them in their market. Anything else is PR spin.

That's really just an opinion?  I mean, you can see it from both sides.  Making money and doing the right thing don't have to necessarily be on opposite sides.  Just because they did something that makes money doesn't make them profit whores.

[aristabulus]

I feel left out. No one is flaming me for my post.

You're a bad poster, and you should feel bad!

(did I do it right?  )

[Puzzlemaker]

Well I know countries like Brazil have a tax for video games.  I really do think this is for legal reasons so steam can continue to legally be used in countries like Brazil.¹  GoG is basically helping users tax dodge by not having regional prices.  Personally I think the tax is stupid, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

Also, the  1 € = 1 $?  The price is set by publishers.²  Many games now have different prices for different currencies.

I hate these stupid hate circlejerks, they are so unreasonable.  If you want to be angry, be angry at the laws and bullshit that not only allow this sort of thing, but promote it.³

Yes, back to your original points. Can you cite your sources?

1:  More specifically about Brazil discontinuing use of steam, or threatening such actions due to price homogenization around the world. Actually, find me any country that is threatening to make steam 'illegal'.

I didn't see any news about it, but it doesn't change my point that Brazil does have tax's in place for purchases.  I don't see what's hard to understand about it.  Even if it's not being enforced, it's still illegal and they could arbitrarily enforce it in the future.

2: Where did steam acquire their default 1 = 1 ratio in Euro-US conversion? Publishers or their own idea? I'll give you a bit. The hint is: "We ask publishers to set the pricing and if not it defaults to our value [a completely made up 30% premium price to market exchange rates, so why would publishers change this?]" [paraphrase]

Probably a lazy programmer.  "Augh fuck it I'll just make it 1 to 1 and fix it later."

In all seriousness, yes.  It's not right.  But it also seems that most publishers set the regional prices correctly.  It's something that should be complained about.  But the price IS set by publishers.  The default is stupid, though, but it doesn't change the fact that in the end it is the publishers job to set the prices of the games they sell.

3: Which laws can you point to, and in what way is activity like this being encouraged by world governments? The EU is actually actively looking into the Steam US-selectivity issue. Be angry at some laws for us and educate us about how this isn't just Steam being cash grabbing fools.

Trade and copyright laws that promote DRM and prices changes based on region.  I know many countries have laws that restrict trade for economic or political reasons.

Interestingly enough, brazil has a HUGE problem with game piracy due to the extra taxes.  On the flip side, China has less respect for ownership and also has a huge amount of piracy.  Both of which promote DRM.

There isn't a giant conspiracy.  It's just a side effect of globalization, differing values, and developing countries.

[10ebbor10]

Then again, laws that prevent DRM get ignored casually. The EU ruled some time ago that digital software, including games, should be resellable. The lifetime license thing that is legally used to avoid this system was ruled to be equal to ownership.

[Puzzlemaker]

Then again, laws that prevent DRM get ignored casually. The EU ruled some time ago that digital software, including games, should be resellable. The lifetime license thing that is legally used to avoid this system was ruled to be equal to ownership.

Yeah, the whole system is kinda borked.

If anyone is interested, get involved in the EFF, the electronic frontier foundation.

https://www.eff.org/

Or more specifically for DRM:

https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property

And for international laws:

https://www.eff.org/issues/international

These guys are actually trying to make a difference.  Donate some money, they are pretty awesome.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

I AM HYPERBOLE huahahaha



I get what you're saying Puzzlemaker, and I'd agree with your less-hyperbolic viewpoints but today I'm feeling like being an ass. Sorry everyone!

What I was trying to say about the tax thing, was that paying the tax on the goods happens at the seller level, and when they add tax to your receipt they're just trying to add a fee to help recoup their tax burden. Sales tax is a tax on the seller, not on the buyer, although the de facto result is the seller forcing the buyer to spend extra to cover it.

If I buy a hat in the US and all applicable US taxes are paid for the sale, and I mail the hat to my friend in Nigeria, that transfer of goods is not a sale but a gift. I don't know but it makes sense that there are laws regulating gifts across national borders - and if there aren't, then why regulate? It would be like the post office handing back the box with the hat in it telling me they can't send it because it's a gift.

If there's a law regulating it, is it a law in the US about sending gifts, and/or a law in Nigeria about receiving gifts? If there's a 10% tax on receiving but nothing about sending, it seems like what needs to happen is that I send my Nigerian friend the hat and he needs to pay 10% of the hat's value on his tax return next year.

If there's a tariff, and it needs to be paid when the exchange happens, then that's pretty damn easy to code into Steam. Treat it like a purchase in the amount of the tariff.

In reality I think what the people in charge are thinking is that
(1) let's just screw over some users and we can get away with it because they're used to paying more and getting less (no blood or swastikas in German games, no children in the Fallout 2 European release, Australians generally paying a lot more and getting much later release dates),
(2) it's easy to just default to $1 = 1 Euro,
(3) we know we're still making more than the exchange rate - and we'd be upset if we made LESS than the exchange rate,

and

(4) we don't want to actually deal with the complex and ever-changing accounting landscape in every country where people use Steam,
(5) we might see more sales if people can't gift or trade across national boundaries.

