kljadfjhadf: This is poor reasoning. There are plenty of low income earners in all of the regions you mentioned, as well as my own, for whom the prices of games are exorbident compared to the amount of money they earn. The poor of the world are not huddled into a handful of countries and looking for the best deals on things isn't necessarily a matter of greed rather than prudence just because you live in a developed country. So again, why is it acceptable for businesses to seek to maximise their profits by artificially inflating the prices of their product within a local marketplace, but not acceptable for consumers to seek to minimise their expenditure by purchasing the product elsewhere?

SimonG: The reinstalling is covered by law and if a DRM causes you to not get a game running you get a refund. Simple as that. Eg, check the recent rise of legends thread were MS offered a refund after the patch servers went down. Companies do that.

The "moving across countries" is something very difficult, as the matter of licensing is very complicated. But in the end a regional restriction needs to be mentioned at least in the TOS to be effective. And country specific DRM is actually a good thing, as only then you can provide realistic and just prices for low income countries without opening this for abuse. And just look at the forums here were people gladly try to get games from low income countries, illegaly break apart bundles or even trade away the desura keys after using the steam key. A "pay what you want" DRM free option would be better in just about every regard, but it would ultimately fail due to the greed of the individual gamer. The industry is doing well, but they are not swimming in money, so I don't really feel exploited.

I'm not saying that the system is perfect, but we need a compromise between the content creators and the consumers. And the current system of DRMs is doing a good enough job.

Seeing the creators as "enemies" that want to cheat us out of every game is like saying every gamer is a pirate. Childish and stupid and not really worth my time.

htown1980: I understand what you are saying, but there are rights (and different countries have different rights) and then there is the process of enforcing your rights. It's well and good to say "if a DRM causes you to not get a game running you get a refund". While some companies may offer refunds, many wouldn't. What if the vendor refuses? Do you take legal action? Who do you sue - the developer/distributor/publisher? What if the company is in no longer around or in liquidation/administration/struck off? Who wants to get involve in a dispute over $60?

SimonG: the budget is written around expected revenue, which is calculated on western average income and price.

kljadfjhadf: What I'm getting at is that permitting media industries to restrict you from looking elsewhere for a better deal affords them a level of control over the market that they should not have. The same applies to their efforts to prevent consumers from reselling their products second-hand. If you actually trust them enough to accept this sort of behaviour then that's quite alright, I certainly won't be able to change your mind - but it's nonsense for you to claim that there aren't legitimate reasons for consumers to reject this type of thing.

SimonG: What you are missing is that what you describing isn't looking for market alternatives, but exploiting alternative markets. What you are suggesting is that it is ok to exploit a system that would make it possible for low income countries to legally buy games at fair prices. And because you aren't the only one thinking in such selfish and exploitive ways, we need DRM to make sure Russian keys aren't used in Europe.

kljadfjhadf: I'm not missing your point any more than you're missing my point about businesses charging more for media in select regions than is reasonable simply because it increases their profit, and because they can.

SimonG: Would you pay less for your media if the rest of the world disappeared? No. Would you pay more? No.

(It was called the '90s. A time without internet, price were the same)

SimonG: Companies are usually very fast to jump IF you have a valid claim. I know this from personal and professional experience. The problem are those peons who do entry level customer support, they don't know jack and are perpetually pissed by thousands of stupid requests and complains. But once you show them that you are into serious business, they all jump. Problem is, that most customers don't do their end of right protection (like having the bill of sale around) and then scream at "low customer rights".

Obviously that is region dependent and I can only comment on the situation in Europe. But any "capitalist market" usually has a strong consumer protection status established, as those are healthy for the economy and therefore also for the corporations.

htown1980: My experience is quite the opposite. I would say that 3/4 of my clients are large corporations. Generally speaking, I find that my clients will do whatever they can to avoid "jumping" and it often involves a lot of hard work on my part and my colleagues' part to get them to respond appropriately to a valid claim. In my experience, the only thing that will get them to do so, is if it will affect the bottom line, and often that is not enough.

BadDecissions: This conversation about the Obsidian game certainly turned into something else. Anyway, I got back a vague non-reply to the message I sent them.

SimonG: Well, when a corporation doesn't jump and I feel "cheated" (which were interestingly enough in both recent cases two formerly state owned companies, Germans probably know who I'm talking about) I stopped the BS and started a summons, which then neatly tied everything up.

A company calculates potential legal costs of stalling VS. complains dropped by stalling. And at least here it usually doesn't work out with option B. It is different with big amounts. But trivial stuff (under 100$) usually isn't worth employing a 100$ the hour lawyer to trick your way out. Heck, I colleague of mine regularly "bluffed" himself out of contracts and stuff like that during his law school years.

lowyhong: The day Chris Avellone replies to one of my tweets/PMs is the day I die a happy man.

Gazoinks: