By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - EU Commission Says Piracy Increases Legitimate Game Sales

 

Agree?

Pirates are scum! 24 24.00%
 
Pirates are sometimes scum! 26 26.00%
 
Emulation is awesome! 50 50.00%
 
Total:100
Aeolus451 on 26 September 2017
Leadified said:
Ka-pi96 said:

It isn't. Jacking up the price for other people however is anti-consumer! If they can afford a low price for some people then they can afford it for all people!

The price isn't jacked up because it's adjusted to your cost of living and income. They can afford to charge a lower price in a place like Mexico because of instead of one person being able to afford your game, now you could have five or six people being able to afford it.

We're talking about a hobby that is a bonafide luxury. If you can't afford the games or hardware, you don't get to play them. It's fair when everyone has to pay the same (excluding a country's taxes) prices. Forcing others to pay more for a luxury so people with less money can afford it is just asinine and frankly it's the socialist thing to do. If someone wants to play video games, they can make more money to pay for it. 



Around the Network
Leadified on 26 September 2017
Aeolus451 said:
Leadified said:

The price isn't jacked up because it's adjusted to your cost of living and income. They can afford to charge a lower price in a place like Mexico because of instead of one person being able to afford your game, now you could have five or six people being able to afford it.

We're talking about a hobby that is a bonafide luxury. If you can't afford the games or hardware, you don't get to play them. It's fair when everyone has to pay the same (excluding a country's taxes) prices. Forcing others to pay more for a luxury so people with less money can afford it is just asinine and frankly it's the socialist thing to do. If someone wants to play video games, they can make more money to pay for it. 

So trying to maximize profit is a socialist thing to do? Lol, ok then this might be one of the most absurd things I've read so far. Do you honestly think that companies like Valve, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony do this for the charity of those poor people?



Leadified on 26 September 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
Leadified said:

How is it? GTA V is $60 on the Steam Store in the US and $44 in the Mexican store. Incomes in the US are five times more on average than in Mexico, the impact your purchase will have on your average American will be much less than your average Mexican. I already gave you an example on why they can afford it because otherwise if it were too expensive than people would not be able to afford it and the company would get no money.

Do you really not understand how this works?

I understand, it's clearly discrimination.

Even if those averages were accurate accross the board it would still be discrimination. But the fact is, they aren't. Not only are you taking extra money from people literally giving them nothing extra in return, but you're also massively screwing over all the poorer people in that wealthy country. I bet there's quite a few Americans with incomes below the Mexican average after all...

Discrimination, really?

Well whatever, if you wish to stick to a failing business model because it's "fair" then go ahead.



Nautilus on 26 September 2017
Aeolus451 said:
Leadified said:

The price isn't jacked up because it's adjusted to your cost of living and income. They can afford to charge a lower price in a place like Mexico because of instead of one person being able to afford your game, now you could have five or six people being able to afford it.

We're talking about a hobby that is a bonafide luxury. If you can't afford the games or hardware, you don't get to play them. It's fair when everyone has to pay the same (excluding a country's taxes) prices. Forcing others to pay more for a luxury so people with less money can afford it is just asinine and frankly it's the socialist thing to do. If someone wants to play video games, they can make more money to pay for it. 

And thats how you go bankrupt.One thing that is important to all kind of business is to be flexible.Gaming may be a hobby and may be a luxury, but the companies running such a bussiness arent there just to satisfy the consumer.They want to earn money.So if earning less per game will make your game sell more(and thus, earn more money through sheer quantity instead of more per unit) and make your brand stronger in said region, its a smart business decision.

Its not about being "asinine" and for gods sake, its not a socialist thing.Actually, its an extremely capitalist action to do(since you know, a socialism equivalent would be the price to be the same across all regions, since the wealth in such a world would be distributed and there would be no privileges), since you are adapting to the market you are on, and thus try to maximize sales and profits.

Now, wether or not it is an immoral thing to do really depends on the point of view(since for the poorer countries it would be fair to be cheaper for them so thats within their income range), and even then it doesnt matter.Companies are not here to care about your feelings, they are here to make money.If you(and Ka-pi) feel roobed or something just because companies are being smart about their business well, start protesting about it and dont buy games until companies treat you guys better XD



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Aeolus451 on 26 September 2017
Leadified said:
Aeolus451 said:

We're talking about a hobby that is a bonafide luxury. If you can't afford the games or hardware, you don't get to play them. It's fair when everyone has to pay the same (excluding a country's taxes) prices. Forcing others to pay more for a luxury so people with less money can afford it is just asinine and frankly it's the socialist thing to do. If someone wants to play video games, they can make more money to pay for it. 

So trying to maximize profit is a socialist thing to do? Lol, ok then this might be one of the most absurd things I've read so far. Do you honestly think that companies like Valve, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony do this for the charity of those poor people?

You said that people should pay more for games and hardware so that others who can't afford it can pay less for the hobby. That's the socialist thing to do. 

Ka-pi96 said:
Aeolus451 said:

We're talking about a hobby that is a bonafide luxury. If you can't afford the games or hardware, you don't get to play them. It's fair when everyone has to pay the same (excluding a country's taxes) prices. Forcing others to pay more for a luxury so people with less money can afford it is just asinine and frankly it's the socialist thing to do. If someone wants to play video games, they can make more money to pay for it. 

IKR? Why should wealthy people subsidise the entertainment of the poor? I'd be more understanding if it was something they'd literally die without, but video games?

