5 ms·

Well, maybe this will lead to prices based on cost of development rather than "provided utility". If they are able to sell to a lower price to a given country,

by antpls 8y ago

Well, maybe this will lead to prices based on cost of development rather than "provided utility". If they are able to sell to a lower price to a given country, why would they not sell at that price to everyone else ?

BoorishBears 8y ago
If this is how we forced everyone to price everything, how many people on Hacker News would suddenly be making minimum wage? Tech is literally the land of provided utility, it doesn’t cost much of anything to shift some bits around.
noidea_ 8y ago
It's unlikely that tiny, relatively unimportant video game markets are going to change the tenants of capitalism. > If they are able to sell to a lower price to a given country, why would they not sell at that price to everyone else ? Because they'd make less money
makomk 8y ago
Remember that the marginal cost of one more digital copy of a game is really low; most of the cost is in the fixed development costs, which means that what matters is their total sales income. So the whole reason they can sell at a lower price to some countries is precisely because they're selling at a higher price elsewhere and making back their development costs that way. If they can't do that, they're almost certainly going to have to sell at the higher price everywhere.
michaelmrose 8y ago
Say you have 5 workers making 10 units of value each year. The cost of a product is 1 unit of value but you spent 100 units getting set up to sell said product, designing it and so forth. In theory if you want default on all your bills and go live in the woods you can afford to always sell your product at 1 or 2 units until you go out of business but in reality you are out 150 units before you start. So in insert rich market you sell 30 units at 5 units each in not so rich market you sell 20 units at 4 units each in poor market you sell 20 units at 2 units each. You come out with 200 units or 50 units profit! So if you can sell for 2 units in the cheapest market why can't you sell it to everyone at that price? Because it wouldn't pay for the sunk cost of developing the product in the first place. Nothing is priced based on the cost to create its just the lowest possible floor for the price in the absence of other costs. Software has a floor so close to zero it might as well be zero but a high cost to create the initial copy.
- antpls 8y ago
  This is biased for two reasons : - there are also poor people in rich countries, but they are offered a price based on a country global metric - smartphone applications in app stores are also software development, but they are not priced according to geolocalization as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) This is discrimination based on countries, and it's unfair and economically unsound from my point of view. This definitively looks like a shady scheme to make more money justified by a biased reasoning.
  - gruez 8y ago
    > there are also poor people in rich countries, but they are offered a price based on a country global metric Those are expetions rather than the rule. I don't see any way of getting rid of them other than requiring you to submit your tax return when you buy a game. For a $60 purchase, country of residence is a good enough metric. > smartphone applications in app stores are also software development, but they are not priced according to geolocalization as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) Apps are also mostly < $10, so affordability is less of an issue.
    - antpls 8y ago
      > Those are expetions rather than the rule. I don't see any way of getting rid of them other than requiring you to submit your tax return when you buy a game. For a $60 purchase, country of residence is a good enough metric. Beside the fact that I find your formulation dangerous ("getting ride of them [poor people]"), what I am suggesting is to base the price on the production cost + a margin for that specific good, which is a way to not discriminate between purchasers. This would better respect everyone's privacy. > Apps are also mostly < $10, so affordability is less of an issue. Maybe that's the future
      - gruez 8y ago
        >Beside the fact that I find your formulation dangerous ("getting ride of them [poor people]"), "getting rid of" was referring to "exceptions", which include both rich people in poor countries and poor people in rich countries. >what I am suggesting is to base the price on the production cost + a margin for that specific good, which is a way to not discriminate between purchasers. This would better respect everyone's privacy. So basically, "everybody pays the same price"?

by antpls 8y ago

BoorishBears 8y ago

If this is how we forced everyone to price everything, how many people on Hacker News would suddenly be making minimum wage? Tech is literally the land of provided utility, it doesn’t cost much of anything to shift some bits around.

noidea_ 8y ago

It's unlikely that tiny, relatively unimportant video game markets are going to change the tenants of capitalism. > If they are able to sell to a lower price to a given country, why would they not sell at that price to everyone else ? Because they'd make less money

makomk 8y ago

Remember that the marginal cost of one more digital copy of a game is really low; most of the cost is in the fixed development costs, which means that what matters is their total sales income. So the whole reason they can sell at a lower price to some countries is precisely because they're selling at a higher price elsewhere and making back their development costs that way. If they can't do that, they're almost certainly going to have to sell at the higher price everywhere.

michaelmrose 8y ago

Say you have 5 workers making 10 units of value each year. The cost of a product is 1 unit of value but you spent 100 units getting set up to sell said product, designing it and so forth. In theory if you want default on all your bills and go live in the woods you can afford to always sell your product at 1 or 2 units until you go out of business but in reality you are out 150 units before you start. So in insert rich market you sell 30 units at 5 units each in not so rich market you sell 20 units at 4 units each in poor market you sell 20 units at 2 units each. You come out with 200 units or 50 units profit! So if you can sell for 2 units in the cheapest market why can't you sell it to everyone at that price? Because it wouldn't pay for the sunk cost of developing the product in the first place. Nothing is priced based on the cost to create its just the lowest possible floor for the price in the absence of other costs. Software has a floor so close to zero it might as well be zero but a high cost to create the initial copy.

antpls 8y ago
This is biased for two reasons : - there are also poor people in rich countries, but they are offered a price based on a country global metric - smartphone applications in app stores are also software development, but they are not priced according to geolocalization as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) This is discrimination based on countries, and it's unfair and economically unsound from my point of view. This definitively looks like a shady scheme to make more money justified by a biased reasoning.
- gruez 8y ago
  > there are also poor people in rich countries, but they are offered a price based on a country global metric Those are expetions rather than the rule. I don't see any way of getting rid of them other than requiring you to submit your tax return when you buy a game. For a $60 purchase, country of residence is a good enough metric. > smartphone applications in app stores are also software development, but they are not priced according to geolocalization as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong) Apps are also mostly < $10, so affordability is less of an issue.
  - antpls 8y ago
    > Those are expetions rather than the rule. I don't see any way of getting rid of them other than requiring you to submit your tax return when you buy a game. For a $60 purchase, country of residence is a good enough metric. Beside the fact that I find your formulation dangerous ("getting ride of them [poor people]"), what I am suggesting is to base the price on the production cost + a margin for that specific good, which is a way to not discriminate between purchasers. This would better respect everyone's privacy. > Apps are also mostly < $10, so affordability is less of an issue. Maybe that's the future
    - gruez 8y ago
      >Beside the fact that I find your formulation dangerous ("getting ride of them [poor people]"), "getting rid of" was referring to "exceptions", which include both rich people in poor countries and poor people in rich countries. >what I am suggesting is to base the price on the production cost + a margin for that specific good, which is a way to not discriminate between purchasers. This would better respect everyone's privacy. So basically, "everybody pays the same price"?