Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Jan 2016
O
OplMam Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
O
Joined: Jan 2016
Hi,
Last night one man spamed this link on fb:
https://www.g2a.com/r/divinity_original_sin_global
I read different opinions about g2a. Official fanpage g2a has over 1kk fans, but g2a is register in Hong Kong . Anyone bought games or anything else from g2a? Price is very tempting, only 16$.
Thanks for opinions.

Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

There is a reason Steam censors 'g2a' in their discussion forums, when mentions of legitimate key re-sellers (like the Humble store) and competitors are fine. At best they sell grey market keys bought in lower priced regions. They have also sold keys originally purchased with stolen credit cards, and a few months ago a bunch of people had games removed from their Steam libraries for that reason.
Also, 'spammed'.

Joined: Apr 2012
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Apr 2012
Originally Posted by Raze

There is a reason Steam censors 'g2a' in their discussion forums, when mentions of legitimate key re-sellers (like the Humble store) and competitors are fine. At best they sell grey market keys bought in lower priced regions. They have also sold keys originally purchased with stolen credit cards, and a few months ago a bunch of people had games removed from their Steam libraries for that reason.
Also, 'spammed'.


Hmm, well, I'm one of those who got the 'stolen credit card' problem, as you know. I wasn't aware of the censoring, though. I always thought G2A was a legit site selling legit keys. Aren't they? It seems awfully strange such a popular and known site would remain up if it were truly illegal...

That they sell low priced keys is true, but... isn't that just the free market? If they can get low priced global keys legally, I don't really see a problem with it, as it just follows free market rules.

The thing with fraudulous cards is something different, of course, but as of yet, I got the impression they are as much victim as anyone else. It's not they that are committing the theft/fraud (I presume).

Of course, my attitude may change if they really are assholish about refunding the money I spend on it when buying the (revoked) key. ;-p

And for the future... well, I don't know. If they are doing nothing illegal, then that's that. I mean, the people/companies making the game (and thus keys) have had to SELL those keys at some point. If they sell it cheaper abroad than elsewhere, then who's fault is it there are price-discrepancies? I would argue that, either set the price the same, then, or make the keys non-global. I prefer the first option.

If I buy other goods from mininthebox or alibaba, etc., I can get it much cheaper than here too, but that doesn't mean they're doing something illegal. If one then would say 'ah, but one can not sell it to countries where the exact same thing is far more expensive', then that's plain and simple protectionism. In a free market world with global competition, it makes no sense to still try to shield your profits by forms of local protectionism.

IMHO, of course.

Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

The point of regional pricing is to allow people in poor countries to buy games without each taking a week's salary, not to give people in rich countries a permanent sale.

Joined: Apr 2012
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Apr 2012
Hmm... But does it make sense, though?

I can buy physical goods from India and China. They're pretty cheap too, compared to here. If one would follow the above logic, one could also say: "It's to make it possible for Indians and Chinese people to buy the goods without each taking a weeks' salaris, not for rich Westerners."

But that doesn't make sense. It would mean that we would be paying far more for exactly the same thing, just because we're not as poor as the next local guy. It would also mean, de facto, that one is imposing protectionism (aka, shielding of your market).

So, what? If you go to India you can't buy anything there if you can buy it here for triple the price, because it's 'not meant' to be sold to rich Western people? I can't *order* anything from India or China, because they're not as rich as us?

I'm not following that train of thought. With anything else but with digital media, no-one would ever seriously suggest this, yet some people see no problem in arguing as such when it comes to digital media.

Which makes even less sense, since the added cost of a digital copy after the game is made, is next to zero (compared to a physical object).

Meaning: if a commercial company sells in India, it's still because it can make profit. If it makes profit, it makes profit whether it's an Indian or an Westerner buying it. Only, one makes LESS profit. (since otherwise that Westerner would buy it at triple the price, while the cost remains the same).

So, let's be honest: it's not for the sake of people there - so that they can play the game - that is of primordial importance of the company. They're not charity. If that were the only concern, than they could as well give it free. And they *certainly* wouldn't mind other people buying it.

So...the *real* bottomline is that one wants to maximise their profit, NOT that they just have an inherent desire to let people enjoy their game. But...well, am I to blame that other people in other countries are not as rich? Or do I have the obligation to pay triple the amount of the price so that a company can maximise their profit?

From the point of view of a consumer: no. And mind you, that does not mean I don't think a company can't make profit, especially indie-companies like Larian. I wish them all the success, commercially and otherwise. I'm all for a free market, in fact. But than that market truly has to be free.

Look, Raze... imagine you bought a car in India (or China, or the US, for that matter), fulfilled all the taxes, customs and what not, but the car-manufacturer says to you: "well, sorry, you can't use that car in the West, because that was a cheap car made for Indians, not a car for people who are rich..." would you consider that fair, then?

I imagine not. At least, very few would argue it's normal that you can't use that car.

The same holds true for a game.This pervasive idea that somehow, for some reason, digital media should be exempt from practises that are considered normal with all other objects, I strongly dislike and refute. I think the law should be made more clear in this respect, and make digital objects fall under the same rights and obligations and rules as physical objects.


Every company should have the right to make a profit, but every consumer should have the right to buy and use something he bought, period. Consumers aren't there to maximise the profits of a company, in the end. And if a company can and continue to sell its goods at half the price, it's a sign they still make a profit on it. And if one claims that isn't true, and that they can only do that because Westerners pay triple the price for it, I can only say: that's mighty benevolent of that company, but why would I need to pay triple the price so people elsewhere might buy it cheaper? Why should I sponsor India? Am I a charity? And why would I do that? To let a company maximise its income and expand its marketshare, at my expense?

Now, I know you mean well, Raze, but you're viewing things from a companies' perspective (Larians). and I understand that. I appreciate Larian studios greatly myself. But that doesn't mean, seen in a general context, that things should always be looked at from that perspective.

Replace 'game' with an actual physical good - ANY physical good - and no-one would accept the sort of rationale you put up here. There is no way you can't buy a teabag - even one manufactured in Europe - in India because it's cheaper there, and be told one can't use it in Europe because the manufacturer is of the opinion only poor Indians can use it, in India. That would generally be regarded as absurd.

The solution is rather simple: make one key for a general minimum price where one, as a company, feel comfortable with the profit (you can average that out over the poor and richer countries). After all, you are ALREADY working with averages, because there are also a lot of Indians who are WAY richer than I am, and following your reasoning, one should ask a thousand times more to those millionaires, then. It's not to give millionaires a permanent sale after all, is it? ;-)

So, one is already working with averages. Well, then, do the same on a worldwide scale. One key, one 'region', no hassle anymore. Some people won't be able to buy the game, then? Well, I can't buy a Ferrari. I don't see the point of the argument, unless from the standpoint of a company wanting to even further maximise its profits and even further expand it's marketshare while we're de facto sponsoring it, as said. But I fail to see why that goal would be the goal of a consumer. And when push comes to shove, I still think the right of an end-consumer to use something he bought where and how he wants, outweighs maximising profit and marketshare of a company (aka, commonly referred to as 'moneygrabbing').

