Well, I guess in that case we have to start paying everyone the same low wages...

I mean I applaud to OP for wanting to treat everyone the same.

But we dont all have the same costs of living, and pay the same taxes.

blahblahblah

Starting with the professional managerial class (PMCs), management, and CEOs.

This right is why you're a pathetic loser who shouldn't have any say in any business dealing.

You should be blaming the business that chooses to outsource its work over to developing countries and not that country's people. There's nothing stopping businesses from standing their ground and choosing to still manufacture in the US and compensate with much higher quality materials and cater a higher-end demographic. There is still a market for those who prefer higher quality American goods and services. Instead, these businesses exploiting globalism are finding financial excuses to justify targeting mass market with cheaper products.

There's also nothing stopping that unemployed American from getting a job to afford games. And it should be one of their lower priorities compared to getting another job. If they're really strapped for cash, there are tons of free games available for them to play legally like their backlog, webgames, abandonware, private servers, F2P games, and other alternative free activities like using their libraries, free e-books, exercising, volunteering, free museums, etc. Since games are non-essential goods, playing newer games they cannot afford is pure entitlement.

And what they're doing will displace those country's people because the McDonald's worker's minimum wage is higher than the average wage of that people. So really, if the US has a 5% unemployment rate and they all exploit regional pricing of Brazil, that will also be displacing at least 50% of that population making up to average wage when companies raise prices to close that loophole. By population, that's 16.6 million Americans vs 107.15 million Brazilians. If we go by a numbers game, enabling 13 Brazilians to play games at a more affordable price is more ethical than keeping the game more affordable for 2 Americans by ratio from a utilitarianism standpoint.

Lastly, it's quite ironic how you're advocating for the ethics of higher purchasing power for poor workers in the US, but also disregarding the purchasing power of those poorer in developing countries and advocating for the entitlement to exploit the pricing disparity. It's not only seen as immoral, but you're also breaking GOG's user agreement that you agreed to as well. To answer your other points:

1. If that McDonald's workers has that many burdens, maybe video games shouldn't be what they should be doing. Rather they should be focusing on improving their lives somehow. Switch jobs, learn new skills, apply for scholarships/financial assistance, food banks, etc. I believe McDonald's has a scholarship program and colleges have their own disability centre to accommodate people who are disabled with more flexible test-taking and degree time limit requirements, or learn from DIY courses and books online that will help them move into something with lower barriers to entry. The options will be different depending on how many resources they have access to and then this goes outside the realm of regional pricing and more on social services.

2. Helping out 13 Brazilians is more ethical than helping 2 Americans if I had to choose simply on the basis that there's more of them.

3. Again, bringing up American McDonald's workers. Let's compare apples with apples then. If minimum wage in Brazil is 1320 BRL/mo or $270 USD/mo, then that's $9 USD/day. If the lowest minimum wage for an American McDonald's worker is $7.25 hr/day, that's $58/day. For a one-price product, that means Brazilians would have to work 6.44x more hours just to afford the same thing Americans can even though they do the same work according to their society. There are tons of minimum wage Brazilians who would rather be an American minimum wage worker instead.

4. I also see the discussion above with BreOl72. If there's only one price, many studios would go out of business and that means no more games. This is especially worse in that most game dev jobs require a degree and if game development didn't pay them fairly, then they'd switch to any other computer science field job. Ironically, that would also encourage more of them to close shop and move overseas to make the economics work for a one-price model.

In the end, if those minimum wage workers really cannot afford the price of the game, then go pirate it and buy it when it comes on sale later so at least you don't displace those that the regional pricing is supposed to help. I'm sure that's what most gamedevs would think the same too so your statistic is miscounted as an actual user from those developing countries.

A lot of people want to buy games for the cheapest available price just like they do when they shop around for anything else in the economy. Interesting that when corporations outsource people's jobs because they find cheap labor in a foreign country, people say that's acceptable behavior... but when the workers whose jobs are outsourced buy their games through an online storefront in China because the price is lower there, people say that's unacceptable.

The only consistent feature of the two different positions saying workers CAN'T shop for games overseas but corporations CAN shop for labor overseas is that both policies seem designed to maximize profits for corporations.

1. It's not unethical to maximize profit, it's the means they choose to do so that can be unethical and should be scrutinized. Although maximizing profit and unethical business practices can be correlated, that is not applicable in this case because regional pricing makes the product more accessible to potential customers at nearly the same proportion of time equal to anyone else in any other country.

