Polygon Article: Grey Market Games (re: Ubisoft Key Fiasco)

[artemicion]

Interesting read if you've been following the news about Ubisoft revoking keys purchased fraudulently.

http://www.polygon.com/2015/2/9/800...ose-mysteriously-cheap-gray-market-game-codes

Good info there, since the retailers discussed therein pop up on Slickdeals rather frequently with cheap game keys. Never purchased from them before and I don't think I will.

 

[schmuckley]

This is why it's good to have physical copies of things.

 

[Subyman]

Just another reason not to play Ubisoft games. Loading up their games with DRM to feebly try to prevent pirating wasn't enough, now they have to go after people that give them money too.

 

[ThinClient]

Meh. Slickdeals isn't to blame and neither is G2A. If these companies want to control the keys they give out or sell for cheap AFTER they've sold them or given them out, maybe they need to reconsider their choice to sell them for cheap or give them out in the first place.

Value Added Reseller is a real thing. Ubisoft sucks balls.

 

[JujuFish]

Just another reason not to play Ubisoft games. Loading up their games with DRM to feebly try to prevent pirating wasn't enough, now they have to go after people that give them money too.

Uh, did you even read the article? Ubisoft didn't go after anyone who gave them money. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Meh. Slickdeals isn't to blame and neither is G2A. If these companies want to control the keys they give out or sell for cheap AFTER they've sold them or given them out, maybe they need to reconsider their choice to sell them for cheap or give them out in the first place.

Value Added Reseller is a real thing. Ubisoft sucks balls.

Looks like you didn't read it either.

 

[crownjules]

Meh. Slickdeals isn't to blame and neither is G2A. If these companies want to control the keys they give out or sell for cheap AFTER they've sold them or given them out, maybe they need to reconsider their choice to sell them for cheap or give them out in the first place.

Value Added Reseller is a real thing. Ubisoft sucks balls.

You didn't even read the article. They're keys bought on stolen credit cards.

 

[ThinClient]

You didn't even read the article. They're keys bought on stolen credit cards.

I didn't claim to have read the article, did I.

 

[sweenish]

Ignorance declared. Move along.

 

[exar333]

I didn't claim to have read the article, did I.

Thanks for actually detracting from the thread and actually providing less than nothing. Also thanks for complete ignorance. :thumbsdown:

Back on topic (and hopefully something actually relevant and informed)...

These were stolen good. Plain and simple. The keys should be revoked and the people should get their money back from the reseller (or a new valid key). Honestly, the title of the article shouldn't read the way it does and rather point out these were stolen keys.

The whole gray-market for games is a whole story altogether and there are a lot of opinions. Personally, a non-region locked game purchased should be allowed to be re-sold. If the game company sells it this way without restrictions, they shouldn't expect the buyers to keep it or sell it only to a specific audience. On the other hand, I do think it is dishonest to use VPNs for the purpose of purchasing games at a cheaper cost in another country. That is assuming the game IS available where you live. If its not, then I really don't have an issue since its not available.

 

[darkewaffle]

This isn't about regionlocking or regional price differences at all. Admittedly that's part of the incentive to purchase from said retailers, but it's not what the article is about.

Was an interesting read, particularly the trail of trying to find out where the key originated. I don't think being able to transfer ownership of the key is a problem, but personally I prefer spending a few more bucks at the good shops to to prevent/not support stuff like this.

 

[Subyman]

"Gray market" games aren't stolen. That'd be black market games or stolen goods. Gray market games typically are about regional pricing or promotional codes. YMMV on questionable websites, as always.

 

[poofyhairguy]

If it is not in Steam it is not on my team.

 

[ThinClient]

Looks like nobody's interested in reading your stupid article. Giggle.

 

[SMOGZINN]

On the other hand, I do think it is dishonest to use VPNs for the purpose of purchasing games at a cheaper cost in another country. That is assuming the game IS available where you live. If its not, then I really don't have an issue since its not available.

