Noticed this when I checked the PS4 section of ozgameshop.com. All the games where going for $75 AUD; Still cheaper than buying locally.
Next gen EA games to cost £55
- Thread starter Hazy992
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, yeah, of course you should. I'm pretty sure Australia isn't entirely populated by super-rich doctors, so that would suggest to me, overall, everyone working in the country makes more on average than in the US. It doesn't necessarily mean you have more money on a global scale, but because you have more of your own particular currency the prices of goods sold in your country have to take that into account.Soopy said:
Prices in any given country have to reflect national income otherwise it completely devalues the entire point of a monetary system; it has absolutely nothing to do with exchange rates.
You know, I'd feel bad for you Brits, but I got kicked off my insurance a few years ago and if I didn't live in the state I live in, I'd probably be dead because my nation has no obligation to care for its sick. And insurance companies had no legal obligation to actually provide insurance to the people paying them.
I think I'd pay a bit more, even quite a bit more on luxury items in order to afford the kind of society where I didn't have to worry about dying from an easily treatable disease or going bankrupt from the treatment.
The horror.
I think I'd pay a bit more, even quite a bit more on luxury items in order to afford the kind of society where I didn't have to worry about dying from an easily treatable disease or going bankrupt from the treatment.
The horror.
Ever herd of Free trade? you know the theory which is supposed to benefit EVERYONE from the poor people in countries which make the goods and richer countries by getting people to buy from cheaper sources. Of course then companies go against this very principle by region locking and trying to limit people in other countries buying thingsrob_simple said:
Oh and just because we have better work place protections than the US because we fought for them and earned them while you guys sat back and let the rich CEOs take all the benefits while crushing workers rights is a piss poor reason to penalise us by selling things at 70% more for digital copies, even things which were created HERE not in the US
God sake, if you want Universal health care (which you have a right to) FIGHT for it, bloody hell, stop letting companies push you around, vote ONLY for pollies who suport a state run universal systemZachary Amaranth said:
Oh and the assumption your makaing there is that it TAXES (ie what funds Medicare here and the NHS in the UK) that are causing the price increases and you would be WRONG. its greedy multinational companies which are making the money. Why do you think the UK or Australia's government health care should entitle EA (a US company) to more money?
But even after working all that kinds of stuff out, things shouldn't cost double for the Aussies and Kiwis. The math has been done before, but we pay more then we should, even when that stuff is taken into account. There are certain taxes and such that bring the costs up, but that doesn't equal paying double for things, it's a choice made by companies to just make more money from certain countries because we have been paying that. Why lower it, when they can keep price gouging us.rob_simple said:
Games come out at between $100-$120 NZD, that's over double what the people in the US pay for, when the prices should be between about $75-$85. I used to work at a games store over here, and I know from info I got from suppliers that we are charged more, just to make even more money.
Sorry, did you quote the wrong person? What did any of that Robin Hood spiel about protecting the poor have to do with what I just said? No, seriously, I've read your post three times and I've not got a damn clue what any of it had to do with the point I was making.Anthony Corrigan said:
If two people in two separate countries work the same job for the same amount of time but one receives twice the pay --which is a loose interpretation of the double average income thing for the sake of this point-- then it stands to reason that person should pay twice as much for the same product.
How is that difficult to understand?
Thank you for speaking with much more clarity than the previous guy who gave me his speech from the Communist Manifesto; I understand the situation a bit better now.chozo_hybrid said:
Well, if this is indeed true, and a widely known fact, then why are you all still buying the games?
I never buy full RRP games in the UK anymore because I simply can't afford it, I wait for things like sales or buy used, but if my only option was to buy games at £40 then I'd just stop buying them and do something else with my time.
I was trying to avoid the old 'gaming is a luxury' line but it kind of is, and while I don't support companies doing sinister deeds it's not like EA is selling cancer medicine, or anything.
So, nothing came out of it? For goodness sake! WHY IS IT SO HARD!?Anthony Corrigan said:
Thanks for that video link though, I'll embed it in my post so others can see it. It's too bad it doesn't cover New Zealand though, who don't come under the "you guys earn more" argument I've seen in this thread.
A video exploring why digital downloads of music from iTunes is for some reason more expensive for people in Australia (and NZ).
Current gen games cost around 100USD here in Norway, I look forward to seeing it rise to 130 (the price will likely go from 600NOK to 800NOK, which is roughly 100USD to 130USD). And before anyone comes and says the average salary in Norway is higher; averages are stupid when it comes to these discussions as there will always be people below the average.
