Hi...and at the risk of sounding DUH!

[Judge Hades]

is this some bizarre cultural thing?

Yes. I have been in the Pacific Rim area, ranging from Hong Kong, Singapore, and northern Australia. You would be surprised the amount of piracy that goes rampant there. Its also the same in Bahrain as well.

[roshan]

Contrary to popular belief, piracy does not have as great of an effect on revenue as publishers (and software security companies) like to claim. In fact, the vast majority of people who pirate software wouldn't have bought it anyway, and the rest usually do purchase a legal copy if they find it useful. If this was not the case, companies that make shareware products with unlimited trial periods (such as WinZip or Paint Shop Pro) would have gone bankrupt a long time ago.

i agree completely.

 

I've seen quite a few screeners and DVD copies bought in south-east Asia, and 90% of it couldn't compete with an original copy. I think most people, locals and tourists, would purchase an original disc, instead of a piracy version, if prices weren't so high. Both movies and games. Personally I don't own any piracy products.

 

right now the pirated copies are so high quality and they match the original ones in every respect. the piraters even make perfect copies of the dvds covering!!! and the sell these for a dollar and fifty cents.

 

these are LUXURY items. when the cost of movies increases, people find alternative sources of entertainment. people will not pay more than X for a video game.

in asia, the alternative is buying a pirated copy of the product!!!

 

is this some bizarre cultural thing?

 

yes, it is.

 

Ugh, that was the worst economics explanation I've ever heard. The most basic idea in economics is that the lower demand the LOWER the cost and vice versa

 

true. thats why western companies(who actually produce the asina copies in asia itself) should charge lesser prices instead of whining about piracy and increasing prices.

[Drakron]

Games are not LUXURY items, they are entertaiment.

 

There is a disparity of prices, if food was all sold at the same price world wide people would have starved to death.

[Torias]

Games are not LUXURY items, they are entertaiment.

entertainment IS luxury, especially when there are other much cheaper forms of entertainment (library card, television...)

[Nightblade]

don't buy the car.

[Iolo]

It may even work better because the copy protection had been removed.

[Volourn]

Nightblade: How 'bout all the games you downloaded, played a bit, and then didn't buy? Hmm... Or better yet, if the price is too expensive; just wait a stickin' year when the price drops. That way you get both a cheaper price, a more stable game due to patch(es), and if you land up not liking the game you ain't out of lots of dollars.

 

As for TOEE; you DO realize there was a good 6 hour demo for that particular game? And, NWN the Most Expensive PC Game Ever tm also had a demo a few months after its release. I mean, does no one have patience or what? Tsk, tsk. It's not like the games are gonna dramatically change if you wait a few months, or even a year after their release to buy them, after all.

 

 

I love that reasoning though. I download games so "I can punish the companies" or "teach them a lesson". Hahah. Tahnks for the chuckle.

 

Iolo: I agree basically 199.9%. :ph34r:

[Gromnir]

"I'm trying to send a msg to the computer-store owners (or maybe the publisher) instead. "

 

write them a letter if it makes you feel better.

 

you is stealing, and ultimately it hurts the developer whether you want it to or not.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Nightblade]

I love that reasoning though. I download games so "I can punish the companies" or "teach them a lesson". Hahah. Tahnks for the chuckle.

I already emphasized several times that I don't dload stuff to punish developers. What's there to laugh at? An uptight little boy called Volourn accusing me of being immoral, b/c I test games before I buy them,.. now that's worth a chuckle.

[Volourn]

Huh? Did I say that was your exuse? Not to mention companies aren't just the devs. Don't forget the publishers, the stores inckuding the "Ma and Pa" onces, etc, etc. that need the money as well. I'm sure you have a good exuse for stealing them. I don't streotype people evn thieves. They are all individuals. I wish I was uptight; but alas I am not. As for being a "little boy"; thanks for telling me I'm male; but I already knew that.

[GamerFromStart]

About software piracy, I dont see the big problem about it. Most games/companies have a large enough core of dedicated fans to generate a decent amount of sales and they are usually larger than the band of pirates.

 

Blaming poor sales on piracy is like the whole 'musicians are going poor because you're downloading music' sort of crap.

Hmmmmm, touche!

 

I'll admit a good point when I see one.

 

But, just as in the music industry, the easy copying does impact some artists/studios, I don't think it can/should be just left to a that's the way it is situation. Maybe, my concern stems from my PC gaming background, where I do not want to see any reasons (real or otherwise) for a transition to a console format.

 

Yes, now that I think about it -- this IS my primary concern and interest in this security issue.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

"my concern stems from my PC gaming background, where I do not want to see any reasons (real or otherwise) for a transition to a console format."