In fact, depending on the country you are in, that's exactly the right that is given to consumers thanks to laws that are based on consumer-rights. It's just necessary to make more clear in the law 'digital objects' fall under it too, and much of this sort of discussion would go away.

Last edited by AidBand; 16/02/16 12:08 AM.
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

There are plenty of physical goods that are regionally priced, including food, gasoline, etc, and shipping expenses add to the cost of goods. There are also import taxes, restrictions on certain goods, etc, including imports of cars. Housing costs, property taxes, etc, are all very regionally dependent.
Electricity, natural gas, etc, coming from the same source going through the same lines/pipes, to different customers/regions can have different prices.

Plenty of goods are subsidized for developing countries, including agricultural equipment, medicine, etc.

The goods that you can buy from India and China may be cheaper, but they are not identical (they do not necessarily match the same quality standards, and those countries don't have the same labour laws or environmental standards as other options, etc).
Of course there are no restriction on buying things in other countries if you go there yourself, but (unlike digital goods) you are paying to go there, paying to get back, and there are import regulations and duty/taxes upon returning to your own country.


Basically, your argument is that people in rich countries shouldn't have to pay slightly more than those in poor countries, that people in poor countries should have to pay the same as those in rich countries, even if that puts games completely out reach. Comparing that to not being able to buy a Ferrari is silly; in that analogy, you can easily buy a car, you just want a cheaper price, even if that would mean many people in poor countries can't afford cars.

The budget of an independent developer's next game comes from the profits of the previous, and the largest expense is manpower. Saying you can arbitrarily cut the price in half because they must be making a profit is rather short sighted. If you want to decide a company is making too much profit, wait until they start doing stupid things with it, rather than investing it in future games.

Just because something can be sold at a certain price in a region doesn't mean that price would be sufficient to cover the development costs. Before Steam had regional pricing Russia had a large piracy problem (which is an issue unique to digital goods); by making prices affordable and buying games easier than stealing, Russia is now one of the largest markets for Steam.
Virtually nobody in India steals European tea bags if they can not afford them.

Joined: Apr 2012
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Apr 2012
part 1

Originally Posted by Raze

There are plenty of physical goods that are regionally priced


Yes, and I can buy them all when there at those regional prices (or when ordered + taxes and customs), without someone complaining that it's not for 'rich Western' people.

Quote
and shipping expenses add to the cost of goods. There are also import taxes, restrictions on certain goods, etc, including imports of cars.


Yes, but that has nothing to do with regional coding and complaining about people buying it as cheap as possible. I've mentioned the taxes myself, even. But that has nothing to do with it. Say, I legally ordered and bought a cheap game-DVD from China. I paid all the taxes on it, customs, etc., but it's still cheaper, so I buy it.

Then what, exactly, is your problem with it? All taxes, etc. are dealt with. I'm not speaking of contraband or tax-evasion. The taxes one has to pay have nothing to do with my right as a consumer to buy something cheap; they are independent from that. One can pay taxes, and STILL buy it cheap, after all, and that would be completely legal.



Quote
Housing costs, property taxes, etc, are all very regionally dependent.
Electricity, natural gas, etc, coming from the same source going through the same lines/pipes, to different customers/regions can have different prices.


What, wait...housingcosts? Let's keep the analogy correct, here. It's about a consumer-good sold by a private, commercial company publicly on the free market. Housing prices have nothing to do with it. And the equivalent of property taxes would simply be the taxes one has to pay on the goods. And it's not about if they *can* have different prices, it's about if one *can* go for the cheapest price as a customer. If one company gives you natural gas at cheaper prices than the other company, even when it's coming from the same source, then what's me to stop from going for the cheaper one?

I'm not getting where you're going with this line of thought. It rather sounds like substantiating what I just said.

Quote
Plenty of goods are subsidized for developing countries, including agricultural equipment, medicine, etc.


Yes, and the one subsidising it is the state, and it does it for humanitarian or other non-commercial benefits or national interest. It's NOT done by a private firm with commercial gains in thought.


Quote
The goods that you can buy from India and China may be cheaper, but they are not identical (they do not necessarily match the same quality standards, and those countries don't have the same labour laws or environmental standards as other options, etc).


Could be, but what has that to do with the right of buying something cheap? You're like arguing from a socialist or green standpoint. When I'm buying a game, I'm not giving to charity, nor do I try to better the world by it. If I want(ed) to do that, I would give to charities and other humanitarian organisations. Right now, I'm talking about the commercial act of buying a commercial product. All what you say is pretty irrelevant in that context.

For argument's sake, let's say the quality is the same (certainly with a digital copy it will be), and it's still cheaper. Do I have the right to buy the cheap product, yes or no?



Quote
Of course there are no restriction on buying things in other countries if you go there yourself, but (unlike digital goods) you are paying to go there, paying to get back, and there are import regulations and duty/taxes upon returning to your own country.


Ok, here we finally come to the crux of the matter. Let me ask you: why would that matter? Why would I have the legal right to buy it when I go there, but not when I let it delivered, after paying the taxes and customs? BOTH are perfectly legal ways to get that product. I don't see the rationale for allowing the one, but forbidding the other.

Besides, you seem to have no problem if people 'go there' and buy it... but let me ask you; if I bought it there, would I be able to play it here, if it was regional coded? I would guess not. Then what are you going on about? That makes it clear it has *nothing* to do with me 'going there' and buying, versus ordering it from there to here. If you think it makes sense for that kind of protectionism, it won't matter one iota in a de facto way. In both cases, you STILL would have paid for it legally, and you STILL wouldn't be allowed to play it.


Quote
Basically, your argument is that people in rich countries shouldn't have to pay slightly more than those in poor countries, that people in poor countries should have to pay the same as those in rich countries, even if that puts games completely out reach.


What? No. My argument is that people should be able to buy commercial products that are offered on the free market where and when they can/want, and be able to use them, EVEN if it's cheaper than somewhere else.

It's fine with me if you DO place cheaper prices on the same product, only I ask that you don't complain if less-poor people buy it at that cheaper price, then. So I'm not saying you *have* to put a higher price on it; that was merely a suggestion as a possibility for not having to deal with the rather normal practise of people wanting to buy the best deal they can get.