What are some positive, benevolent, selfless reasons we can think of for the current scheme?

[Puzzlemaker]

Interestingly enough, the hat example would be illegal if it was for commercial use.  I have heard of it happening in china, something like this:

Someone living in Korea on an army base goes to china and buys a bunch of expensive luxury goods directly from the factory.  They then mail those goods to friends in the US.  They just bypassed a bunch of taxes and fees, and got it for a lot cheaper.  The company that owned the brand (I think it was some expensive golf clubs) eventually had to shut it down.

So laws governing personal gifts versus commercial sleezyness are different.  But sometimes it's hard to draw the line, especially in a case like Steam.  If Steam is allowing German's to bypass their anti-violence in videogames law, is it illegal?  Is it any more illegal then proxy buying a hard copy then mailing it?  It's a hard question to answer. 

Of course, it's also much easier to enforce said laws on a platform like Steam, which is also a major factor.

In reality I think what the people in charge are thinking is that
(1) let's just screw over some users and we can get away with it because they're used to paying more and getting less (no blood or swastikas in German games, no children in the Fallout 2 European release, Australians generally paying a lot more and getting much later release dates),
(2) it's easy to just default to $1 = 1 Euro,
(3) we know we're still making more than the exchange rate - and we'd be upset if we made LESS than the exchange rate,

and

(4) we don't want to actually deal with the complex and ever-changing accounting landscape in every country where people use Steam,
(5) we might see more sales if people can't gift or trade across national boundaries.

What are some positive, benevolent, selfless reasons we can think of for the current scheme?

I just found this site:

http://www.steamprices.com/

It looks like there are shinanigans going on, but it doesn't seem like there are many default 1 dollar equals one euro going on.  It looks like publishers adjust price based on the cost of living (and maybe tax) and it seems to actually be cheaper in brazil!

It also seems some of the issue is rounding errors.  They don't seem to like not using whole numbers, and they round up, which causes the price for other countries to be inflated somewhat.

Honestly, I think the main reason is laziness, number 4.  It's hard to deal with all the weird bullshit laws.  Like you mentioned, germany and other countries have specific laws that can cause a lot of problems.  Australia I know has some weird video game rating laws that tend to delay things. 

What I would -really- like to know is that the default for other currencies are.  That I think would show more then anything what's actually going on.

[BurnedToast]

Then again, laws that prevent DRM get ignored casually. The EU ruled some time ago that digital software, including games, should be resellable. The lifetime license thing that is legally used to avoid this system was ruled to be equal to ownership.

I like how people throw this out as if it's a good thing.

You know the end effect of letting people trade games? No more (good) sales, no more price drops, more day 1 DLC, lots and lots more online fees (like mmo fees) and/or F2P with massive microtransaction cash shops, and all the other crap people hate.

Secondhand market for games is bad for everyone. Digital products are very different from physical products and treating them the same is shortsighted.

[Kaitol]

You're talking about that like companies would actually stop doing it if there weren't a secondhand game market.

Which is hilarious because they would keep doing it. They are companies. Their primary concern is making money. They will make as much money and do as many crummy tactics as they can to get it. They're not going to stop for anything other than a loss of profits extensive enough to make stopping more lucrative.

[Sonlirain]

Then again, laws that prevent DRM get ignored casually. The EU ruled some time ago that digital software, including games, should be resellable. The lifetime license thing that is legally used to avoid this system was ruled to be equal to ownership.

I like how people throw this out as if it's a good thing.

You know the end effect of letting people trade games? No more (good) sales, no more price drops, more day 1 DLC, lots and lots more online fees (like mmo fees) and/or F2P with massive microtransaction cash shops, and all the other crap people hate.

Secondhand market for games is bad for everyone. Digital products are very different from physical products and treating them the same is shortsighted.

Kinda true. Once you buy a game it's pretty much there... for ever (or more likely till your CD/DVD breaks) unlike more regular comodities like food or electricity people are pretty much forced to go through.

note however that the second hand game market existed long before DLC but somehow making games managed to grow into a industry DESPITE those nasty second hand games being passed around (not to mention rampant piracy that only partially got curbed by steam, P2P models and the HATED always online DRM.)... but remember that people who sold their used games usually just raised money to buy new games and people who bought them would either not buy the game for a higher price or play games from the bargain bin anyway.

[Darkmere]

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.

And add that in these discussions I have found that the overwhelming majority of people who don't see a problem with this system live in America, and those who live in Europe almost universally are pretty pissed off about it. I guarantee that if it was the other way around, and Americans were the ones paying 30% more for games whose publishers didn't go out of their way to ensure fair pricing, all hell would break loose.