Exactly. This is really annoying because we're talking about a luxury, not food or water or a place to stay. If really poor people can't afford it, tough luck. They should focus on other things besides luxuries if they're that bad off.



Around the Network
Leadified on 26 September 2017
Aeolus451 said:
Leadified said:

So trying to maximize profit is a socialist thing to do? Lol, ok then this might be one of the most absurd things I've read so far. Do you honestly think that companies like Valve, Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony do this for the charity of those poor people?

You said that people should pay more for games and hardware so that others who can't afford it can pay less for the hobby. That's the socialist thing to do. 

You're looking for the red boogeyman in the wrong place, comrade.

I made this suggestion so companies can help fight piracy and turn pirates into potential customers. In other words, make a profit?



ZODIARKrebirth on 26 September 2017

It's really interesting that this has a positive effect only on games



Aeolus451 on 26 September 2017
Nautilus said:
Aeolus451 said:

We're talking about a hobby that is a bonafide luxury. If you can't afford the games or hardware, you don't get to play them. It's fair when everyone has to pay the same (excluding a country's taxes) prices. Forcing others to pay more for a luxury so people with less money can afford it is just asinine and frankly it's the socialist thing to do. If someone wants to play video games, they can make more money to pay for it. 

And thats how you go bankrupt.One thing that is important to all kind of business is to be flexible.Gaming may be a hobby and may be a luxury, but the companies running such a bussiness arent there just to satisfy the consumer.They want to earn money.So if earning less per game will make your game sell more(and thus, earn more money through sheer quantity instead of more per unit) and make your brand stronger in said region, its a smart business decision.

Its not about being "asinine" and for gods sake, its not a socialist thing.Actually, its an extremely capitalist action to do(since you know, a socialism equivalent would be the price to be the same across all regions, since the wealth in such a world would be distributed and there would be no privileges), since you are adapting to the market you are on, and thus try to maximize sales and profits.

Now, wether or not it is an immoral thing to do really depends on the point of view(since for the poorer countries it would be fair to be cheaper for them so thats within their income range), and even then it doesnt matter.Companies are not here to care about your feelings, they are here to make money.If you(and Ka-pi) feel roobed or something just because companies are being smart about their business well, start protesting about it and dont buy games until companies treat you guys better XD

Companies don't work like that. If any of that was true, you would see companies selling all of their products in the poorest countries. They don't, they avoid those places like the plague because they don't have enough money to afford luxuries, much less able afford the basics of daily life. They'll sell to whoever but if you can't afford, they don't bat a eye. 

The video game market is doing pretty well and they don't need to lower prices so people from poor countries can afford it so they can make a few pennies more. Besides that would piss off their regular consumers. 

What leadified said is very much a socialist idea. They are always trying to fund their "help the poor" ideas by stealing from the well off.



Leadified on 26 September 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
Leadified said:

Discrimination, really?

Well whatever, if you wish to stick to a failing business model because it's "fair" then go ahead.

How is it not discrimination? Changing prices based on supposed (not even accurate) income of people is absolutely discriminating against them based on that.

And how is charging everybody the same price a failing business model? If anything there's more evidence to suggest that regional pricing is more of a failing business model. I'm sure you've seen plenty of the posts from Brazilian users here saying how insane prices are in Brazil (not because they're the same as everywhere else, but because they're priced much higher) and how that affects game sales there. Then what about Japan? I'm sure you've noticed the decline of their console gaming industry, right? Perhaps you've also noticed that games there are priced much higher than in the US. Maybe, just maybe, if they priced things the same in both countries (ie. the lower US price) the Japanese games industry would look much healthier than it currently does.

It has to be determinal to you to be discrimination. I'm still using less of my income proportionally to buy a game compared to a Mexican, how am I being discriminated?

Steam games (not sure about others) are cheaper in Brazil than they are in the US, so your example doesn't work there. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the decline of Japanese games has anything to do with game prices and not the economic and social situation in the country? Anyways, if you check SteamDB you can see that Japanese games either match, lower or higher than the US price. Again, I'm not sure about consoles but I can't imagine it's much different.



DonFerrari on 26 September 2017
Ka-pi96 said:
Leadified said:

Discrimination, really?

Well whatever, if you wish to stick to a failing business model because it's "fair" then go ahead.

How is it not discrimination? Changing prices based on supposed (not even accurate) income of people is absolutely discriminating against them based on that.

And how is charging everybody the same price a failing business model? If anything there's more evidence to suggest that regional pricing is more of a failing business model. I'm sure you've seen plenty of the posts from Brazilian users here saying how insane prices are in Brazil (not because they're the same as everywhere else, but because they're priced much higher) and how that affects game sales there. Then what about Japan? I'm sure you've noticed the decline of their console gaming industry, right? Perhaps you've also noticed that games there are priced much higher than in the US. Maybe, just maybe, if they priced things the same in both countries (ie. the lower US price) the Japanese games industry would look much healthier than it currently does.

Those Brazilian would be talking without knowledge.

SW price in Brazil is almost the same than in USA for Sony published (actually lower when dollar is over 3,5). And that is they making the price in dollar a lot less, and making a lot less money because of taxes.

The games that are much more expensive is the ones that are direct import instead of local distribution.

There were times when dollar was close to 4 that the price here was cheaper. And that is with our taxes being like 70% for games... so if taxes were around 15% we could possibly have prices at 20 USD or 30 USD and piracy would be certainly smaller... the problem is with region free that would make people buy here instead of other places.

 

But pretend not, prices are determined based on the purchasing power and demand of the population. The price of gaming in Europe have been higher than in USA since forever.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."