The actual review may have referenced NZ (though it was an Australian Senate inquiry), I don't know. The video is from a show called the Checkout done by the chaser people on the ABC so its aimed at an Australian audience so they might have overlooked it if was mentioned.Voulan said:
If you want I could try to find the actual senate report for you but its going to be much much dryer than that video is
edit to add:
actually thinking of following its advice, using Apples head quarters for the address and downloading "down under" by men at work
No problemrob_simple said:
I don't tend to buy games at full retail myself, but you and I both know that there are those that feel they must have a game day one, and a lot of people don't know other sources to buy stuff. Plus, if it's largely the only way to get something and you want it, you have little choice but to buy them at those prices. Some people like the hobby too much to just give up on it, higher prices just mean they buy less games over all. Steam however just charges us the same (apart from when certain publishers don't allow them too, like Activision with the CoD games) despite where we are, just in USD so we just convert currency.
Jim sterling did a video on the whole "gaming is a luxury" thing - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5709-Videogames-Are-A-Luxury - which I feel sums up my thoughts on that.
See?
THIS is why we need to take a generation's worth of optimization.
THIS is why we need better marketing tactics.
THIS is why game stagnation is necessary.
THIS is why we don't need to "go forth into the future", we can barely support what we currently have.
Just like how we dislike always-online shenanigans because the internet across much of the world is really quite terrible, game publishers are having to markup their games to keep up with gamer expectations and the costs thereof.
Make no mistake, they DO need to mark up the games. They're aware that it'll alienate some of their audience, but they'll catch many on the price-drop rebound. And the initial buyers are who really matter, as they're keeping them afloat. EA understands the idea of "economic equilibrium" better than you do, and that makes the sudden drastic markup of games to be very, very alarming.
We've GOT to shrink budgets, support the publishers that act realistically, and get our devs learning how to do more with less.
Really, we should have seen this coming with the war on piracy, transition to equally-priced digital distribution and the slow phasing out of used games. I refuse to believe that it's just because "publishers are greedy". That's like saying "meh, he's faking it because he's lazy" when someone with bone poking out of their leg says they can't run in gym class today. We complain that the game industry is being excessively money-grabby these days, even at great risk of alienating the people who give them money, and maybe it's time we wonder why.
We can't ignore this anymore. If we the consumers don't start supporting responsible development, then publishers and devs are going to start dropping like flies. Remember how Squeenix said that 5M copies sold of Tomb Raider was below expectations? Well, imagine them posting "massive losses" after Final Fantasy 17 sells 20M copies, and then they close down for good. Think it can't happen? The signs are all right there.
THIS is why we need to take a generation's worth of optimization.
THIS is why we need better marketing tactics.
THIS is why game stagnation is necessary.
THIS is why we don't need to "go forth into the future", we can barely support what we currently have.
Just like how we dislike always-online shenanigans because the internet across much of the world is really quite terrible, game publishers are having to markup their games to keep up with gamer expectations and the costs thereof.
Make no mistake, they DO need to mark up the games. They're aware that it'll alienate some of their audience, but they'll catch many on the price-drop rebound. And the initial buyers are who really matter, as they're keeping them afloat. EA understands the idea of "economic equilibrium" better than you do, and that makes the sudden drastic markup of games to be very, very alarming.
We've GOT to shrink budgets, support the publishers that act realistically, and get our devs learning how to do more with less.
Really, we should have seen this coming with the war on piracy, transition to equally-priced digital distribution and the slow phasing out of used games. I refuse to believe that it's just because "publishers are greedy". That's like saying "meh, he's faking it because he's lazy" when someone with bone poking out of their leg says they can't run in gym class today. We complain that the game industry is being excessively money-grabby these days, even at great risk of alienating the people who give them money, and maybe it's time we wonder why.
We can't ignore this anymore. If we the consumers don't start supporting responsible development, then publishers and devs are going to start dropping like flies. Remember how Squeenix said that 5M copies sold of Tomb Raider was below expectations? Well, imagine them posting "massive losses" after Final Fantasy 17 sells 20M copies, and then they close down for good. Think it can't happen? The signs are all right there.
Products have a set value. It does not matter how much more money you earn, the product's value does not go higher or lower depending on the person buying it and the amount of money they have at their disposal. For example, just because person A is richer than person B, that there banana they're buying is not effected by the person buying it, and stays the same price for both. Rich people are not obligated to pay more just because they have more. A product does not have more than one value.rob_simple said:
I assume so anyway, usually legal issues in Australia are automatically taken on here, like the rating system for games and the such-like. So it stands to reason if anything had come out of that inquiry, they would add it here as well.Anthony Corrigan said:The actual review may have referenced NZ (though it was an Australian Senate inquiry), I don't know. The video is from a show called the Checkout done by the chaser people on the ABC so its aimed at an Australian audience so they might have overlooked it if was mentioned.Voulan said:
If you want I could try to find the actual senate report for you but its going to be much much dryer than that video is
No, don't trouble yourself, the video is more than enough.