2. In this case, I've already explained that it's more ethical to serve the greater interest of 13 Brazilians compared to 2 Americans. Although it is "unethical" that the 2 Americans are getting the short end of the stick, it'd be more unethical to abandon the 13 Brazilians due to simply having more numbers as per utilitarian ethics. Ultimately, you should be asking yourself why a minimum wage American McDonald's worker is earning 6.44x more purchasing power than a minimum wage Brazilian McDonald's worker even though they both provide similar levels of service to their societies. Except one only gets paid more simply based on luck since you all know we don't get a choice which country we're born in before we're born.

3. Good luck trying to run a successful business that charged only one low one price for everyone to make their products more accessible. If you really want to change that in the gaming industry, go convince the publishers to adopt a one-price model since they have the final say - just like NISA abandoning Brazilian GOG gamers' regional pricing.

Not different things. Not fighting against the status quo means supporting it. Of course, fight means many different things and depends on the issue's importance, each person's priorities, abilities, time, resources and so on, but at least not accepting it and saying something against it when the matter comes up is a bare minimum. Actually, the one that matters is the pressure put on those in charge to regulate, when it comes to actual voting but far more importantly in between votes. "Voting" with your wallet still just supports this economic system that creates and maintains all these problems, and many far worse ones. Sure, but even from that point of view it's weird. Take CDP's own Cyberpunk 2077. (Looking at full price.)
The base (US) price is $59.99. Norway gets $54.42. Romania gets $65.80, same as Germany. And no, it's not a fixed price for all of the EU, because Sweden gets $60.64 or Denmark $64.73. But non-EU Serbia also gets $65.80. On the other hand, Zimbabwe or Burundi gets the same $59.99 as the US. And same for Nigeria.
It seems highly doubtful that the average Norwegian requires a discount to buy a game while the average Romanian or Serbian is fine with paying as much as the average German, without this causing a reduction in the number of sales,.while the average Swede and Dane aren't. As for Zimbabwe and Burundi, you may say that the expected sales there are zero, but in that case why not at least give them the same discount as Russia (which exists in the matrix even if sales are blocked), selling the game for $22.47, and see if something happens? I mean, at worst it'd be setting a regional price for no reason whatsoever, just like in Russia's case now. And in Nigeria's case, with the world's third cinema industry, I'm thinking that there is a market for creative entertainment there, if the prices would follow the purchasing power, so not doing so quite clearly loses sales, right?

You're pro-bullying then, good to know.

Disagree, here in Argentina the salary is around us$300, and we pay almost 100% of taxes, that means that a $60 games cost almost $120, and we have to pay ot in 1 payment, it's extremely difficult to access a game, we can't contribute with the 100% of the price, but if you give us a discount in form of a regional price we could contribute with something. I want to support game devs, but it's impossible to do it a full price, I know we can't blame nobody for our situation, yet with some help we can contribute too!

This is the kind of garbage that passes for debate in 2023. I disagree with your views, so you try to smear me as racist/xenophobic or whatever.

I never once said I blamed people in developing countries for businesses doing job outsourcing. I actually never even said I was upset about businesses engaging in job outsourcing either.

All I said was that it's a double standard to say that businesses can shop around for cheap labor overseas but that the employees of those businesses are not allowed to shop for cheaper video games overseas.

This is irrelevant to the fact that the employee in the US has an equal right to buy things for less overseas as their employers do.

I'm not claiming it's ethical to give poor workers in the US higher purchasing power. You're misrepresenting my position. I'm saying that the employers of poor workers frequently purchase labor overseas in a way that harms poor workers in the US, but then the business community gets upset about it when those workers buy video games for less overseas in violation of regional pricing schemes set up by businesses. That's a double standard.

So all I'm saying is the American workers buying cheaper games overseas is merely an example of them exercising equal rights as their employers have already been getting to participate in global markets.

The business community is just angry about it because this is an example of markets working to the benefit of American workers instead of American businesses, so now the business community invents phrases to smear those workers by calling it "reigional pricing abuse" and things like that.

Well if people in third world countries (like those Brazilian workers you talk about below) can't afford games because of their burdens, maybe video games shouldn't be what they should be doing...? Rather, maybe they should be focusing on improving their lives, switching jobs, learning new skills, applying for scholarships/financial assistance, food banks, etc.

It strikes me as naive and ignorant to think that the existence of disability centers in colleges suddenly means the disabled in the USA have had the barriers to their success in life removed to such an extent that you are justified in making sweeping generalizations that they should have to pay higher prices on things merely because they live in the first world.

And even if your assumptions were true, it doesn't change the fact that American workers should have an equal right to buy things overseas where prices are lower as their employers do. So just like their employers look overseas for lower labor costs, American employees should be free to shop overseas for lower game costs.

