Kotaku reports that Call of Duty 4, which was available on Steam's online distribution platform for $US 49.95, has now increased to a whopping $US 88.50 for its Australian users. So, for roughly over a week, you could've had this game for a nice sum of $57 Australian dollars, but with the price change it's yours for around $101. Considering that you don't get the fancy packaging and still need to download the 6 gigs or so of data, I can't imagine anyone from Australia purchasing this from Steam. Apparently, the old price was listed by mistake and should never have been advertised for that much, but the gist of the problem is that we just can't have these shiny things for the same price as other markets because it's undercutting our price gouging distributors and retailers.
Publisher THQ had recently blocked their titles from Australian Steam users for the same reasons, leaving many with the only option left for affordable games of importing them from online stores like PlayAsia.
1. Anonymous Fri, 23 Nov
Massive failure. Fck off, retailers. Have you even seen the prices in America?
I think they try to justify it based off the European market (PAL), where 90 AUD would be around 'normal'.
This is still total arse though.
Video games don't make me violent, publishers milking for money makes me violent.
riot anyone?
ACCC time.
Damn straight. I don't know why they haven't been bought in before. I keep ranting about bringing them in,as well.
you F**ing Bastards
Urge to kill... RISING!
What the? You can pick up a boxed version from places in Australia for less than $101. Nice work Activision, you retards
"Has anyone seen the price come down? Okay, well, you know what that means - STEAL IT. Steal away. Steal and steal and steal some more and give it to all your friends and keep on stealin'. Because one way or another these mother****ers will get it through their head that they're ripping people off and that's not right.'"
- Trent Reznor
You can get Call of Duty 4 (PC DVD) at Playasia for $39.60, and that includes delivery costs.
http://www.play-asia.com/paOS-13-71-7s-77-2-49-en-15-call+of+duty-70-2c…
However, it does seem that they're completely out of stock at the moment so you'll have to wait until new stock comes in.
If this were the first time that this had happened, or if it were a one-off thing with a single game, then I'd do that.
It's seriously time for the ACCC to fine these bastards big time.
Just noticed this over at Internode Games. They checked it out with the ACCC, and it looks like nothing can be done there.
http://games.internode.on.net/content.php?mode=news&id=2329
"The ACCC is not a price setting body for goods and services at either the retail or wholesale levels and has only a limited role in the area of price regulation overall."
So, make your voice heard with your wallet, I guess.
Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement
2.5 Non-discriminatory treatment (Article 16.4)
The provisions on non-discriminatory treatment of digital products (Article 16.4) mean that both countries agree not to distinguish amongst or between "like" digital products, regardless of their origin. In other words, Australia agrees that digital products from outside Australia will be treated the same as like digital products from Australia. Likewise, the United States will treat digital products from outside the United States - including Australia - no differently from like US digital products.
The commitment means that Australia and the United States may not discriminate on the basis that a digital product is created, produced, published, stored, transmitted, contracted for, commissioned or first made available outside its territory. This same protection extends to the author, performer, producer, developer and distributors of digital products.
A practical example is that of a digital sound track by a recording artist. Neither Australia nor the United States may treat that sound track differently (such as a different tax, or the non-payment of a royalty) on the basis that the sound track, or its artist, is not Australian, or not American.
Importantly, Article 16.4 enables the Parties to implement public policies that would otherwise be in breach of the provisions. Article 16.4.3 specifically states that the provisions do not apply to "non-conforming measures" set out elsewhere in the Agreement.
Article 16.4.3 clarifies that where there are inconsistencies with the intellectual property Chapter, that Chapter shall overrule the e-commerce Chapter, and also states further exceptions, such as subsidies and grants, and "services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority".
Article 16.4.3 clarifies that the reservation Australia has taken on audio-visual and broadcasting services prevails over the obligation for non-discriminatory treatment of digital products. An example is the local content rules in Australia that guarantee a minimum level of Australian programming on our digital media. A further example would be Australian or US grants, subsidies or tax offsets for digitised film production.
ww w.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/guide/16.html
Neither the United States nor Australia has discriminated here. It's a private company, not a country.
"The commitment means that Australia and the United States may not discriminate ..."
"Neither Australia nor the United States may treat that sound track differently (such as a different tax, or the non-payment of a royalty) on the basis that the sound track, or its artist, is not Australian, or not American."