lighthaze said:
I see Valve’s problem from a monetary point-of-view (games are cheaper in Russia / the USA than in Europe), but I think it’s hypocritical of Valve to use the advantages of globalization, while prohibiting it’s users from doing the same.
This doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, and it's ridiculous anyone bothered to quote it.
Keys for digital goods are a commodity, and there's practically no transaction costs. If prices were different in different countries and trade were completely free, the price of the good all around the world would fairly quickly become the lowest price.
Since the marginal cost of games is nearly zero, they can be priced very flexibly to account for wildly different disposable incomes in each region. They can even price it below the level that would be required in order to break even (were every sale at that cost), and they can still make a profit. With limited trade, developers now take advantage of that to offer much lower prices in regions with low incomes. That's good for everyone. It's good for people in those regions, and it's a small bonus to the developer's bottom line.
But like I said. If you remove regional barriers to trade in digital goods, the worldwide price now becomes the price of the lowest priced region in the world. While the naive consumer might believe that everyone can get the lowest price in the world, that might not be true. The 2nd and 3rd world game prices are likely priced too low to actually pay for development if they were adopted all around the world. (and, even if it was a little above, that still wouldn't be where supply meets demand, anyways).
The end result would almost undoubtedly be a single worldwide price set at the North American/Western European level. Those living in foreign countries would see price increases, developers would see revenues fall, and people in 1st world countries would be entirely unaffected. The system we have now, with limited trade between nations (via gifting), is far better.