And, well, the emotional hyperbole not withstanding, it's not THAT slightly: it can be a difference of up to 75% in some cases. 'Slight' doesn't seem an adequate description, thus.

So, tell me: why SHOULD I need to pay triple the price, if I can buy it legally in another country for a third of the price? You keep acting as if it's some sort of humanitarian charity-thing, but, as said, it basically means that that commercial company wants to maximise it's profit and get more marketshare on that regional market.

I repeat: why would I have to pay more for that?

If you can buy a computer in Holland for half the price of the same one in Belgium, are you going to buy it in Belgium, because you want to keep the shop-owner's shop alive? Because if so, you can as well throw competition and thus the totality of the free market overboard, then. Almost NO ONE likes to pay more than he has to, period. If a company gets in competition with itself by lowering his own prices for the same product, who's fault is it that they are incurring less profit, then? Why would they then be entitled to artificially create protection-measures which go contrary to the free market (the same free market they often use to their advantage when it suits them)? Why should my right to buy a product at the given price, and be able to use it normally, be curbed because one made the decision to distribute their own products with different price settings?

If you don't want to lower your prices, than make a global one-price setting. If you *do* want that, then don't complain if people (that you don't want to buy the cheaper ones because it means less profit, of course!) buy it cheap nevertheless. Because that just means you only want the advantages and reap the benefits, but do not want to deal with the disadvantages from the internal competitiveness you've introduced yourself by your own choice.

That's what I'm saying.

Last edited by AidBand; 16/02/16 10:15 PM.
Joined: Apr 2012
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Apr 2012
part 2.


Quote
Comparing that to not being able to buy a Ferrari is silly; in that analogy, you can easily buy a car, you just want a cheaper price, even if that would mean many people in poor countries can't afford cars.


I'm not getting what you want to say here. Yes, if a Ferrari could be bought really cheaply in India, I would order/buy it. I CAN NOT 'easily buy' a Ferrari now, but if Ferrari made a Ferrari - which would cost 100000 here - and sold it for 1000 Euro in India, I would certainly buy it, in India.

Of course I want a cheaper price; who doesn't? And of course you'll always have people somewhere that won't be able to buy it, just like I can't buy a Ferrari.

But if Ferrari made them available for a cheaper price in Belgium, even when not cheap enough for me to buy it, I wouldn't envy or hold a grudge to people who are, then, in the possibility to buy it. Nor would I complain about their right to buy it (more) cheaply, even if it were foreigners. And I *certainly* would consider it unfair if Ferrari would say to them that, while they bought it legally, they can't use the Ferrari, because they want to maximise their profit. Scuze me; because they want the Belgian people to be able to afford a Ferrari, not some wealthy millionaires from Lichtenstein.

So...what exactly is your point?

Quote
The budget of an independent developer's next game comes from the profits of the previous, and the largest expense is manpower. Saying you can arbitrarily cut the price in half because they must be making a profit is rather short sighted. If you want to decide a company is making too much profit, wait until they start doing stupid things with it, rather than investing it in future games.


In principle, I can't judge when it's 'too much' profits. Every company tries to maximise its profits. On itself, that isn't strange, and I'm a proponent of the free market. Ea, Ubisoft, and certainly Larian may try to maximise their profits, sure. They have that right. I recognise that. But I also want recognition of the right of the consumers. And as a consumer, I should have the right to buy a good for the cheapest price available, and being able to use it.

Where those two views clash, as a consumer, I obviously take the consumers' side. This is where consumers-rights and laws come into play. That's because these laws are needed, or companies would know no bounds when it comes to various ways to make profits, even if they have to curb a natural right of a consumer (such as the choice to buy where it's cheapest, or the right to use a legally bought product as one wishes). So I understand Larian or others trying to maximise their profits, but that doesn't mean we have to go along with it. Forbidding people to buy somewhere (cheap) else and prohibiting the normal use of a legally bought product (regional codes) are practises that inhibit the rights of consumers. I simply do not consider the lust for maximising their (the companies) profits a viable goal to offer these rights to.

A company with a good product can survive without resorting to such dubious practises, as Larian has proven themselves. So I wouldn't start complaining about people buying the game cheap, because you offered it cheap somewhere: that is only to be expected, AND a consumer has the principle right to buy something as cheap as he can.

Quote
Just because something can be sold at a certain price in a region doesn't mean that price would be sufficient to cover the development costs.


Then augment your prices. That's exactly what I was saying. Every company should very well know what their costs were, and how much they need to ask to still have a profit. No company can stay afloat when it continuously sells below their cost-price. Because if you keep doing that, and the product costs more than one gains by selling it, you're just going for chapter 11.

I'm really not seeing your issue. If you *can't* sell it at such a low price to make a profit from it, then don't sell it at that price.

Quote
Before Steam had regional pricing Russia had a large piracy problem (which is an issue unique to digital goods); by making prices affordable and buying games easier than stealing, Russia is now one of the largest markets for Steam.


So... We should all be more inclined to use pirated versions, so that prices come down here too, is what the logical conclusion would be of that story.

Anyway: that's good news for Steam and their quest for maximising profits. But why would that be good news for people who want to buy it at the same prices, but aren't allowed due to artificial protectionist-measures to safeguard Steams' profit, but not consumers' rights?

Quote
Virtually nobody in India steals European tea bags if they can not afford them.


On the contrary. If they are expensive enough that few can afford them, they would get stolen by the droves, just *because* they were so expensive.

It seems, through this whole discussion, you seem to have misunderstood my contention. I'm not denying Larian or any other studio has the right to set its prices. I'm just denying them the right to decide that some consumers can, and some can't buy it at those prices, nor may they deny the normal use of a product a consumer legally bought.

Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

Some software is offered free for charities, or discounted for students, etc. That doesn't mean you should be able to get the same deal (there is no right to buy stuff cheap), or the company would still be making a profit if they did the same for everyone.

Paying import duties and taxes on physical goods is not the same as violating the terms of service with a digital distributor. A more apt analogy would be buying goods smuggled into a country to avoid taxes. If a farm subsidy program sells gas to farmers at a discount, do you figure it is your consumer right to buy and use that fuel? Such a program exists in western Canada, purple dye is added to the fuel, and good luck claiming consumer rights if you get caught with it in a non-farming vehicle.

Either there are regional prices, which obviously require regional restrictions, or there are not, which puts games out of reach for many people in poorer countries.
With Steam and GOG, the former is the case. Debating this here is not going to change that.

Joined: Apr 2012
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Apr 2012
Originally Posted by Raze

Some software is offered free for charities, or discounted for students, etc. That doesn't mean you should be able to get the same deal (there is no right to buy stuff cheap), or the company would still be making a profit if they did the same for everyone.