Buying things in a market is about getting the best available price, not trying to buy things in a way that helps the most people. When you do things with the goal of helping the most people, that's called a charity not a business.

Well just like the American factory workers were told when their jobs were outsourced that they aren't owed a good job and that they're only entitled to what they can get in the market, I guess Brazilian workers should be told something similar: "you're not entitled to affordable video games, you're only entitled to what you can get in the market." Hey, that's capitalism. *shrug*

Well that would be a fair and consistent application of capitalism. The factory workers jobs went overseas, so then game dev jobs go overseas. I see no reason to privilege game devs over other occupations in the economy.

And I didn't say you were racist or xenophobic either. Don't exaggerate.

Your issue is with companies outsourcing work overseas. The gamers living in developing countries have nothing to do with your plight, yet by advocating for exploiting regional pricing, this inadvertently results in devpubs and platforms closing its loophole.

This is one of the few modern services that allows them to access reasonable prices so they don't have to spend a whole week's paycheck to buy the latest game.

Even under a one low one price model, you still have not addressed how Brazilians have to work 6.44x longer to afford the same thing that Americans have because as I've said before, we all experience time equally. It's more fairer if I and some random Brazilian, can both work 2 hours each to buy the same game. Yeah, it's called importing. We all do it with everything else and it has massively increased our purchasing power. Clothes, electronics, and many other manufactured goods. These are all the benefits of global trade that we enjoy. This inherent benefit is already being seen in the games industry with indie studios made in developing countries that are priced much more competitively than new ones released in developed ones. So then what is the problem? You're arguing that regional pricing is unethical and bring up how American minimum wage workers are banned from accessing regional pricing, which would increase their purchasing power. I'm definitely not misrepresenting your opinion here.

The crux of your argument is that businesses participate in globalism, so you should be able to too, which you almost certainly likely do due to the benefits of global trade since the world economy is so complex now that it's very difficult to buy things without some of its materials being imported. Yes, as they should. Minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be permanent jobs you can feed a family with. They're temporary low-skilled jobs for students and immigrants. This applies to all societies regardless of their GDP. Yes? At least it helps the ones that have the ability to complete their degrees, but cannot complete it under normal expected circumstances. I don't know about your university, but mine had paid note-takers and disabled students were given an extra 33% more time to finish their exams. Importing, already discussed. But I thought we were discussing ethics? Utilitarian ethics is one of the main viewpoints you have to consider in an ethical dilemma. And if you want me to throw the whole kitchen about it, let's do it. A = regional pricing is ethical, B = unethical:

- Law - specifically, contract law. Your proposal is against Valve, GOG, and Epic agreements that you agreed upon when creating the account and continue to use if you so wish. Therefore, regional pricing is ethical. A +1, B 0.

- Utilitarianism - already mentioned and is given more weight in any ethical analysis. The greater good is achieved if more people can access games at a fairer price. Therefore, regional pricing is ethical. A +2, B 0.

- Good Will - right thing to do. I'm sure we all produce some goodwill when people from developing countries know that we are subsidizing their games. Therefore, regional pricing is ethical. A +3, B 0.

- Freedom - your concerns involve your personal freedom to access fairer prices. Therefore, accessing regional pricing is unethical. A +3, B +1.

- Virtues - morals. Now you know the consequences of your proposal - companies will eventually remove regional pricing to prevent abuse. Therefore, regional pricing is ethical. A +4, B +1.

- Professional code of conduct - brought up here for sake of completeness. N/A here.

- Impact - there are different impacts for different parties here. So therefore due to this ambiguity and to give you benefit of the doubt, then accessing regional pricing is unethical. A +4, B +2.

- Fairness - see impact since you seem to think it's unfair, even though it actually is by time. But again, benefit of the doubt to prove how weak your case is. Regional pricing is unethical. A +4, B +3.

By a count of +4 regional pricing is ethical to +3 on being unethical out of 7 points, it's clear to me that it is more ethical to keep it. And that's being generous because utilitarianism should be given more weight and the idea that there's more cosmic fairness if the average developed country worker and the average developing country worker can both work the same amount of hours to get the same game so it should be A +5 and B +2. Unfortunately, you may think personal freedom is more important above all else and not only would you be unfit for a regulated profession, your idea would be seen as ethically wrong by anyone else with more sound ethical reasoning.

Ultimately, you have a valid point that regional pricing is unethical. However, the argument I'm proposing is that removing regional pricing would be even more unethical. I hope this was made clear. I'm not gonna bother going further with this because it's against the rules here to bring up politics.