I fear you may have misread my objection. I have no problem paying American prices, and frequently buy games here sans discount because I want to support the game creators and GOG for bringing out titles I like, DRM-free. My objection instead is arbitrary economic disparity. There is no "jealous(y)" on my part, but rather a hunger for justice. I trust you can see the distinction. :)

Yes. Much better if a game costs 5 hours at minimum wage for Country A and 50 hours at minimum wage for Country B than a game costing 5 hours at minimum wage for both countries. For Great Justice!

For more info, see The Big Mac Minimum Wage Index, or The Big Mac Index. Equal price doesn't mean equal cost, nor is it more just than regional one.

For shame, JMich. I can understand others having a goldfish-like attention span, but you are reknown for your capacity to retain things said before. At no point did I say that prices should be unfair, and I have repeatedly stated that I am in favour of a scheme where everyone pays a locally fair price. What I object to is a system constructed on arbitrary guidelines where some customers are gouged "just because" and others are given a huge break for just the same reason.

I can understand how others misrepresent me here, given my reputations as the "regional pricing guy", but I didn't expect it from you.

Meanwhile, for those people who need my stance boiled down to a minimal calculus:

Blanket Fair Pricing == Good
Piecemeal Pricing (some fair, some arbitrary) == Bad

And before this kicks of yet another interminable round of realpolitik arguments against me saying "yes, but, the way of the world blah blah blah", understand that I already know my position is extremely idealistic. That doesn't stop me from crusading for an ideal.

Sigh... that isn't the issue here. Regional pricing is fair in its purest form, which would be that the prices are adjusted for every individual individually. Which is impossible, of course.
So, while regional pricing helps some people, it won't help others. The prices are set randomly and without good explanation here and there. Some poor countries pay twice as much as other countries, that are just as poor.

And that is the injustice.

I thought that my submission to the Pick-A-Loop contest might be appreciated here:
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/contest_pickaloop_4b52e/post40

It is possible I am misinterpreting something, so what do you mean by "Blanket Fair Pricing"? A flat price for everyone, or the X hours at minimum wage part that I say is better?
And again, I have said before that I find regional pricing the correct way, but current implementations of it have failed.

Which is why whenever I see someone boycotting regionally priced games because they are unfair, I roll my eyes.
No. Individually for every individual is a very bad method. You do want to reward specific people more than others, even if we currently don't do that. Is the labor of a farmer worth more than the labor of a teacher, or is it worth less? What about a scientist, an engineer, or a fireman? Should they all need to work X hours for the same product, or should some jobs pay more because they require more of the worker, or they offer more to the community?
Not to mention that good work should be rewarded, because if good work isn't rewarded, you end up without anyone doing good work, and you run into other problems.

Yes. The injustice is the current implementation of regional pricing, not regional pricing per se. What people are complaining about though is that because Unity is bad, we should abandon Linux.

Amen to that, I guess the reason why its always questioned is because its hard for some people to fathom that one could take a stance for such an idealistic goal. The other day I was also accused of being jealous of the low prices others are paying as well in the Russian Good News™ thread, like the introduction of fair regional pricing dramatically affected a global change towards consistently researched and impartial regional pricing for the rest of the world soon after it was introduced in 2011 some four years ago now.

The part I underlined is closer to what I mean. A price that is commensurate in local economies. I think flat pricing is really only fair for finite goods with global utility, such as rare earth metals, because the universal but non-vital demand necessitates a level playing field for purchase agents.

If everyone keeps supporting the current, failed as you admit, implementation with their wallets and don't voice their concerns and opposition, what incentive is there for the industry to change it for the better?

So you do agree that regional pricing is the good method, but not the current regional pricing scheme. And also agree that flat pricing is one of the most unjust systems out there as well.

So it seems I did indeed misread your quote that caused my post, I thought the emphasis was on disparity, while you meant it on arbitrary. Apologies once more then.
Please notice the difference between "Abandon Linux" and "Abandon Unity". People do not voice their concerns against current regional pricing implementation, they voice their concern against any regional pricing implementation. As has been said before, don't just refrain from buying product X if you don't agree with a specific practice, explain what practice you don't agree with, and if they do change, buy it. But saying that flat pricing is more just than regional pricing is idiotic.

I thought perfect price discrimination was known to benefit sellers, not buyers like ourselves.

Okay, individual prices for the individual might be an issue as well.
The price would have to be fair, of course, so that everyone pays the same, it would have to be adjusted not only to the current economical situation of the individual.
Anyway, the worth of ones work is irrelevant when it comes to this discussion, since it won't happen.

You are right, regional pricing is better than flat pricing, if done right. But it won't be done right. Never, I'm quite sure of it. So, disliking regional pricing does make sense, since any implementation of the system must fail.
Flat pricing might be not as fair as regional pricing can be, but it's more fair than how regional pricing is right now.

I think the concept of a regional pricing scheme pegged fairly to local economic realities is indeed a preferable system. And yes, the current implementation is woefully inadequate to addressing true economic disparities.

I don't know that I'd call flat pricing "unjust", but rather say that its application needs to be very specifically suited to the commodity. For example, flat pricing staples such as grain would be monstrous, leading to a number of global problems and human suffering. But a resource such as, say, iridium, which has very specific applications, is in limited supply, and which is in demand from many quarters, needs to be flat priced because the purchasing agents require a level playing field in order to make buying competitive in a fair manner.

Flat pricing made sense under GOG's original remit, because they were a one-currency store that operated virtually as an American storefront (economically, despite being Polish geographically). So their prices were predicated as though one was buying a luxury (non-essential) good from the US. Now that they have switched to multiple currencies and pricing models, they are operating more as a multinational corporation with storefronts in many countries. So the flat pricing model is no longer philosophically tenable under their restructuring. However, their localise pricing model is also untenable, and is causing a backlash both among those acclimatised to flat pricing and those who perceive the new pricing scheme as even worse than flat pricing.

I'll refer you to HypersomniacLive's post. I may disagree with him on what is the issue, but I do agree that if you see an issue you shouldn't ignore it.

I guess I'm an idiot (not much news there, I'm afraid).

1) The idea that the regional pricing of video games, whether in theory or in practice, has anything to do with adjusting their price to the buying power of their customers is not something I subscribe to. I believe the only governing principle behind it, whether in theory or in practice, is to maximise publishers' and distributors' profits. If they thought that it would maximise their profits to have a customers in a relatively rich country (such as Russia) pay less than half what customers in a relatively poor country (such as Cuba) pay, they would. And, of course, they do. Unlike you, I believe the current implementation of regional pricing is -- all things considered -- pretty well run (a lot better than the unbundling), if one considers, as I do, what its aims are. I don't see much difference between the theory and the practice.

2) On an ideal level, adjusting regional prices of virtual global luxury items, such as video games, to the wages in the buyers' countries, only serves to propagate the huge disparity between countries. I don't want a seamstress in Bangladesh to pay one thousandth of the price I pay; I want her to eventually earn the same as I do. Heaven knows she does something more important than I do.