A more apt analogy would be buying goods smuggled into a country to avoid taxes. If a farm subsidy program sells gas to farmers at a discount, do you figure it is your consumer right to buy and use that fuel? Such a program exists in western Canada, purple dye is added to the fuel, and good luck claiming consumer rights if you get caught with it in a non-farming vehicle.


Well, let's get the semantics out of the way first: while there is no right to buy stuff cheap, there is a right to buy as cheap as legally possible. Do we agree on that? Than the matter simply turns into a question whether it's legal. Now, to establish the legality, one needs laws, and to determine WHAT laws we need, we can't just use the goals of companies (like maximising their profits, and gaining marketshare). The moment we let companies decide (or make) our laws, that moment we're screwed. Since the goal of a company is NOT helping consumers, let alone 'poor people', but simply: their profit.

Which, I repeat, is normal, and is what companies should do. Only, I'm saying we shouldn't let them decide what is allowed or not, based on these criteria.

Now, there is a general consensus (within society) to let the state advantage some subcategory of people whom have it harder, for reasons of geo-political interest, out of charity, or out of national interest. There is even a willingness to allow private companies do charity, under *well defined* constraints.

However, there is no such consent when it comes to self-protectionism without such constraints by a private firm seeking to maximise their profit and marketshare. This does NOT fall under 'charity', and a private firm has no inherent right to make their own rules legally binding, as does the state.

And, well, let's not beat around the bush, here. Larian, nor any other company, is selling their products there cheaper out of charity. It's not because they want to help the poor people and bring some joy in their lives. If that were true, one would check how poor somebody would be, *before* selling it. Just like, with MS, you need to BE a student, before you can enjoy the student-reduction. But being poor is not mentioned anywhere as being a requirement for being able to buy it cheap there. So the analogy doesn't fly at all with the examples you gave. In fact, multi-millionaires - even ones that are a hundredfold more rich than the average Westerner - who live there, can buy it as cheap as the rest.

So let's drop the act and pretend it's some sort of charity, meant to help the poor. It's not. If you want to do charity, then say so in front, and tell the rich people that they are paying more because you want to help poor people, also in front. Do it like humblebundle then (where you linked to); there it's clearly indicated *which* part goes to charity.

But one isn't, so it has *nothing* to do with the reason people accept price-differences, like in the case of charity. It's not charity. Therefore it can't lean on the arguments of why charity is allowed to do so. You're also not a state which has to protect national (aka: every citizens', not just the profits of one company) interests. It gets that right by the democratic vote of the people who imbue it with that power. I don't think Larian or EA, or Ubisoft, etc., and their rules and price-settings, has ever been democratically chosen and been endorsed by vote. So it can't argue it has the same rights as a state has neither.



Quote

import duties and taxes on physical goods is not the same as violating the terms of service with a digital distributor.


And that's exactly the point I'm making. One has those rights with physical goods, why wouldn't you have them with digital goods? 'Because our terms of service does not allow it'?

That's a tautology. OF COURSE your terms of service doesn't allow it, but why would that be of any importance in determining whether those terms are acceptable, let alone reasonable? You need arguments to substantiate such a vision, and I haven't seen any from the standpoint of a consumers' rights.

There is no objective rationale for it.

If we have the rights with physical goods, why wouldn't we have them for digital goods? there is no *real* answer to that, because one clearly should have the same rights, but the companies are trying. And why are they trying? Because of profit and control. But that's NOT a valid reason for consumers to lose their rights, at least not from the consumers' perspective, and society at large.

If one wants to argument WHY it should be so, than you can't just say 'because it's in our terms of service'. That doesn't argument anything. If you put in your term of service that I loose the right on my first born child, than that's all fine and well, but why would that matter?

So the question remains exactly the same: why would we lose our rights that we had with physical goods because you (companies) said so, 'terms of service' or not? Why should we accept restrictions on our use of legally bought digital works, when similar restrictions of physical goods would never be accepted?


Quote

Either there are regional prices, which obviously require regional restrictions, or there are not, which puts games out of reach for many people in poorer countries.
With Steam and GOG, the former is the case. Debating this here is not going to change that.


Wait... 'obviously'? Why obviously? It's *only* 'obvious' if you take it for a given that a company can , by their own choice, compete with itself be introducing cheaper versions of their own, same products, without having to deal with the natural consequence of competition, namely, reduced profits? It's only obvious if you follow the premise of a company wanting to maximise their profits and augment their marketshare.

Yes, from that standpoint, it's obvious indeed, that you want to use protectionism and lock-ins. Similarly, it's also obvious that a monopolist wants to keep its monopoly, for that matter, and he will do exactly the same, thus. It's obvious that cartels are going to be formed, if companies see a way to augment their profit that way; they would even write it in their terms of service, if they dared.

All that, is obvious... for a private, commercial firm, and from their viewpoint and goal (profit).

It's not at all obvious from a user perspective, however. and, what's more, it's also not obvious from a societal context. Nor from the law(s) that a society creates. And that's not just me saying it. Look, I'll give you some examples:

http://smallbiztrends.com/2013/03/resale-rights-you-bought-own.html

Now, do you note that it clearly says that people have a right to resell the goods they sold? So... what does it matter you (I'm not meaning you personally, of course, just as an interlude for 'commercial companies' ;-) claim something else in your terms of service?

As said, that's just something you came up with, but that doesn't mean it supersedes law, or that it somehow makes sense from anything but your own perspective. Nor that there is a rationale for it when you look at it objectively.

Ok, I hear you say, but that are physical goods. Digital goods are *TOTALLY* different! Is it? Are they? Who says so? You? Your terms of service? There is no inherent reason to think that digital goods suddenly wouldn't fall under the same laws that other goods do. That's just an excuse digital-selling companies came up with. And they came up with that for the same reason as always: profit and control.

So, let's see if it's a correct viewpoint:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

Where we can read:

"In Europe, the European Court of Justice ruled on July 3, 2012, that it is indeed permissible to resell software licenses even if the digital good has been downloaded directly from the Internet, and that the first-sale doctrine applied whenever software was originally sold to a customer for an unlimited amount of time, as such sale involves a transfer of ownership, thus prohibiting any software maker from preventing the resale of their software by any of their legitimate owners.The court requires that the previous owner must no longer be able to use the licensed software after the resale, but finds that the practical difficulties in enforcing this clause should not be an obstacle to authorizing resale, as they are also present for software which can be installed from physical supports, where the first-sale doctrine is in force."

Well, there you have it. Contrary to all the claims of the contrary by companies who want to protect their own interests, it's clear that digital goods are no different to physical goods, when it comes to the (consumer) rights one have.

