Slashdot Mirror
Valve Locking Out Gamers Who Buy Orange Box Internationally
Via Opposable Thumbs, a post on the Consumerist site notes that some enterprising gamers who bought the Orange Box in a territory different than the one they lived (to save a few bucks) have now found themselves unable to play the game. "One user, Todd, explains that thousands of crafty North American gamers looking for a deal have 'bought the product (and hence, the serial numbers) at well known international game stores' at a significant markdown. Activation of the purchased titles went off without a hitch. However, Valve apparently has taken issue with the region-specificity of some international versions and has begun locking out accounts of those living in North America, but owning international serial numbers with the message that the purchased game is in the 'incorrect territory.'" Worse, folks who tried to 'make it right' by buying a local copy have found they're basically SOL. I've been a big fan of the Steam concept since it launched, but this is the sort of thing you need to communicate to your users before you sting them.
Buying what you want, where you want, when you want at the lowest price you can find is for corporations. Why do users keep thinking globalization should benefit them. It's really silly.
...is why I didn't like the idea of Steam the first time I heard of it (not this specifically, but the idea of things like this happening). If I bought the game, it's mine, jackasses. They have no right to be disabling people's games after taking their money.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
If you didn't get what you believe you paid for, ask the vendor for a refund. If the vendor refuses or ignores you, ask your credit card company to charge it back to them, and they can pick up the tab for their DRM silliness. I happen to love Steam, but not more than my rights as a consumer. Steam is working very nicely for me now, but I know my rights and if Valve take away my games (which they can certainly do if they feel like it), I am within my rights to charge back everything I've paid them in the last two years, and there's nothing they can do about it. This is the only way to tell companies that their DRM isn't working - be on your guard and don't let vendors forget their responsibilities to play fair.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
It doesn't matter how evil the DRM, when Valve does it, it's OK!
More than a decade after MPAA invented region-coded DVDs explicitly to protect deals with distributors, it's still an affront to us. But when Valve does it, hey, it's "just something they put something in to protect deals with distributors".
Product activation and phone-homeware is just as bad an idea when it's called "Steam" as when it's called "Windows Genuine Advantage".
Cozy deals to fuck over the consumers in favor of artificial segregation of distribution channels are just as defective by design whether they're called "Steam" as when they were called "Region-coded DVDs".
The Steam may be delicious and moist, but it's still a lie.
Steam is no triumph.
I'm making a note here - EPIC FAIL.
It's hard to overstate dissatisfaction...
Valve's DRM scheme,
It does what it must, because it can.
For the good of none of us, (except the ones who wear suits.)
But there's no use crying over software that breaks
You just keep on paying 'till you run out of cake
And the damage gets done, and the DRM's won
For the people who are selling lies.
"I also find it amazing that in the UK software (and other computer stuff) will retail for the same price as in the US - only in POUNDS. So it's double the price nowadays. Sheesh, I guess CD's are really really expensive to burn in the UK! There's no excuse for this, it's just greed. Valve should not be protecting greed. But then again, it's a racket. Just like the music industry. /rant"
Considering that this whole situation is because Valve IS adjusting their prices for the local markets, you really have no idea what you're talking about.
They have retail distributions agreements in Russia and Thailand to sell boxed products at competitive local prices, rather than trying to get people who might earn $300 USD a month to shell out $50 USD for a game. In order to stop people from buying Russian copies en masse for, say, $10 USD a piece and selling the keys online for $20 USD each, they lock the keys to the geographic region in which they're sold. I can't say I've seen the boxes myself since I live in the US, but I've read that they SAY on the box that they won't play outside of country X. Of course, they export the keys anyways and sell them to stupid people who think they're getting a great deal, and that's why we have this retarded article claiming that Orange Box is region locked everywhere.
Don't give me that shit about "I didn't know it was imported" either. If it seems too good to be true, it PROBABLY IS. The only fault I have with Valve for this is that they should let people unregister so they can register the copies they bought afterwards.
Karma: Contrapositive
Of course it's territory protection. But, bluntly, why is this legal? I can't go to a company and force them to keep my job here instead of outsourcing it to China. Why is it legal for companies to benefit from a global market but not for the customer?
And yes, what's wrong with buying abroad to save money and spend that money on something else? That's like saying that companies do something wrong when they produce dirt cheap in the far east and brag that they had another record profit year and could seriously increase the benefits for their shareholders.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I understand what you're saying, but why is it fair for companies to get cheap labor from other countries when it isn't fair for us to get cheap video games from other countries?
It all amounts to the same thing, and if it is allowed in one context, it should be allowed in the other. Conversely, if companies insist on being able to do price fixing like this, it shouldn't be legal for them to go over to China and pay somebody 10 dollars a day to do the work when there are Americans over here willing to do it (although the American will of course want a higher wage).
Well, yes, why not? Wal*Mart can buy shoes from Thailand for $5 and sell them here for $20, when American-made shoes of the same quality and materials would cost $50. That's supposed to be a good thing, at least that's what we tell the Americans when we close down all the shoe factories here because the shoes are cheaper from Thailand.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The problem is, that apparently to Valve, the product is worth $10 USD in wherever, but some how $50 USD in the US.
By selling the product at $10USD in a foreign market, it is shown that the product still generates profit (or they wouldn't sell it that low).
So the issue becomes that of "How much can they rape the local market for?"
Violating Regional Licensing or whatever cannot possibly "hurt" a company, if the company would lose money selling it in the US at $10 a copy, there is no way they are going to sell it for $10 a copy in Russia. At worst the company won't make as much profit as they want. Either way they still make some profit.
