Post by worknman on Dec 18, 2014 16:36:45 GMT
In your latest PSR, you asked how Steam could sell a game for $60 in the US, and $10 in Russia (and other areas). I assume this was not a rhetorical question, so I'll answer it. First, let's start with Russia ...
Why are they selling these games for $10 in Russia? First of all, this isn't anything new, as this has been going on with physical goods for a long time. Definitely with movies, and probably with video games also. You can bet your ass that if they could sell the games for $60 there, they would. But since they're not, it's reasonable to conclude that they can't. Why can't they? Because Russians are either poorer or smarter than we are (though I suspect the former) and so are refusing to pay $60 for the games. So if you're a publisher like EA or Activision, you have one of two choices:
1. You can sell the game to people in Russia and make $10 a piece
2. You can not sell the game and make $0
So, which would you choose? I'd say that $10 is better than $0. Kind of the same thing happens with music streaming services in the US. I'm pretty sure that the record companies would rather us go out and pay $15 for CDs instead of $5-$10 for an 'all you can eat' monthly streaming service, but they realize that getting $10 a month from consumers is better than getting $0 and losing that money to piracy.
As for why they're selling it for $60 here? The answer SHOULD be obvious - because they can. If they could sell the games for $100 a piece and make a bigger profit, don't you think they'd sell them at that price? Of course they would, and why shouldn't they? Hell, if I were running the company, I'd sell the games for $500 a piece if I could. Do I have a problem ethically with this? Not at all. It's not like they're committing fraud. They advertise it at a certain price, and you can either choose to pay it or not. Nobody is forcing you at gunpoint to buy it. Now, if they had a monopoly on the water supply (or something else we all need to survive), then it would be a different story. But what we are talking about are essentially toys. This shit is not air. You don't HAVE to have it.
So what do you do if you want to buy the game at less than $60? You already answered that in the show. You do like Alex does and you wait for the price to drop. (Or else convince enough other people to stop paying $60.) If you have this 'gotta have it now' mentality, you're always going to pay more. If you want to know who is really to blame here, it's the people that are paying full retail, because THAT is the reason why Steam sells the game at the prices it does. That is what the market is willing to pay.
On the other hand, I actually had a bigger problem with your Levis example, which you dismissed as not a big deal. If two pairs of jeans are sold at two different stores and one is of lesser quality than the other, but they're advertised as the exact same jeans, that's false advertising. On the other hand, if they're advertised as two different brands, then that's okay.
Why are they selling these games for $10 in Russia? First of all, this isn't anything new, as this has been going on with physical goods for a long time. Definitely with movies, and probably with video games also. You can bet your ass that if they could sell the games for $60 there, they would. But since they're not, it's reasonable to conclude that they can't. Why can't they? Because Russians are either poorer or smarter than we are (though I suspect the former) and so are refusing to pay $60 for the games. So if you're a publisher like EA or Activision, you have one of two choices:
1. You can sell the game to people in Russia and make $10 a piece
2. You can not sell the game and make $0
So, which would you choose? I'd say that $10 is better than $0. Kind of the same thing happens with music streaming services in the US. I'm pretty sure that the record companies would rather us go out and pay $15 for CDs instead of $5-$10 for an 'all you can eat' monthly streaming service, but they realize that getting $10 a month from consumers is better than getting $0 and losing that money to piracy.
As for why they're selling it for $60 here? The answer SHOULD be obvious - because they can. If they could sell the games for $100 a piece and make a bigger profit, don't you think they'd sell them at that price? Of course they would, and why shouldn't they? Hell, if I were running the company, I'd sell the games for $500 a piece if I could. Do I have a problem ethically with this? Not at all. It's not like they're committing fraud. They advertise it at a certain price, and you can either choose to pay it or not. Nobody is forcing you at gunpoint to buy it. Now, if they had a monopoly on the water supply (or something else we all need to survive), then it would be a different story. But what we are talking about are essentially toys. This shit is not air. You don't HAVE to have it.
So what do you do if you want to buy the game at less than $60? You already answered that in the show. You do like Alex does and you wait for the price to drop. (Or else convince enough other people to stop paying $60.) If you have this 'gotta have it now' mentality, you're always going to pay more. If you want to know who is really to blame here, it's the people that are paying full retail, because THAT is the reason why Steam sells the game at the prices it does. That is what the market is willing to pay.
On the other hand, I actually had a bigger problem with your Levis example, which you dismissed as not a big deal. If two pairs of jeans are sold at two different stores and one is of lesser quality than the other, but they're advertised as the exact same jeans, that's false advertising. On the other hand, if they're advertised as two different brands, then that's okay.