Of course - and you know this as well as I do - companies immediately sought to curb and get around this too. They started to say "ah, well, then we won't 'sell' them the good, we'll 'license' it instead.

Let's be honest here: they did NOT do that out of concern with the customer, nor because they wanted to help poor people, nor because they thought they could do more charity that way. No. They came up with it, because they found those rights an annoyance to their profit and control they wanted to have.

Luckily, to no avail:

"In the case UsedSoft v Oracle, the European Court of Justice ruled that the sale of a software product, either through a physical support or download, constituted a transfer of ownership in EU law, thus the first sale doctrine applies; the ruling thereby breaks the "licensed, not sold" legal theory"

So... what does that means? It means that most of the arguments one has been giving here as to why our rights should not apply as it does with physical goods, are invalid. Consequently, that all the 'terms of services' that claim it isn't valid anymore, are null and void. And lastly, that one can very much doubt the rationale offered by companies as to why they think they have the right to do something which we're supposed to find acceptable, when it otherwise wouldn't be deemed proper or acceptable.

In practise, this means that Larian, nor any other company, can prohibit people in India from buying up keys or games, and than resell them to others at a cheap price - REGARDLESS of what they put in their terms of service.

It also means that the parts of the term of service of steam and GOG, where they explicitly forbid to 'resell' their games, is ALSO null and void. GOG directly says this: "Also, please keep in mind that reselling codes purchased on GOG is forbidden according to our User Agreement (3.3). "

That like you saying and argumenting it's forbidden because it's in your terms of service. Ermm...yes...well... it still doesn't mean we should comply with it.

GOG and steam may claim what they want, they can NOT, at least in Europe, forbid someone to re-sell their game, even if (as they do) explicitly forbid it in their user agreements.

I mean, I know and understand, from their viewpoint, that they would rather see it otherwise. But, again, what would that be of a any importance to our rights? Those conditions are simply NOT enforceable, whether they like that or not.

Clearly, there are legitimate reasons why people and courts *do not* agree, nor go along, with the viewpoints commercial companies (like Larian, EA, Ubisoft, etc.) have on it. So acting as if your viewpoint is 'obviously' right and supersedes those of others, is incorrect. Therefore, Larian, or others, can NOT prevent people from selling and buying it at cheap prices. Period. Whether you put it in your terms of service or not.

Similarly, I also argue they should not be allowed to restrict the normal use of a legally bought good by imposing artificial restrictions like regional codes.

Can you still claim one can't make a good and reasonable case for that? Seen the above court-decisions, I would rather claim it should follow the same practises as physical goods, too. And I can certainly make a good case that, seen the precedents, it should rather be 'obvious' that such restrictions should be removed. The first link already indicated you can do with a bought good as you see fit, and thus, if you see fit to use it normally, you have that right.

Now, don't take me wrongly: I like Larian. I wish them success. I'm not dishing them, and I know full well there are a lot of players that are bigger and far worse than Larian. This is not specifically directed against them, it just happens that the discussion takes place in this forum. hehe But the point remains that, whether you like it or not, you can't just curb the rights of consumers, just because you want to. And one shouldn't even want to 'get around' the laws, rules and just commonly accepted behaviour, just because one wants to augment profits.

Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

There are all kinds of price differences that have nothing to do with charity, and charity is not a requirement for price differences.

Don't pretend user agreements are the same as letting companies make laws. Everything you join, every financial deal you make, every contract you sign has terms and conditions. They all operate within the law of every territory they are available in.
If you believe regional pricing on digital goods violates the law, you are welcome to challenge it in court.

The analogy with student software is the same. Steam and GOG's regional pricing is not based on an individual means test, it is based on the region. You have to be Russian to buy the cheaper Russian keys, just like you have to be a student to get the cheaper student pricing.
The reason for the regional pricing is the difference in economies in different regions, but it can not be implemented on an individual level.

There are physical goods that can not be imported into certain regions, others that you need a special permit or licence for, etc. There are physical goods manufactured to only be sold in specified regions. Regional restriction existed for physical goods before there were digital goods.

If a digital distributor's terms of service are not acceptable, people are free not to use their service. Regional restrictions exist because regional prices exist because different economies exist.


similar restrictions of physical goods would never be accepted?

Really? Then why were there regional pricing for physical games long before digital distributors existed?


Wait... 'obviously'? Why obviously?

Because it is blatantly obvious.
Add regional pricing, but no restrictions. Which price would most people pick? Can game companies survive with that business model? If you significantly cut the revenue of every game company, what would that do for their next projects? How many game publishers would put out retail releases knowing they would have to compete with the digital versions at a fraction of the price?

Objectively, what exactly do you think would happen to the game industry as a whole without regional restrictions? Do you think regional pricing could survive? Would it be better for the game industry if there were a single price, and poorer regions went back to piracy predominantly rather than being a significant portion of the market?

Joined: Apr 2012
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Apr 2012
Originally Posted by Raze

There are all kinds of price differences that have nothing to do with charity, and charity is not a requirement for price differences.


True. I focussed on the charity one, because you kept implying it has a connection to that. You know, the 'it's to allow poor people to play too'. My point was, that that (the charity aspect) was NOT the goal of the game-distributor. I also made the point that charity is a well accepted area in which price-cuts are allowed, in a societal context. You have others - like from the state, and you have still others from the private industry, but those are limited and well defined. They can't just put whatever in their terms of services, and then claim people should adhere to it, because they did.

Quote
Don't pretend user agreements are the same as letting companies make laws.


Well, I'm sure happy to read that. ;-) Some companies *DO* act as if it are laws, or has the same or more weight than laws, though. I mean: if one knows something is AGAINST the law, wouldn't it make sense to remove it from your licence/terms of service, etc.?

This is not only related to the game-industry, btw; TA (a consumers-group) found a lot of 'terms' in violation with the EU laws from airline companies. Those knew full well they weren't in order (TA send them letters about it), but they kept it up until they were formally ordered by the court(s).

I mean: it's trying, isn't it? Bending as far as they can, and than pretending people should do as what is said in their terms, even when they know it ain't really in accordance with the law.


Quote
Everything you join, every financial deal you make, every contract you sign has terms and conditions. They all operate within the law of every territory they are available in.
If you believe regional pricing on digital goods violates the law, you are welcome to challenge it in court.


Sure. But the law supersedes any terms one puts into there; agreed? I was just pointing out that the rationale most companies use for their argument is far from being 'obvious' in a societal context. If you put a certain 'condition' in there, why would it make inherently and logically sense (*outside* of the goal of maximising profit and marketshare), for instance?