Very true, they're the reason I always laugh any cry for a boycott right out of the room.chozo_hybrid said:No problemrob_simple said:
I don't tend to buy games at full retail myself, but you and I both know that there are those that feel they must have a game day one, and a lot of people don't know other sources to buy stuff. Plus, if it's largely the only way to get something and you want it, you have little choice but to buy them at those prices. Some people like the hobby too much to just give up on it, higher prices just mean they buy less games over all. Steam however just charges us the same (apart from when certain publishers don't allow them too, like Activision with the CoD games) despite where we are.
Jim sterling did a video on the whole "gaming is a luxury" thing - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5709-Videogames-Are-A-Luxury - which I feel sums up my thoughts on that.
I can definitely appreciate the idea of wanting something and having nowhere else to get it, which was why I was about to refer to Steam as you have, since my next suggestion would be getting the gaming fix from a different source.
I think the source problem lies with the companies, but there is fault in consumers, too, who, like a battered spouse, just keep returning to the same old tired abusers, time after time, instead of going for a drink with that nice indie chap with the beard and a lot of neat new ideas who knows a bar where it's always happy hour...
That metaphor kind of fell apart towards the end, I'm off to watch the Jimquisition!
No worries, I agree with what you've said here. Maybe there is a little fault in consumers, but we're a small country, the main reason I think things are priced the way they are for us is because we're right next to big old Australia. A lot of what gets shipped here goes through them games wise, so I think that's at least part of it.rob_simple said:
I've recommended Steam and other things to people, but a lot of the time they fin it less convenient or their PC can't handle it. After all, buying a game online and waiting to have it delivered to you means you don't get it as soon. As for going digital, the net here can be quite spotty. Sure in the cities it's fine, but we pay a heck of a lot for it, and most people deal with data caps so that makes it less attractive too.
It's an issue I've looked into for a while and I understand more then some that I've met about it. But in the end, it doesn't make charging how much they do, the right thing.
EA's making it really easy to boycott their products.
They're basically doing the work for us by making their games too shitty to want and to expensive to buy.
Oh FUCK Mirror's Edge 2 I forgot I was supposed to start being nice to EA after the announcement!
... I, uh um eh... ummmmm buuuu oh.
Dammit EA why you no good business practice? Why you no good anything!
But all will be forgiven if Mirror's Edge 2 is good.
They're basically doing the work for us by making their games too shitty to want and to expensive to buy.
Oh FUCK Mirror's Edge 2 I forgot I was supposed to start being nice to EA after the announcement!
... I, uh um eh... ummmmm buuuu oh.
Dammit EA why you no good business practice? Why you no good anything!
But all will be forgiven if Mirror's Edge 2 is good.
Uh huh, yes, the value doesn't go higher or lower depending on who buys it, but it does fluctuate depending on where they buy it. Here's the thing: even the price of a banana changes depending on what country you buy it in. I can take, say, £100 to Turkey and live like a king for a week and come back with a load of stuff only a fraction of which I would have been able to buy with that £100 in the UK. Now how would that be possible if price was a universal thing?Voulan said:
In my scenario, person A is not richer than person B, they have both worked the same amount of time for the same amount of money relative to their own economy. Now, if either of them goes to the others country, one may be better off than the other, certainly, but as soon as either starts working in that country they will eventually be on a level playing field again, because they will now be earning an income in line with that country's individual economic structure.
Maybe I'm just not explaining it clearly enough, but this really isn't a hard concept to grasp: I recommend treating yourself to a 'Basics of Economics' book, you can get one for about a tenner. Or fly to Turkey and buy fifty copies for a fiver, if you prefer.
Yeah that sucks, the only silver lining in this case, if you can call it that, is that if EA really is screwing the pooch here, then it will hopefully send them a rude wake up call. The whole mainstream industry, at the moment, seems to be in a rush to drag us into a future that the average consumer is in no way prepared for; I predict it's all going to come crashing down around the them in a rather spectacular way.chozo_hybrid said:
Sadly, for the time being, all we can really do is try to weather the storm with stuff like this, and wait for better options to become more viable.
Of course it changes depending on the value of the country's economy, I do know that. It just wasn't mentioned at all in your post that I quoted, and I was concerned you were under the impression that richer people must pay more for things, which is undeniably stupid. I'm glad you're not, though.rob_simple said:
I really shouldn't take part in economy discussions, I know bugger all about money.