That "point," also rests dangerously close to a form of pricing control that boarders on illegal in many countries. If region locking continues as the industry moves to digital downloads, Nintendo might start to come under fire from regulators for this reason.
Unless they can show that they are fixing their prices by colluding with other companies. For example, Nintendo can easily say that games cost more in much in Europe than in the US due to VAT, higher necessary wages to European employees, and translation costs. All these factors could lead to a generally higher market price for no nefarious reason.
Most countries aren't going to get on a company for the prices they set in their region, and don't have jurisdiction to deal with prices outside their region. Australia is a somewhat special case where a weaker currency and small and far-flung market has historically lead to higher prices. A strong AU dollar and digital distribution should solve both those problems though, but many publishers are keeping their digital prices really high. So far the Australian gov't hasn't really been willing to do anything about that, but that's the one area where there really could be some illegal price collusion going on.
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that Nintendo has taken a step into illegal territory as yet, though it does come close. Especially in Australia it is very easy to argue that Nintendo (and many other IT companies, whether in games or business) are colluding with retailers and distributors to keep prices high, and using region locking to maintain that inflated price, despite the fact that, as you said, Australia now enjoys one of the world's most expensive currencies. Our dollar is now worth substantially more than the US dollar at exchange, and taking into account that Australian average wage is higher than the Japanese wage, with exchange rates the Yen and the dollar are worth roughly the same in terms of domestic value.
It's not price fixing as yet, but give it 10 years of cloud gaming/ digital downloads and that position is going to need to change to bring things back down to parity, because suddenlty distribution costs and a small population are not excuses.
Definitely agreed in the case of Australia. Ultimately, I would understand region locking if they were actually releasing games in developing countries at prices reasonable for local economies. At the end of the day, the price differentials between the JP/EU/US/AU markets are really not that much.
Fun Fact: Hong Kong actually legally protects users rights to import, and it is legal to sell consoles with mod-chips. (Don't want to debate the ...interesting... market that is HK, just thought I'd point out this interesting legal fact).
I am way too lazy to think of something clever. My Backloggery
If a publisher/ developer is really desparate to ward against that, there should be the option to region lock at a software level, not at the hardware level.
I actually read something written by a Nintendo representative before the 3DS's release suggesting that that would actually be the case. I assume that changed though based on what DiggerDan said earlier? That would probably make sense though.
And if a publisher doesn't plan to bring a game into the country (Nintendo with Xenoblade, for instance), there's no localisation contract in place to protect in allowing imports.
Just because an immediate plan isn't in place for a particular game to be picked up and published doesn't mean it never will be. That's the problem. If Wii wasn't region locked, in theory a large (large enough) amount of North American gamers (look at Project Rainfall) might import the game, which could only discourage a publisher from deciding to publish the game in NA because that chunk of the market has already bought the game.
Just because an immediate plan isn't in place for a particular game to be picked up and published doesn't mean it never will be. That's the problem. If Wii wasn't region locked, in theory a large amount of North American gamers (look at Project Rainfall) might import the game, which could only discourage a publisher from deciding to publish the game in NA because that chunk of the market has already bought the game.
Why would any of that matter? The only people that would be negatively affected by that would be the local logistics companies and retailers. Publishers still need to have a local presence for marketing and promotional purposes. End sales would remain the same, whether a thousand games are sold in the US or out of Romania, though the money would be filtered into a more centralised location.
In other words, globalisation. Notice how book publishers have managed to survive? You can't region lock books.
@Waltz: Games aren't always published by just one publisher. It may be published by one company in Japan and brought west by another company, for example. Atlus is an example of a smaller publisher that takes quirky titles from Japan and brings them out west where we'd never expect to see them otherwise. They're protected by region locking because it supports a market for them (where otherwise a portion of the market in western regions could just import), and more localization is always a good thing for gamers, many of which wouldn't be exposed to these games otherwise.
Here's that statement from Nintendo before the 3DS release:
"Nintendo 3DS hardware is available in three versions: Japanese, American and European/Australian. Nintendo has developed different versions of Nintendo 3DS hardware to take into account different languages, age rating requirements and parental control functionality as well as to ensure compliance with local laws in each region.
"Nintendo 3DS also offers network services specifically tailored for each region.