I do think a good case could be made for refuting regional coding, seen the first above link, do you not agree? But, let's focus on the 'no reselling' argument, for now. Seen the fact that there are already court-decisions which make it abundantly clear that people may, indeed, resell their goods, even when digital downloads, and seen the fact (I presume) that you agree that laws supersedes terms of services... isn't the logical conclusion that those particular terms are null and void, and thus, should be removed?

I mean, you can still try to make the case that regional coding 'is allowed' (though the first link isn't really indicative of this, but rather the opposite), but there can be little doubt Larian, nor other companies, can prohibit people from reselling their game, agreed?

So... isn't regional coding, in effect, trying to circumvent this? It's like saying: ah, you can resell? But that will hurt our selling business (which is NOT an argument the court followed, otherwise reselling would already be disallowed, since that hurts ones' business too, obviously). That's akin to saying: ah, ok, the court decided you can resell books, but you know what? We're going to disallow *reading* books.

It makes no logical sense. If reselling is allowed, then obviously (and I mean this in a logical sense), the *use* of that good should also be allowed.

Quote
The analogy with student software is the same. Steam and GOG's regional pricing is not based on an individual means test, it is based on the region. You have to be Russian to buy the cheaper Russian keys, just like you have to be a student to get the cheaper student pricing.
The reason for the regional pricing is the difference in economies in different regions, but it can not be implemented on an individual level.


Then don't use emotional-driven argumentation as "it's for the poor people", and compare it with charity. And it's not the same: 'students' are a subgroup within a given populace, and you can find those in ANY given populace. "Russians" are not a subgroup; they are a populace itself. In effect, you make a distinction based on ethnicity, then. Try saying: we'll give products cheaper to white students, and not to black students, and see how well one fares with such a terms of service, then...


Quote
There are physical goods that can not be imported into certain regions, others that you need a special permit or licence for, etc. There are physical goods manufactured to only be sold in specified regions. Regional restriction existed for physical goods before there were digital goods.


Within the context of them being sold on the free market publicly, can you name three, that are 1)introduced before the advent of digital media, 2)not due to commonly accepted reasons such as charity, and 3) that are not imposed by the state? (And, of course: 4) that have turned out to be legally binding)?

My contention was that digital media business is acting as if it has the right to impose limits where no such rights are accepted with normal physical goods. So examples of physical goods where the digital media are being restricted in this way (like on DVD's) is NOT an example in support of it, but, on the contrary, rather substantiates my claim.

Quote
If a digital distributor's terms of service are not acceptable, people are free not to use their service. Regional restrictions exist because regional prices exist because different economies exist.


But why would that matter, outside the scope and goal that companies seek out? Your first sentence is wrong, btw. I gave you the links. A distributor's terms of service CAN NOT be enforced if it goes against the law. If the law says (as it does; I gave you the quotes) that if someone who bought a good, even a digital one, may resell it *regardless* of the restrictions of the distributor, then this obviously means one CAN resell it, EVEN if it's in the terms of services. Agreed?

You seem to miss the point that it's not for people to respect and uphold the terms of services and whatever is in there, but that it's for *the distributors* to adapt their terms of services to the law in the first place! This is regardless if consumers 'agreed' to it or not!

Companies are allowed to put *certain* conditions in there, while not others. They are allowed to do that by the state (aka; indirectly by the people). They are *not* the ones who tell others what is allowed or not, whether they agreed to it or not.

Otherwise, one could as well argue that slavery should be allowed again, if people signed up that they could become a slave and it was 'mentioned in the terms of service'. An extreme example, just to clearly show you the 'if you don't like it, you are free not to use/sign up' is not correct.

No, it doesn't work like that. You can not put that in there, and even if you do agree to it, no one can be compelled to be hold to that, because it's an illegal demand. Surely you can see that?

Well, it's similar for not allowing to resell a game.

Quote
similar restrictions of physical goods would never be accepted?

Really? Then why were there regional pricing for physical games long before digital distributors existed?


Well, isn't that for the same reason that the very same digital distributors try it with their downloads: because of their goal of maximising their profit and marketshare?

I think it's exactly the same reasons. And that's also exactly what I'm saying: they shouldn't be allowed to do it - just as it's not allowed with other, physical, goods - because they want even 'more profit'. The fact that they've been trying for a while now, doesn't change the fact it's contrary to the normal practises. I repeat: would you think it normal that, if you bought a car in another country where people are not as rich in the West, you are forbidden to drive it in the EU? Because I sure as hell don't.


Quote
Wait... 'obviously'? Why obviously?

Because it is blatantly obvious.
Add regional pricing, but no restrictions. Which price would most people pick?


Well, the cheaper of course. I don't know what you're getting at, here. You're arguing the same as I: that it's obvious from a companies standpoint who wants to maximise their profit and marketshare. My point was: why would that mean anything *outside* that particular goal? For instance, it's *obvious* that a monopolist wants to keep his monopoly (for the same reasons). So one could say: "Isn't it blatantly obvious? If we have competition, our prices will drop!" Yes, it's all obvious, looking at it from their perspective. Only: what is that to us, the buyers? Or society at large? Or the law?

The point, Raze, was not that I don't understand that *you* (well, companies) think of it as obvious, but that that doesn't mean we should accept the premise they start with.

Quote
Can game companies survive with that business model?


Then don't use that business model. Wasn't that what I was saying from the start?

I mean, that's just the point: why would we have to pay more than we should in any normal competitive free market with physical goods, just because digital companies want even more profit and marketshare and use a business-model that infringes upon our rights, just so they can achieve their goal?

There are a lot of other options, Raze. Let's not pretend companies can not survive without regional codes: they have done so in the past, and still do so now. 'Regional codes' are a relative recent invention, I'll let you know. Vinyl was sold before the CD, didn't have regional codes, and yet you had plenty of companies that did perfectly well without it. No, they couldn't maximise their profits on all markets by introducing artificial restrictions, granted... but they still did well in their time. Even CD's didn't have regional codes, that only started with the DVD. But now, suddenly, one would have to believe DVD's can't survive anymore, and digital downloads neither, without regional codes?

That's not really true, Raze, and I think you realise it too. It's equally possible to remain afloat as a company and have a reasonable profit *without* regional codes. It's just that one wants *more* profit, even if it means introducing systems that aren't necessary for their survival, and even if it means introducing artificial restrictions on the free market.

For instance, you could make an average price, as I said. That would mean you can sell a reasonable amount of games worldwide. It would mean less selling in those other 'less rich' markets, yes, but it wouldn't mean you couldn't earn enough to make a profit. If you have a good product that has some popularity, you can *always* survive, Raze.