 

Consoles are hardly pirate free. My friend has an X-box and tons of games for it, but don't think he has purchased those games. He has downloaded every single one of them from the internet.

[Sammael]

Console games are only slightly more difficult to pirate than PC games (which are incredibly easy to pirate). I was pretty surprised to see the console companies move on to CD/DVD format from cartridges, which were a lot more difficult to pirate (you had to have some pretty damn expensive equipment to do so, meaning only big-time pirates could do it).

[MrBrown]

The GC still has those small disks, right?

[GamerFromStart]

My friend has an X-box and tons of games for it, but don't think he has purchased those games. He has downloaded every single one of them from the internet.

Well, we have come full circle.

 

 

What began as a suggestion to make great CRPGs with great replay ability, morphed into a stirring of the pot of piracy, ending with pirate victory and now a reiteration to the Obsidian group:

 

 

Make good games!!!! Give us our money's worth!!! And fight the good fight against the pirates!!

 

 

 

 

"We shall never surrender!" -- Churchill. :angry:

[Drakron]

The GC still has those small disks, right?

Yep, mini disks.

 

Of course PS1 uses CDs, almost all the next generation (Dreamcast,PS2,Xbox) use DVDs, one of CG failures was the nini disk format when everyone was using DVD.

 

DVD format allow no swapping of disk and more data storage space and that is why its used.

[Azarkon]

Suiing people for pirating games is effective to a degree. The RIAA lawsuits on sharers in P2P networks have made many people queasy, and that's a good sign, because as long as people judge that the risks of getting caught are higher than the profits to be gained through piracy, they won't do it.

 

The problem, though, is that it's basically impossible to monitor every avenue of sharing out there. You can hit the most popular ones like Kazaa, but for every Kazaa there's a IMesh, for every Napster there's a Bittorrent, and this is not mentioning the traditional methods of pirating involving mIRC (fat chance of regulating that) and FTP. And then there's AIM and CD-burning. Can't really monitor that without getting your fingers deep into right of privacy laws.

 

So yes, making piracy a criminal offense is a good prevention mechanism and probably will do alot to deter piracy in the long run, but it's not a solution. Laws are worthless if they can't be upheld, and with a system as dynamic as the Internet, it'd pretty damn hard - and expensive - to uphold a piracy law even partially. You may catch a few thousand and prevent a few tens of thousands, but as long as you miss the hundreds of thousands out there perfectly willing to dodge and disappear at the first sign of trouble, only to appear a few days later on a different network, you can never really win.

 

But maybe they won't have to win. Making people pay sizable reparation fees to the companies for being caught is a good idea. After all, that's the bottomline isn't it? Giving the gaming industry enough money so that it can grow and expand instead of shrivel. There are many ways of doing that.

[St Paddy]

I thought the GC idea was a good one, I don't really see any downside to it.

[roshan]

regarding luxury items, why should only a select few be allowed to enjoy themselves and have luxury? whats wrong if a poro asian fellow wants to have a bit of luxury himself?????

[Drakron]

Its simple.

 

Some countries are self centered.

 

Some compenies would reintruduce slavery (and some have, to a degree in 3rd world contries) and would never allow anything to eat their profits.

 

Reducing prices to meet with the local pay wage standart would be a idea but they dont to that, they simply treat it as being a western market and thats why prices are off.

[Capelworth]

Obviously Gromnir, you have no understanding whatsoever of economics. The mechanics of supply and demand, in basic form basically goes to suggest that the lower the demand, the higher the cost. If less people bought cars for whatever reason, the cost of the cars would rise due to the lack of profit. Game publishers, the RIAA and your hypothetical car dealers could learn a thing or two from Walmart and decrease the cost of their products in order to increase sales instead of increasing the price during the heavy sales period to make an extra profit because they'll only be losing potential customers who refuse to pay the higher costs.

Ugh, that was the worst economics explanation I've ever heard. The most basic idea in economics is that the lower demand the LOWER the cost and vice versa. If less people were willing to buy cars, then car dealerships would have to lower their prices in order to sell the same volume. You contradict yourself with your next line because you then correctly say that decreasing costs will result more buyers.

 

However, volume by itself has no bearing on the pricing decision. The decision to raise and lower prices to maximize revenue has to do the price elasticity of the product. If the product is readily substitutable and becomes more price elastic (market is more sensitive to changes in price), then the producer should generally lower the price in order to maximize revenue. If the product becomes less price elastic, then the producer should then raise the price.

 

Now if you gave evidence for why you might feel those markets (car dealerships, RIAA, and game publishers) are all highly price elastic, your arguments might have made sense.