"Additionally we want to ensure the best possible gaming experience for our users and there is the possibility that Nintendo 3DS software sold in one region will not function properly when running on Nintendo 3DS hardware sold in another.
"Guidance will appear on every packaging of Nintendo 3DS hardware and the accompanying software. If you are in doubt, Nintendo recommends that you only purchase Nintendo 3DS software in the region where purchased your Nintendo 3DS system."
Just because an immediate plan isn't in place for a particular game to be picked up and published doesn't mean it never will be. That's the problem. If Wii wasn't region locked, in theory a large (large enough) amount of North American gamers (look at Project Rainfall) might import the game, which could only discourage a publisher from deciding to publish the game in NA because that chunk of the market has already bought the game.
And this would be bad for those markets, publishers and developers how exactly? If the publishers fail to realise that a particular market wants a game and those gamers import it out of desperation then that's their problem. Artificially reducing that "risk" for publishers can only make them lazier. The fact that we can't do that isn't a good thing for sales I don't think or for us as gamers.
I remember when Pokemon Diamond and Pearl were launched and the US got it in April while Australia had to wait until June. A small retailer decided to start selling the imported US version of the game for a tidy little profit months before the Australian release. Interestingly the more recent Pokemans had simultaneous English version launches, I wonder if the import markets had anything to do with that? Surely that's a good thing.
@Waltz: Games aren't always published by just one publisher. It may be published by one company in Japan and brought west by another company, for example. Atlus is an example of a smaller publisher that takes quirky titles from Japan and brings them out west where we'd never expect to see them otherwise. They're protected by region locking because it supports a market for them (where otherwise a portion of the market in western regions could just import), and more localization is always a good thing for gamers, many of which wouldn't be exposed to these games otherwise.
Atlus would still be protected because of a little thing called the Japanese language. My Japanese is reasonable enough for most games, and I struggle mightily with many Atlus games. There are plenty of publishers that enjoy a presence in the western market because they have the capabilities to localise games into English; XSeed and Rising Star Games are two other examples, and the big publishers maintain western presences for their localisation capabilities.
None of those business models rely on being able to sell games in English in the US because people can't import from Europe. Not one. They rely on the gaming population not waking up as a collective one morning and suddently being able to understand Japanese, yes, but not being selective about where to release products.
As for the English release, Atlus would actually do better without region locking. Atlus has no distribution arm in Europe and Australia (that is most times - but not every time - a company called Ghostlight for Atlus games). If Europeans and Australians import games from America, then those are extra sales for Atlus it would have not seen beforehand.
I've done it a few times for Atlus games because, especially in Australia, Ghostlight doesn't publish the exciting ones. I imported The Dark Spire from America, for instance. Atlus got an extra sale.
As for Ghostlight, it would continue to operate on a niche basis in Europe and Australia for those who can't be bothered importing. And yes, it has managed to survive and release PS3 and PSP games in Europe, despite the lack of region lock. Or alternatively Atlus would acquire it and suddenly have an European presence, but if it does go out of business, it goes out of business.
It's a free market. Artificially protecting it through region lock is poor form, from a competition and consumer point of view, and it doesn't actually do the publishers and vendors any favours either, aside from those that are desparetly clinging to old distribution models.
And once again I could make a very long list of products that aren't "region locked" but still manage to maintain a strong regional play. Anything from food stuffs, to books, music (last I checked, CDs aren't region locked), and yes, games (Sony, and indeed, Apple).
Well I'll just say this. There are certainly valid arguments for and against region locking in any case and from any angle. It becomes a complicated issue, as we see, and it's far from black & white. Hence why Nintendo has even gone back and forth about it. I don't necessarily believe region locking is better than no region locking, but I created this thread because very few people seemed to understand why a gaming company would consider the choice to incorporate region locking in the first place.
My purpose here isn't to convince anyone to support region locking. Just please don't act as though it's blatantly obvious what the right choice is, even if you do know, as I feel you're disregarding so many of the factors involved. And that was my purpose, to bring some of those factors to light.
I've still yet to see one. If you can supply a legitimate reason for region locking (such as some kind of proof that Sony is suffering as a business for removing the region lock), then I'll conceed the point that Nintendo had to make a difficult decision.