I personally don't do it, like Poofyhairguy above, I can't be bothered to buy a game that is not on steam, but I don't think it is dishonest to use a VPN to get a better price on a game. I find it no different than the game company hiring programmers in India to write code in order to get cheaper labor.
If corporations can go to different economies to get cheap labor, consumers can go to cheaper economies to get cheaper goods. That is required for a free market to work.

 

[ThinClient]

Yeah, but when the corporation realizes that it's missing out on profits, they can lobby for laws to be enacted to punish the little guy who's just looking for a good deal.

It's like the Hepatitis cure. Cures 95% of those who try it. Sounds awesome, right? $30,000 per month here in the states for treatment, which requires 3 months of treatment

$900 for total treatment cost in Egypt for the same treatment, the same exact medication from the same box from the same manufacturer.

 

[artemicion]

I don't think there's anything *inherently* bad about grey market games. I think one of the interesting points in the articles was about how G2A seems to deliberately obfuscate information regarding seller's reputation. G2A does not provide information that allows buyer's to identify sellers, no seller history, etc. I mean, to me, that sounds like they know a lot of their sellers are shady and they are deliberately hiding those details from buyers.

They contrasted that with the seller information provided by Kinguin, and the fact that Kinguin asks you for some degree of seller information whereas G2A is apparently as hands off as Craigslist. I mean, I'm hesitant about buying keys off of eBay, but eBay is super buyer friendly in comparison.

 

[ThinClient]

So choose not to use G2A if that bothers you, but don't get in the way of people who don't care?

Personally, with Ebay and Paypal's previous unethical antics siding with the buyer who claims they never got something that they actually received and stealing money away from the seller, I wouldn't touch either one of them with a 10 meter cattle prod, but I don't care if others do. Ebay and Paypal are actually doing something unethical while G2A just doesn't ask.

 

[artemicion]

I personally don't do it, like Poofyhairguy above, I can't be bothered to buy a game that is not on steam, but I don't think it is dishonest to use a VPN to get a better price on a game. I find it no different than the game company hiring programmers in India to write code in order to get cheaper labor.
If corporations can go to different economies to get cheap labor, consumers can go to cheaper economies to get cheaper goods. That is required for a free market to work.

It's not a huge problem if you do it only for yourself, but people who do it in bulk to pull a profit by reselling in a more expensive market are kind of screwing over people in the cheaper market. It may not be illegal, but publishers price games cheaper in poorer markets because the people can't afford them. Taking advantage of that only drives the price up in those markets, or worse, causes the publisher to pull out of that market entirely.

There was an analogous case about a kid who flipped textbooks purchased overseas in developing countries where the textbooks are sold cheaper. He didn't violate copyright laws and maybe not super reprehensible, but man, I'd feel at least a little bit shady turning a profit on a business model that interferes with providing cheaper education to people in developing countries.

 

[Fallen Kell]

It's not a huge problem if you do it only for yourself, but people who do it in bulk to pull a profit by reselling in a more expensive market are kind of screwing over people in the cheaper market. It may not be illegal, but publishers price games cheaper in poorer markets because the people can't afford them. Taking advantage of that only drives the price up in those markets, or worse, causes the publisher to pull out of that market entirely.

There was an analogous case about a kid who flipped textbooks purchased overseas in developing countries where the textbooks are sold cheaper. He didn't violate copyright laws and maybe not super reprehensible, but man, I'd feel at least a little bit shady turning a profit on a business model that interferes with providing cheaper education to people in developing countries.

If I recall correctly, he was also sued for copyright infringement by the publishers for millions of dollars of damages, and had to pay spend tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees even after winning the case...

 

[ThinClient]

It's not a huge problem if you do it only for yourself, but people who do it in bulk to pull a profit by reselling in a more expensive market are kind of screwing over people in the cheaper market. It may not be illegal, but publishers price games cheaper in poorer markets because the people can't afford them. Taking advantage of that only drives the price up in those markets, or worse, causes the publisher to pull out of that market entirely.

There was an analogous case about a kid who flipped textbooks purchased overseas in developing countries where the textbooks are sold cheaper. He didn't violate copyright laws and maybe not super reprehensible, but man, I'd feel at least a little bit shady turning a profit on a business model that interferes with providing cheaper education to people in developing countries.