Another option would be to go like casual games do: instead of asking one large sum of money, you could sell it very cheap. The loss one gets from selling cheap is offset by the fact you sell more of it. That's why 'angry birds' had a revenue of hundreds of millions, while they only asked less than an Euro. The same can be applied to any game. I, for instance - and I don't think I'm the only one - have the tendency to not pay more than 10-15 euro for a game, some very few exceptions not withstanding. (And a Russian or Chinese also not, obviously). As long as it doesn't drops in price to that point, I don't buy it. (alternatively, one could play a hacked version, like you said Russians do).

So, how more more would one sell if Larian sold it's games, not for 40-50 euro, but for 10-15? A hell of a lot more. In total, you'd probably earn more than you otherwise would. And don't say it's impossible. Torchlight 2 was sold for less than half of the normal price for such a game, and they did that on purpose, for the same reasons as I just said. And it was, indeed, a huge success.

But now, one is trying to eat the cake from both sides: to squeeze out the most they can from those that are presumed to be rich enough to pay premium for the same product, and then try to squeeze out the most they can from 'poorer' regions. And, as said, I understand that: they want to maximise their profits as much as they can, regardless of consumer-rights or first doctrine, or normal practises with physical goods, etc.

But do they *need* that to 'survive'? No. They *want* that because every company wants as much profit s they can. But let's not confound the two.

There certainly are options, Raze, where Larian and other companies can survive just fine, and have a *reasonable* profit even, without trying to curb ones' rights or resort to lock-ins like regional codes. The prerequisite for that is having a good and popular game. It's not by having regional codes.

If Larian can only survive through regional codes, it's a company that deserves to go down, in any free market. I don't think Larian is such a company, though. If they continue to make good games, and don't make the mistakes they did in the 90'ies, they'll do just fine.

Quote
If you significantly cut the revenue of every game company, what would that do for their next projects? How many game publishers would put out retail releases knowing they would have to compete with the digital versions at a fraction of the price?


Then don't put them out. Or make up by 'total sold numbers' what you lose at the individual price.

Raze; a company has a right to make a profit. It has no inherent right to make an even bigger profit that ensures it's survival by curbing other rights. If that would be the case, monopolists would be welcomed. The thing you are saying - and I'm not sure if you are aware of it- is actually contrary to the free market. If another company made a similar RPG game and sold it much cheaper around the same time, and people bought that instead of yours... are you then also going to cry that it significantly cuts the revenue of your game company?

The only difference here, is that you're competing with yourself. So..why shouldn't that invoke the same consequences that competition has on your selling-numbers, again? It stands to reason that, if you choose to compete in price with yourself, you should also accept what that entails in a free market, rather than invent ways to prohibit the consequences of your own actions.

With your reasoning, if you could do it (as a monopolist can) you could and would claim with exactly the same argument that it hurts your business-model if other game-developers put similar games more cheaply on the market.

Yes, and? That's the free market for you. And what you are doing with regional codes, is trying to curb and withhold the free market and the consequences of competition. That it's your own introduced competition of your own product doesn't make any difference in that. The argument that 'it otherwise would cut in our profit' is ALWAYS true if one introduces ANY competition from WHATEVER source. The answer is: yes, competition cuts in your profits; that's how the free market is supposed to work.

Quote
Objectively, what exactly do you think would happen to the game industry as a whole without regional restrictions?


See above.

Quote
Do you think regional pricing could survive?


That would depend on what model you follow. If it's cheap to begin with, you wouldn't lose the market there, you'd only lose the full maximisation of your profits here. But that's true for any other product, and that's why products made in the West have it though with similar products made in China which are far cheaper. Yes, you throw in quality and all that, but the same was said of Japan in the 70'ies, and no-one is complaining about the quality of Japanese products now. The point is, even with the same quality, the Chinese products are still a lot cheaper.

Should Western cars now be made 'regionally coded' so that they can still compete? Are car-manufacturers selling their cars in China where they're cheaper now allowed to place in their terms of service you can't drive in the EU with it? I never get an answer from you on this part, but would you *really* think it normal that, if you bought say, a glass in/from China (even when made in the West), that you couldn't drink out of it in the EU or US, because its 'terms of service' said so?

It makes no sense. Yet, you continue to claim it does with games. But I already gave you the link to the court where there is no distinction made between physical goods and digital goods, so I don't understand why you keep insisting what is deemed not normal practises, should be deemed normal in your case.

Yes, your profits will go down. And it goes down for any other manufacturer that sells it's own goods cheaper elsewhere and where there is a free market. So what's your point? The solution is to find a way to survive in spite of that, and *not* trying to curb the free market itself in your advantage.


Quote
Would it be better for the game industry if there were a single price, and poorer regions went back to piracy predominantly rather than being a significant portion of the market?


You could explore other options. But regardless, IF the only other alternative would be to use lock-ins such as regional codes, I would say to your question: it would be better for the free market and for consumers' rights. Haven't you understood that was my point all along?

Would it be better for the game industry? Probably not, if maximising profits is what you consider 'better'. But then again: would it be better for a monopolist to lose its monopoly? Well, there too one would have to say: no, if maximising profits would be considered as the definition for 'better'.

You don't seem to realise this line of questioning doesn't amount to much, thus.

What I think is, that a company has a right to make a profit, but not that it has the right to maximise its profits by trying to restrict the free market, to restrict the consequences of their own self-introduced competition, and to prohibit consumer rights such as the ability to use a good you bought and the first sale doctrine.

Now, I didn't go in to the specifics of the legality of regional codes, so I'll leave that for the moment. But it IS clear you have the right to resell a good. You spoke about going to court bout the former, but do you include the latter too?

To make it clear: does Larian disputes this right, and is it in their terms of service that one can not resell it (a game of theirs)? Because if they REALLY forbid it, and if you honestly ask me to challenge that (even though it's already been settled in court), I'm actually willing to do that. Not because I have anything against Larian, rest assured, but because I don't want this right to be infringed upon. And well, if you ask for it, it's better to do it with a company that seeks it (and legal clarity) out itself than a company who's going to be recalcitrant about it.

Note that I'm not asking about the regional codes this time, since that inhibits playing it, but not necessarily 'reselling' it.
So what about reselling? Raze; what is the official position of Larian on this specific matter: does it allow reselling of its games, yes or no?

Joined: Apr 2012
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Apr 2012
(Can't seem to edit my former post - always get a server error - so I'll do it here:)

Edit:

In regard to your

Quote
"similar restrictions of physical goods would never be accepted?"

Really? Then why were there regional pricing for physical games long before digital distributors existed?