Thankfully someone here has a decent understanding of microeconomics! In the game industry, supply is fairly elastic. Once a game has been created, the marginal cost of producing additional units is relatively low. That's why the price of a game may come down relatively quickly if demand for that title is low.

 

If western gaming companies charge high prices in Asia, it's likely that demand there for western games is fairly price inelastic. They probably oberserved that lowering the price did not yield a sufficient increase in volume to come out ahead. If they can sell 10 copies for $50 each or 12 for $25 each, they should obviously price the game at $50. That may be because pirates, who don't have the same production costs to cover, will always be able to offer the product for less, taking most of the volume gains that a price reduction by the company would bring. Faced with asymptotic demand like that, it makes the most sense for the companies to simply charge as much as they can for those who, for whatever reason, wish to have a genuine copy of the game. If the data suggested that they would make more money by reducing the price of games in Asia, believe me, it wouldn't take them long to do it.

[pulp]

 

*snip*

 

If the data suggested that they would make more money by reducing the price of games in Asia, believe me, it wouldn't take them long to do it.

 

*snip*

 

Well, that was a fairly thought out post re: pricing, but what I - and I think others - would want to know is, what's an economist's take on reducing prices to encourage would-be pirates to buy games rather than pirate them? Would it or would it not be more profitable?

 

If the answer is "no", then assuming that there will be - in the future - a diminishing pool of possible buyers of games, won't there logically be lesser returns over time from selling games priced at current levels? Because it seems to me that if more people begin to pirate, it seems these companies must raise prices to break even at least, and a price increase might just drive away more customers, and you have the begining of a vicious cycle.

 

If I'm right in assuming that more people will pirate, over time, won't it be reasonable to lower prices to prevent this possible downward spiral? (Always assuming that lowering prices will encourage more people to buy, of course).

[pulp]

One more thing: did anyone else notice how prices magically skyrocketed with the introduction of CDs as opposed to floppy disks as the media of choice for developers?

 

Over here, I could get an original copy of Darklands for close to 50 dollars, at the time, whereas now, I have to pay close to 120 to 150 dollars for a game.

[roshan]

Obviously Gromnir, you have no understanding whatsoever of economics. The mechanics of supply and demand, in basic form basically goes to suggest that the lower the demand, the higher the cost. If less people bought cars for whatever reason, the cost of the cars would rise due to the lack of profit. Game publishers, the RIAA and your hypothetical car dealers could learn a thing or two from Walmart and decrease the cost of their products in order to increase sales instead of increasing the price during the heavy sales period to make an extra profit because they'll only be losing potential customers who refuse to pay the higher costs.

Ugh, that was the worst economics explanation I've ever heard. The most basic idea in economics is that the lower demand the LOWER the cost and vice versa. If less people were willing to buy cars, then car dealerships would have to lower their prices in order to sell the same volume. You contradict yourself with your next line because you then correctly say that decreasing costs will result more buyers.

 

However, volume by itself has no bearing on the pricing decision. The decision to raise and lower prices to maximize revenue has to do the price elasticity of the product. If the product is readily substitutable and becomes more price elastic (market is more sensitive to changes in price), then the producer should generally lower the price in order to maximize revenue. If the product becomes less price elastic, then the producer should then raise the price.

 

Now if you gave evidence for why you might feel those markets (car dealerships, RIAA, and game publishers) are all highly price elastic, your arguments might have made sense.

Thankfully someone here has a decent understanding of microeconomics! In the game industry, supply is fairly elastic. Once a game has been created, the marginal cost of producing additional units is relatively low. That's why the price of a game may come down relatively quickly if demand for that title is low.

 

If western gaming companies charge high prices in Asia, it's likely that demand there for western games is fairly price inelastic. They probably oberserved that lowering the price did not yield a sufficient increase in volume to come out ahead. If they can sell 10 copies for $50 each or 12 for $25 each, they should obviously price the game at $50. That may be because pirates, who don't have the same production costs to cover, will always be able to offer the product for less, taking most of the volume gains that a price reduction by the company would bring. Faced with asymptotic demand like that, it makes the most sense for the companies to simply charge as much as they can for those who, for whatever reason, wish to have a genuine copy of the game. If the data suggested that they would make more money by reducing the price of games in Asia, believe me, it wouldn't take them long to do it.

normally its demand that changes depending on cost, not cost that changes based on demand.

 

regarding asian markets they are HUGELY price sensitive. if you increase the price of a product 10 percent you can get 50 percent less buyers because theres so much competition etc. i cant afford to pay 3000 pesos here for a game, but when i went to india, i found out pc games there were only 1000 rupees(almost the same as the peso at the time). i ended up buying 5 games there while i normally dont buy originals! so decreases in price can cause massive demand increases.