If it was "amost not even worth the effort" it wouldn't be done. And $2-$3 profit on something that costs $2-$3 to manufacture (in america, I bet it would be cheaper in 3rd world countries) is 100% profit.
By your logic, they should either sell it at $10 everywhere and lose massive amounts of money (i.e, they get screwed), or not sell it in markets where they have to mark it down to make it affordable (customers in those markets get screwed). They are not "losing massive amounts of money" by selling at $10, else they would not be selling it at $10. The only things sold as a "loss" are "loss leaders". Things that go on special a lot at grocery stores, video game consoles such as the xbox and crappy sports accessories. Valve has no need of "loss leaders" and in the PC gaming market there isn't much sense for loss leaders as a business model outside of actual retail establishments (gamestop, brick and mortar stores, etc.)
God forbid your sense of entitlement be trampled on by a company wanting to both make money by offering you a great product for a good price, and to only make a tiny profit offering that same great value to others who can barely afford it. Whoops! There goes a little ad hominen! Obviously *I* have a "sense of entitlement" *rolls eyes* considering I purchased it from vavle themselves via steam because I wanted to support valve despite knowing I could get it at a reduced price from another country.
Your basic position is that not making A LOT of profit and instead making LESS THAN A LOT of profit is the equivalent of "losing money."
Never mind the fact that by regionally isolating a product you can bypass normal Supply & Demand dynamic.
Umm...It is either sold for a profit at 10$US or it is not. If the lower price is subsidized by the higher price in other countries (say it costs 15$US) than it is not being sold for a profit at 10$US. It is sold for a loss, but they deem the loss acceptable. more likely, they have made the cost of production and are now just selling it for whatever they can get from everywhere. It's not subsidized - that is a model from selling physical goods, not software. Video games sales works like movies sales - once costs are covered, all it is is profit.
Well, I thought that was globalisation? I am Mr. Gamer and I want to buy product GAME that is $$$ here and $ there. Due to the regulation you praise, I must pay $$$ for the product. Fine. Now I am Mr. Company and I want to buy product PROGRAMMER that is $$$ here but only $ there. Should not the same regulation apply? I mean, Mr. Company off-shores their administration, the pressing of the DVD, the making of the booklet, the customer service center and chances are, part of the programming as well - because it's cheaper to buy it there.
They want it both ways: they can buy stuff on the global market at the lowest achievable price. Then they come around and mandate that humans can not do that. Why? What makes a company more important than you or me? Companies scream around that regulation is bad, everything must be totally deregulated - except their customers, who must be heavily regulated to guarantee profit to the company and preferably executed if they do not comply.
Once I read in old book, that a long, lo9ng time ago there was this crazy idea that we elect governments and give them certain powers in order to make *our* lives better. We also allow the government to give certain rights to non-living entities, such as corporations, *as long as* it helps the government's primary goal: to make our lives better. What a silly, pinko-commie sentiment! Fortunately, we know it better: it must be the other way around. Corporations are the ruling class and they give power to the government to control us so that our behaviour furthers the corporations' wellbeing. We call it democracy, which is some ancient word for the power over the people!
Let's make the following excercise:
Valve wants to make a game, it costs $100 million to make.
That means they have to sell 2 000 000 copies at $50 to break even. If they only sell at $50 then in countries with lower wages they won't sell any copies.
According to their market studies, if the global market is 20 million players 75 percent of which have a low income ($400/month) they will likely only make marginal sales in the low income part of the market because for most of these potential players the price is just too high(let's say they stille make 10 000), and they will have to make the bulk of their sales in the high income part of the market which is only 5 million people. Their market study says they will only be able to sell 1.3 million copies in this market, because of piracy, second hand sales, other games etc. 1.3million * $50 is only $65 million and they loose money, so they don't make the game.
Ok so $50 is too high, let's tap the low income market and price everywhere at $10 :
they will sell 7 million in the low income market and maybe 3 million in the high income market that's 10 million sales for only $100 million dollars revenue. as much as valve love it's gamers it doesn't want to make a game to only break even it wants to make money
Now their marketing officer checks out to see what happens if they have two pricing policies : say $10 for low income segment and $50 for high income segment. Suddenly the market study indicates they will be able to make a huge amount of sales in the low income segment say 7 million out of the 15 million people and they will sell 1.1 million copies in the high income segment (because the game is more widespread in countries that don't have as strong copyright laws there will be more piracy, they are still able to prevent high income gamers from buying at low income prices since they have this nifty activation system).
7 000 000 * $10 is $70 million !
1 100 000 * $50 is $55 million !
Total sales : $125 million suddenly they make $25 million! instead of loosing money, they almost make twice as much money as they did with the first scheme and %25 more than the second scheme!
Now which option would you choose ? Sure my numbers are completely made up so that the sum work out in the end, but don't doubt a second that it is exactly the kind of reasoning that went behind the creation of the regional lockout and the different pricing schemes.
Legally this is pretty obvious: It's artificial barriers to trade.
"region coding" of any sort is not legitimate in a free market economy. The entire *point* of a free market is to benefit society by improving efficiency, efficiency improves since buyers will choose the best supplier for their need, and suppliers will have to make competitive offers, or else not sell anything.
Transporting something from a place where it's cheap, and to a place where it's worth more and sell it there is a fundamental function of trade. We'd all be a lot worse off if that wasn't possible.
Frankly, I don't see why the US govt or the EU hasn't cracked down on this bullshit a long time ago (at the very least when the DVD-standard was launched with artificial barriers to trade baked-in)