I thought you meant regional restrictions, like the regio codes (on physical objects like DVD's, for instance). I note now that you seem to use 'regional pricing' as a substitute for regional-based restrictions. You DO realise that's not the same, right? REGIONAL PRICING (aka, making it cheaper elsewhere) is not against the law, nor do I have anything against it. It's the restriction of *buying* it at that price (or cheaper) - even when someone is reselling it, and the restriction of *using* that bought product (aka, the regional codes) that are the point of contestation.

The fact that a company wants to sell their games cheaper in a certain region; fine, no prob. No doubt that happened with other physical goods too, sure. What is NOT an accepted practise, however, are the restrictions on buying and using them by the companies that sell those very same goods publicly on the free market through the means of their terms of service, as one gets now with digital companies.

I just want to point out that I specifically said: "*similar restrictions* of physical goods would never be accepted"

While you answer with:

"Really? Then why were there regional pricing for physical games long before digital distributors existed?"

But regional pricing does not necessarily mean regional restrictions. You can price a good at regional prices, and yet allow others to buy it at the same price, and without restricting its use. In that case, you have a regional based price, without regional restrictions, so your reply isn't really relevant to what I said. Because even if there were regionally priced physical games (like boardgames?), I doubt any of them were not allowed to be bought by rich Westerners, nor that they had a term of service you could only play that boardgame in India, and not anywhere else.

Feel free to provide some legally-binding examples where normal physical games were publicly and commercially sold on the free market in a country, yet forbidden to be bought by non-locals at that same price, which was solely due to the terms of service of a company (and not done by the state or by the goal of charity), before the advent of the digital media.

Last edited by AidBand; 22/02/16 01:11 AM.
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Support
Offline
Support
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Canada

The forum censor function (used for blocking frequently used spam) causes the timeout for longer posts.

Joined: Apr 2012
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Apr 2012
Originally Posted by Raze

The forum censor function (used for blocking frequently used spam) causes the timeout for longer posts.


Right, I guess that was it. I had it before too, but sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't when retrying it (?).

Anyway, I think we've talked at length about it now, and it's clear we approach things from a different perspective. Basically, you find it normal that companies try to maximise their profit in ways that add several restrictions (to the free market, to certain consumer-rights, to protect oneself from the consequences of self-introduced competition, etc.), while I don't. And at least in some of these aspects, the courts don't either.

But anyway, can you answer this: does Larian allow or forbid the reselling of their games?

Last edited by AidBand; 22/02/16 06:56 PM.
Joined: Apr 2012
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Apr 2012
Originally Posted by Raze

There is a reason Steam censors 'g2a' in their discussion forums, when mentions of legitimate key re-sellers (like the Humble store) and competitors are fine. At best they sell grey market keys bought in lower priced regions. They have also sold keys originally purchased with stolen credit cards, and a few months ago a bunch of people had games removed from their Steam libraries for that reason.
Also, 'spammed'.


I've mentionned this somewhere else too, but I got a reply from G2A:

"Greetings,

We are happy to inform you that the complaint process is completed and your claim was accepted. The order will be refunded, you will receive a confirmation email soon. We would like to apologize sincerely for the inconvenience you have experienced.

Kind regards,
Michael D. "

So it would seem they take up their responsibility, and everything will be allright.

It also strengthens me in my believe G2A definitely is a legit site, which also deals in legit trading (well, selling) of legal keys.

As I've pointed out, you *do* have the right to resell things you bought, even when digital downloads, in spite of any terms of service. So it's legal, and they seem to handle things and act as a responsible company too. So I really have no major complaints about it. I think they were as much a victim of the card-fraud as I was.

Joined: Nov 2014
C
member
Offline
member
C
Joined: Nov 2014
Stuff is sold not for what's it's "worth", but for what people are ready to pay (in aggregate), which varies from region to region. That's the seller PoV.

Stuff is bought the cheapest possible. If I can get stuff cheaper by buying it elsewhere, including foreign countries, I will. That's the buyer PoV.
Physical stuff has an added cost to "import" but numeric does NOT.

Enforcing regional prices for internet users tends to require a big brother system able to check information about you (like your country, your age etc...) AND able to prevent you from accessing foreign countries deals.

Disgusting idea for me. I think everybody prefers staying in the grey area: sellers use a facade regional pricing, and ignorant buyers pay the high price.

Last edited by Chrest; 01/03/16 10:57 PM.
Joined: Apr 2012
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Apr 2012
I largely agree with your post, though I don't know about the 'grey zone'. It's actually not all that grey (at least when it comes down to the first sale doctrine which allows you to resell your own stuff, regardless of terms of services), so I find it slightly annoying that companies act as if they have the right to do so, and try to circumvent it and use lock-ins. Or complain if people buy it cheaper elsewhere.

I think someone should actually oblige companies to follow up on this. But then again, I'd rather not do it to Larian and GOG first, since those are rather 'small' indie-esque companies. One should tackle the big guys first. Maybe Steam would be a good start, but then again, I'd rather have a pro-deo advocate instead of paying thousands to bring it to court. ;-) Even if one wins, you'd need to put the money there first, and I'm no millionaire. In fact, Steam tries to act as a 'big brother' system - it's still illegal to claim one can not resell your own games, though. The point is not that one can't enforce such control with physical products but one maybe can with digital goods, but that we have the *right* to resell it, period.


Now, as said, I understand the 'seller POV' as you say: it's just a matter of maximising their profits. But the rule of the game should be the free market, with all the consequences that entails. And also with respect to consumer-rights. Forbidding 'reselling' and using regional-codes are trying to circumvent this, and that should be regarded as unacceptable.

Of course, strictly speaking (in a pragmatical sense), you are right that such a 'grey area' is best: at least that way, the more intelligent people can still buy it at cheap prices. If they have to search another business-model, god knows how the prices will fare, and you might not be able to buy it cheap anywhere, without waiting a year or two. (not that that would be *so* dramatic, but still).

The thing that annoys me the most is the mentality of companies trying to impose things they know full well aren't actually legally binding. And with things like (the forbidding of) reselling, it's not a good thing for the consumers neither.

Joined: Apr 2012
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Apr 2012
Actually, looking back on this conversation, I still would like a response to this particular question:

"To make it clear: does Larian disputes this (first sales doctrine) right, and is it in their terms of service that one can not resell it (a game of theirs)?"

It's already been established by the US and EU courts one can (re)sell a good, including a digital one. So it would actually be against the law to forbid to (re)sell a game, which in turn means such a condition in the 'terms of service' would be invalid and not comply to the law in these jurisdictions.

In don't know the policy of Larian in this respect, but it's clear Steam and GOG prohibit it, which means they're demanding conditions that are legally invalid and are acting outside the law, at least in EU and US jurisdictions.


Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5