And keep in mind we've already pointed out that region locking is unnecessary for "protecing" anyone of importance in the games industry (regional retailers and distribution networks are not important and longer), and it's a completely ineffective way to police morality in terms of the end customer.
I've supplied plenty of reasons (Token_Girl mentioned one big one). There's no proof involved in this whatsoever. Maybe someone in Nintendo has enough data to create a really solid case one way or another, but certainly none of us do. Maybe Nintendo DID make the wrong choice. But what is it you think would cause Nintendo to make that choice if it wasn't a difficult one? Is your stance simply that Nintendo is that much stupider than you and everyone else are?
moosa is reminding me of every Ace Attorney culprit, right down to saying there's no proof.
honestly considering NOA's increasing incompetence, region free. Don't care about reasons one way or the other, I just want fun games.
You're missing the point that I'm not arguing about whether or not Nintendo should go region free. If I myself had to choose one way or the other right now I'd say region free. :/
But what is it you think would cause Nintendo to make that choice if it wasn't a difficult one?
You're starting to sound like tendoboy.
As for the answer, that's easy: $s
Is your stance simply that Nintendo is that much stupider than you and everyone else are?
My stance is, since second half of the Wii's lifecycle, and especially the 3DS, Nintendo has become an obnoxious, arrogant company that believes it can dictate to consumers what they want, and what they can and cannot do. Exactly what Sony did after the PS2. It's time for Nintendo to follow Sony's footsteps and eat some humble pie and start doing right by consumers again. Especially since we're not talking about doing something that would hurt Nintendo's sales here, quite the opposite. The reason Nintendo locked down the 3DS is in a bid to control where those $s come from, rather than work towards a more globalised network, which is incidently what Sony has spent the last few years doing.
Dollars isn't necessarily a bad reason, Waltzelf. Businesses need money to run effectively, games aren't made by volunteers and neither are game consoles.
"I never swear, my lord, I say yes or no; and, as I am a gentleman, I keep my word." - D'artagnan in Twenty Years After
The only reason for region locking is that it makes it easier/possible for publishers to have long gaps between releases in different regions, it slows down online sales and it allows retailers to have higher markups. There are no reasons for us as consumers to be happy about it.
As WaltzElf has alluded to it's pretty much protectionism. Controlling markets and being able to set the prices and release schedules for each region independently. It's not good for consumers and it's not good for sales.
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
An opinion is only respectable if it can be defended. Respect people, not opinions
Businesses need money to run effectively, games aren't made by volunteers and neither are game consoles.
Which is fine. As most of the people on the forums know, I'm all for businesses to make money.
My point of contention here is that there is an alternative to region locking that is just as viable for businesses. It's called "not region locking." Sony and the Nintendo DS both show that there's no barriers to a region free console being successful at market on a global scale.
The only actual problem I have with your arguments Waltz is that I recognize that all of this is bigger than you or I can entirely see.
I'm not sure how this is 'bigger than I am'? I know what I'm talking about. It's up to you whether you want to believe me or not, but I'd caution you against the "Nintendo doesn't make mistakes" argument.
The only reason for region locking is that it makes it easier/possible for publishers to have long gaps between releases in different regions, it slows down online sales and it allows retailers to have higher markups. There are no reasons for us as consumers to be happy about it.
As WaltzElf has alluded to it's pretty much protectionism. Controlling markets and being able to set the prices and release schedules for each region independently. It's not good for consumers and it's not good for sales.
I'll throw the pro-region lock (and Moosa's devil advocate position) a bone and actually lay out the one good reason you can make for region locking - but otherwise all the above is the truth and reality of the situation:
From a purely corporate perspective, one good side to protectionism is that is allows a more granular view of the world from head office. The senior management over in Kyoto are able to, at a glance, get accurate accounts of sales in Australia vs sales in South Africa, for instance, if there's region locking to stop people from Australia and South Africa importing from the US (which would count as an American sale for the purposes of those reports).
The more accurate the data, the better able head office is to allocate resources. Are sales surprisingly strong in Australia? Appoint more people down in Melbourne to grow the market. Are sales flat in the US? Increase the marketing budget for next year.