Oh crap, uh. I got this.
*puts on bro hat*
Don't y'all dirty foreigners be dissin 'Murica the LAND O TEH FREE coz we won World War 2 and Vietnam and we also win at having cheeseburgers! I'm gonna go SHOOT SOME SHIT while DRINKIN' WATERED DOWN BEERS because of all the FUCKS I don't even GIVE! Also we're all fat and stupid and talk too loud when we're on vacation. WOO HOO FOOTBALL!
*takes off bro hat*

I died a little inside for you, Sappho. Died.

In all seriousness I'm not sure what I can personally do about the situation apart from continuing to not buy products from scumbag publishers with scumbag policies. If I become aware of any companies I follow (almost all indie) doing that... I won't buy from them.

[BurnedToast]

You're talking about that like companies would actually stop doing it if there weren't a secondhand game market.

Which is hilarious because they would keep doing it. They are companies. Their primary concern is making money. They will make as much money and do as many crummy tactics as they can to get it. They're not going to stop for anything other than a loss of profits extensive enough to make stopping more lucrative.

Which is why I'm right.

Digital products are *almost* completely free "per copy" so optimally you want to sell one to everyone, no matter the price - the key is finding the most someone will buy it for. Right now, you want to make the most money from your game, you gradually lower the price (either directly, or indirectly through sales). You get the people who don't care about price who pre-order it, and a year or two later, you get the super price sensitive people who buy it for $3 in a 90% off steam sale.

Secondhand market bypasses that. Person #1 buys a copy for $60, sells it for 50. #2 buys for $50, sells for $40, #3 buys for $40 sells for $30, and so on. The company makes a total of $60 (minus fees taxes etc etc of course) once and nothing else, despite the fact that dozens of people "purchased" the game.

Are you suggesting that companies will be perfectly happy to watch their revenues slashed by 75%+ by the used game market, and do NOTHING about it? Nope. They will find new ways to gouge gamers.

They don't do it now because it's a balance between customer satisfaction and profit. Make gamers mad and they won't buy from you. However, the secondhand market means they don't have to care what you think unless you pre-order or buy the game early for full price (since otherwise, you're almost certainly buying a used copy and you didn't pay them a cent).

Since the type of gamer who pre-orders games tends on average to be significantly less price sensitive and/or have less impulse control... you can see where that leads.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

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

The company expects its revenue to happen early on when it sells the game for $60. Those aren't early adopters - they're people who want the game and are willing to pay full price. When I think of early adopters, I think about someone who buys a game when there are almost no people to play with, like whoever bought the first telephone. Instead they build up a buzz and there's people pressing at the gate and when they open it there's a flood. Those are just first-day customers.

How long does it take for someone to make the decision to resell a game? Most games these days you can blitz through in one "gamer weekend" but some take longer. And you may want to replay. You may not have that solid weekend. You may feel like you want to hold onto it for a little while because you might get a hankerin' to play again.

About the time those initial sales are tapering off, people are gonna start reselling.

One answer is to offer free DLC, or episodes, new campaigns, whatever. People want to hold onto the game because they want to experience the cool new stuff - especially if they don't have to pay for the new stuff! That should also extend the initial high-price sales graph as people finally convince themselves to buy and consistently find few secondhand copies for sale.

For a book, you might offer to sign any copies in the first print run at a signing that occurs a few months later - meaning people won't read the book in a day and pass it on - although authors typically just sign books freely anyway so this might be seen as a cheap move.

Anyway, there are ways to incentivize retention rather than resale, with a carrot instead of a stick (or both, in the case of 1st day DLC).

A parallel line of thought here is that, good games will be retained because they're spotted immediately as classics that must remain on your shelf even if they go unplayed. Bad games will be immediately resold to some hopeful rube. That's if you can't just return the game under some pretext that it was defective and choose something else - I think many stores will only exchange for another copy of the same product but YMMV. So the game company that sees its sales falter like a horse with four broken legs should first look at whether they shipped a steaming pile of shit before blaming it on someone else. The market will reward a good product and flagellate a poor one.



Second, I don't know who buys a used game for more than half its current price. There's always the chance there will be a problem with the game ... the guy already used the validation code and you didn't know there was one, the disc is scratched or otherwise defective, the game is linked to an account system and that game ID has been banned, etc.).

The seller also just blew $60 on this thing, he isn't going to want to get rid of it for $20 immediately even though that is what the secondhand market will offer. So he will hold onto it until he grows less enamored with it and more willing to sell it for more game money.

You're more likely looking at a 1st day sale of $60, a resale a few months later for $20, and several direct trades later in the year considering the game's value at around $10-15.



Third, the amount of money made off of year-delayed sales is small anyway. Losing out on those sales is probably worth the goodwill from players who were able to get the game inexpensively. That goodwill cements Steam's place in the market as a middleman and DRM provider, and the publisher as a maker of a game that was worth more than the player paid for it.

EDIT: This last paragraph doesn't make sense unless I can explain that I mean a player who doesn't buy but instead gets it in a trade or as a gift later.

[BurnedToast]

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.