There have been sales on computer hardware that were discussed profusely on this board and other boards similar to Anandtech. RAM and HDDs go on sale, people buy up a ton of them and then resell them at retail value or a little below to make a profit on others who didn't or couldn't buy them at the sale price.

I find that practice disgusting, personally, but there's nothing wrong with doing so.

 

[EDUSAN]

i've been an active user in Steamgifts for 2 or 3 years (not so much now), according to the page i've won 218 games and i've given 125 games, all of them i still have them on my account so i assume they were all legit.

I've known people that got a game or two removed by unknown reasons on that page, but the site doesnt buy or sell anything, is just a way for people to giveaway games to other people

 

[SMOGZINN]

It may not be illegal, but publishers price games cheaper in poorer markets because the people can't afford them. Taking advantage of that only drives the price up in those markets, or worse, causes the publisher to pull out of that market entirely.

That sucks for the poorer markets, if the company can sell it to them at that price and make a profit, they can sell it to me at that price also. Them raising the price on me because I can afford more is against my interests and market theory states I should avoid that if I can. The optimum solution would be for the prices to equalise between the markets so that it is a bit cheaper for me and a bit more expensive for them.

He didn't violate copyright laws and maybe not super reprehensible, but man, I'd feel at least a little bit shady turning a profit on a business model that interferes with providing cheaper education to people in developing countries.

If they were providing charity I would agree with you. But do you believe that those companies were providing those textbooks to students in those countries at a loss? No, they were profiting off of them. The problem is not that textbooks are underpriced in those countries, it is that the books are overpriced here due to a logical monopoly. The same thing is going on with video games (and most other media).

If I recall correctly, he was also sued for copyright infringement by the publishers for millions of dollars of damages, and had to pay spend tens of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees even after winning the case...

Yes, that is because one of the primary uses of our current copyright system is to be a hammer to destroy smaller competition even when that competition is not infringing. A large company claiming copyright infringement against a smaller company can destroy almost any competition no matter how tenuous the claim.

There have been sales on computer hardware that were discussed profusely on this board and other boards similar to Anandtech. RAM and HDDs go on sale, people buy up a ton of them and then resell them at retail value or a little below to make a profit on others who didn't or couldn't buy them at the sale price.

I find that practice disgusting, personally, but there's nothing wrong with doing so.

Then you, sir, find capitalism disgusting. Buy low, sell high is the very basis of capitalistic commerce.

 

[darkewaffle]

That sucks for the poorer markets, if the company can sell it to them at that price and make a profit, they can sell it to me at that price also. Them raising the price on me because I can afford more is against my interests and market theory states I should avoid that if I can. The optimum solution would be for the prices to equalise between the markets so that it is a bit cheaper for me and a bit more expensive for them.

Who says they're making a profit? It's a not uncommon practice to sell in emerging markets at a loss or at cost in order to build the brand (and brand loyalty) banking on the mindshare paying dividends later. In most industries they penetrate those markets with cheaper products (smartphones are a good example) but you can't really do that with software.

Further it isn't all socioeconomic, some of it is simply regulatory. Even if you wanted to price your game at $30 for all markets it's going to be more expensive in some regions because of customs, imports/exports, red tape, etc. Either you take that into account for that region in particular or you maintain the fixed price and someone is subsidizing someone else. While you, of course, would rather be the subsidizee rather than subsidizer - from their perspective it makes little sense for the (relatively) rich to be subsidized by the poor.

 

[Midwayman]

If anything the article seems to highlight that actual stolen keys are rare despite what the publisher would like you to think. There are all sort of legitimate ways to acquire them even if its not exactly what they'd wish. Gravity ghost is a perfect example. It was a code intended to be given away, but its not like anything wrong was done. Same deal on reselling steam codes bought during sales for a higher price later.

 

[ThinClient]

Then you, sir, find capitalism disgusting. Buy low, sell high is the very basis of capitalistic commerce.

I find it disgusting that some will be driven by their greed to go far enough to remove opportunity from others so that they can profit from taking advantage of those people.

That's what's disgusting.