"What the...? Why am I paying $60 for a game when I can buy the same game in Nigeria for $5!"
vs.
"Aw man, there's a cool Japan-only Fire Emblem game that I can't play because it only works on Japanese consoles..."
Good for the goose, good for the gander.
As for why we shouldn't be able to, there are two good reasons:
1. If everything is priced at a regular price, no one in "underprivileged" markets will be able to afford those games, so cue piracy.
2. If everything is priced at the price point of "underprivileged" markets, it makes zero sense to produce those games, as it would mean that the company will surely go broke by doing so.
If not directly, they still benefit indirectly from any downward pressure put on wages.
Piracy is inevitable. No matter how low of a price you set for it, there will be countless people who'd rather have it for "free".
It's actually fairly difficult to just buy labor from another region without doing the equivalent of "buying a regional console" (i.e. building a local office/factory, where people actually speak the right language).
Start at $69.99, in English only. Then add language localizations in order of decreasing mean disposable income for native speakers. Gradually drop the price by $5 per quarter, but also randomly put it on sale for 25% off for 36 hours at a time, to catch the folks who wishlisted the game and are watching the price.
Rich folks buy at $70 and play it right away. Poor folks wait 3.5 years and then get it for $5 .
Why would "poor folks" in other markets wait?
They could always pirate now, and then buy a catch-up license at a price they could better afford at a later time.
Poorer people have to wait, because the developers have high rent and daily expenses, and price discrimination helps the supplier capture enough of the trade value of their good that they can pay those expenses.
A software program is unlikely to have repeat buyers. It's not like corn or toilet paper, where you use one up and buy another. So, if you hypothetically line up every potential buyer by the price they are willing to pay, you can capture the maximum value of trade by walking down the line and selling one copy to each person at their price. Once you sell one copy to everyone in line, you're done. But buyers keep their price secret, or lie about it, and paying your walking salesperson would eat up all that extra money. So instead, you put your price up on a big board, decrease it over time, and when it drops below a buyer's price, they just step up to the counter and purchase.
Paying more allows a customer to buy earlier. Waiting in line longer allows a customer to pay less. How is this unfair? And if it is unfair, how is that the supplier's fault, rather than being inherent in the copyright system?
Here in Norway we travel to Sweden and buy mainly meat, tobacco and alcohol, due to lower taxes.
In 2017 it was estimated[1] to be about 2.6 billion USD worth. This is in a country with some 5.5 million inhabitants, many of which do not participate in this due to distance to border.
Businesses and the government aren't too thrilled about this, for obvious reasons.
[1]: https://www.svenskhandel.se/nyhetscenter/pressmeddelanden/20...
If users can't or won't be able to afford it, they will pirate it. This cna be tempered with pricing strategies.
If it can't be purchased, people will pirate it (e.g. region locked games, even w/o localizations, or delayed releases by market) - pricing doesn't matter here - if users can't get it, they will just pirate it, sometimes especially because they know it's going to be released later, and that decision by the studio has made them feel second class.
If it's no longer available (abandonware, game developers that have gone out of business, etc) then people will pirate it. There are lots of platforms that are thriving on nostalgia right now because people want to pay for supported, working stuff. (For example, the resurgence of the Baldur's Gate and related games updates)
Take a look at any $streaming_service threads and you will see that anything that interferes with streaming service catalogs or pricing will yield shouts of "Arr" and people clearly stating they will pirate shows or use gray market streaming sites.
It's anecdotal but I suspect that most folks on this site are more comfortable with pirating movies or music, but often draw the line at video games because it is easier to relate to the development work done to make video games (even though modern blockbusters movies often have a lot of software development associated with them as well).
Plus in 5 years the company might not have the same sales and marketing teams, management or even owners.
I'm struggling imagining who can afford the equipment to run 'the latest tech' but will not be able to afford a game that uses it. I strongly suspect 'the latest tech' is important mostly to the privileged markets.
You might be right about the marketing. A hit game will probably be just as profitable later; maintaining or growing its own hype. The bigger problem I think is for games that are flops. Companies probably want to sell as many copies as possible before word gets out; and greatly staggering releases will result in a lot fewer copies being sold as you suggest.
Tech just doesn't make the gains it used to any more.
Back in the 90's a 4 year old machine would be lucky to even start a new released game, let alone run it at close to max settings.
Indie markets work well with that model though. I've seen many indie games launch English-only and adding translations later on to sell to more users.
If I'm homeless in SF or NYC--despite being some of the wealthiest cities on this continent--maybe I should get that $2 regional pricing too rather than piracy (what me and plenty of others resorted to while living broke in uni).
If you want to sell your game to a wider market, don't go out of your way to make it harder for the wider market to access your product, just lower your price.
You'd be buying PC games as a homeless person?
The reason regional pricing makes sense is that costs for most things are lower in other regions, like rent and food, and therefore so are the salaries. That would mean a $60 game can cost as much as half a month's rent.
If you want more low income customers, set the worldwide price of your product lower. Don't arbitrarily ban entire countries from buying your digital game.
Why not get a copy in Nigeria, have a server hosted there, and just play it streaming.
Also out of order packets and drops.
> You have to get back the 10s of millions of dollars you spent somehow (if the game has a big budget!).
I did NOT mean that you spent 10s of millions of dollars to make any good games. That would be silly in a world of Hollow Knight, Cadence of Hyrule/Crypt of the Necrodancer, Dead Cells, Gungeon and more, where indie games are kings.
I got downvoted already, and honestly could've let that comment be, it's not that big an issue, and I think we see it similarly.
Also, I'm posting this to clarify my stance and remove any doubt.
...the word came into mind: I was nitpicking. Yes, I should've let that be. Cheers!
And honestly, I think its a shame, because regional pricing makes a lot of sense.
Selling a AAA game at 2 bucks a pop in the US doesn't make sense. You have to get back the 10s of millions of dollars you spent somehow (if the game is good!).
But that locks out underprivileged markets, who can't afford 60 bucks games. They'll likely just pirate it then. Regional pricing is a nice solution to that. Unfortunately then people abuse it.
That's why we can't have nice things.