If you do only have a global view of the market, if people are importing goods from the US or Japan, rather than buying them locally, it becomes difficult to assess just where to focus your attention. Worst case scenario is something like this; the Australian market looks so flat on paper thanks to imports that Japan decides to close the Australia office, or slash staff. But it's not really that bad, it's just that people are importing, so when those consumers go looking for support they get underserviced, or the lack of marketing monies means the market doesn't grow as much as it could do.
And then in the US, the illusion is that it's selling better than people thought, so Nintendo throws more money at the market than it can actually sustain. In turn this leads to massive losses for a corporation.
In other words, Nintendo would lose an opportunity to make money in some areas, and lose money in others, which is not a good thing for Nintendo fans.
But, any corporation with modern reporting solutions in place would be able to take all of this into account. Which I can only assume Nintendo doesn't have.
Minor: Sales quotas for each region, imports can affect the sales outcome.
Major: Legal. Both with governments and with people. People can't sue you for their kid importing a game that's beyond the age limit, and governments can't fine Nintendo for people getting games that are banned.
Is it in the end a big deal? No, it isn't, since Sony doesn't give a crap, it must clearly not be that big of an issue. Nintendo is just extra anal and has a "kid" friend image to preserve.
Region locking is not in the interests of the consumer, just over protecting themselves.
-Gives console maker and publishers more control over product release and supply chain
-Allows publishers control over the content of software: some countries are more sensitive to particular kinds of content than others or may be offended by certain things.
-Protects publishers and enforces publishing agreements: sometimes a software title may have different publishers in different regions, and importing from another region can hurt certain publishers (which could even discourage localization efforts in some cases).
-Software ratings boards (ESRB, PEGI, etc.) are different for each region: each title is rated individually for that region (could possibly be quite a different rating given from one region to another), and there are government regulations involved here.
-Potentially limits the impact of software pirates and hackers: if something is compromised it may be restricted to one region rather than the whole world.
There. Now you can go back to complaining about the 3DS's region locking without being completely clueless as to why.
I agree with WaltzElf and Skywake - most of these reasons are shown to be invalid.
I agree with the first one - in fact, that's the entire point of region-locking. Publishers can control what gets released where and for how much, leading to price disparity far beyond matters like distribution costs and the like.
The second and fourth points are related, but invalid. Places like Germany and Australia - both PAL region countries - occasionally get different versions of games due to censorship problems. Firstly, the fact they get different versions rather than being skipped altogether means that it's economically viable to release censored versions on such small scales, but the fact that they exist in the PAL region means that the region lock has absolutely no effect on one's ability to import an uncensored version. The Mortal Kombat 9 saga is evidence of that.
Your third point has some merit, but it leads to things such as staggered release dates being enforced - I don't see a benefit for the consumer in that. Publishers need to realise that we are in an age of easily-accessible international shopping via the internet. I can literally jump online and have a parcel delivered to my door in about a week from the opposite side of the globe without ever having to leave my house. (People in Australia were getting hold of UK copies of OoT before the Australian release even happened). I would argue that publishing agreements shouldn't need protection if publishers move with the times and accept that they need to really keep up in a global sense.
For your final point, this is rendered irrelevant from a practical standpoint. I'd be very surprised to hear of a system that has been hacked where the region-locking is left intact. The fact of the matter is if piracy and hacking is successful for a console, region locking won't help one bit.
As has been said already in this thread, it simply comes down to money. I imagine that Nintendo, after looking at the incredible success of the DS, decided that importing led to prices being too competitive in some regions and decided to put an end to it. I can buy the US version of Pokemon Black from play-asia for $37, plus a couple of dollars postage. That's a $70 game in Australia, and as a result a lot more money for Nintendo if they can force me to buy it locally. (I don't know why I used a DS game as my example, but the point remains).
Basically, region-locking gives the consumer less power to have a say in where they spend their money. I don't think anyone should advocate it.
By the way, I'll just point out that PC gaming has survived until this day with zero region locking. It's unfortunately starting to creep in with some digital distribution services, but on the whole I can buy a game anywhere I want in the world and play it on my PC. If that was a big problem for publishers you'd have seen the industry die a long time ago.
Forums
Topic: Reasons for Region Locking
Posts 61 to 80 of 111
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.