Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

Nintendo challenging price-fixing fine

Publisher makes its case in European court to have $147 million 2002 punishment lessened, calls original fine "unfair, illegal, even shocking."

Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly. Earlier this week, Nintendo representatives appeared before the European Court of First Instance to argue for an appeal originally filed in 2003 on a fine levied the year before.

In 2002, the European Commission levied a €149 million (roughly $147 million at the time, now equivalent to more than $233 million) fine against Nintendo as punishment for price fixing. The publisher was fined for colluding with seven European distributors to artificially inflate prices in the region by preventing export sales to higher-cost areas from countries where games were cheaper.

Nintendo appealed the ruling early the next year, calling the fine "manifestly exorbitant" and saying that the amount had been unlawfully and inappropriately calculated. Specifically, Nintendo believes that the commission did not give sufficient reason for tripling the amount of the fine for the purposes of deterring future offenses. It also said that a 10 percent increase for each year during which the company broke the law was inappropriate because "the infringement was not of a continuous intensity."

According to a Bloomberg report, a Nintendo lawyer told the court "The penalty was unfair, illegal, even shocking... This remains one of the biggest single fines in EU competition law."

Unswayed, European Commission lawyer Xavier Lewis said, "The fine was not of a capricious nature, or based on wild estimates... This fine was for an infringement that was considered very serious."

104 Comments

  • markharris31

    Posted May 23, 2008 7:03 am GMT

    @goldeneye_basic

    Yes, I agree it is much harder to find a laptop without Vista, but it's still not impossible. There is the easy to get option, like a Mac, and harder to get option, such as buying from a smaller, local computer shop that can build you a laptop running XP. I know it's a huge pain in the ass, but it's a possibility. If we take this argument further can't we be upset with MS for not supplying Windows 98 to manufacturers for installation on new systems? The reason MS only provides Vista is because they are phasing out XP and XP support, which is their right as a company, since it is their software. MS does not operate as a monopoly, literally or effectively (in my view, anyway). No use running in circles, though, it's just a matter of differing opinion at this point. Glad we agree that the fines by the EC are ridiculous.

  • Gifted_One

    Posted May 22, 2008 10:54 pm GMT

    I really couldn't say I care too much about what goes down in Europe when it comes to an issue of this sort. I personally believe that if they want to risk selling a product at higher costs and ultimately sell less units then go right ahead. It could turn out to be worse for the culprit. Don't ever want to offend an installed base of people and have them become loyal elsewhere.

  • goldeneye_basic

    Posted May 22, 2008 2:06 pm GMT

    @markharris31, you make a good point about letting free markets determine prices and let demand determine which OS is bundled with PC's. I may have been hasty in saying that MS should be fined for the OS issue. I brought that up because I think the IE fine is outrageous because consumers do have a choice with which browser and other software they use. So if MS is fined for anything, it should be the OS issue. I have never bought a complete desktop PC. I have always built my own so I have a choice with what OS to get. However, I like almost everybody, will not piece together a laptop. The cost savings in building a desktop is not there with laptops, and you would be hard pressed to find any laptop that doesn't come with Vista now (excluding MAC). The reason being MS uses its clout to force laptop makers to bundle them with Vista. Mainstream stores like Best Buy don't carry any PC's with XP anymore. Since the only choice is to buy one with Vista, sales of those will not drop just because of the OS it comes with. MS is in a situation where it is essentially a monopoly. As much as I dislike government involvement with anything, there needs to be some regulation on monopolies. By the way, I think the EU shouldn't have any authority on these matters. It seems like it just likes to fine billion dollar companies to get free money.

  • Irve

    Posted May 22, 2008 12:57 pm GMT

    LancerVI :
    your right !! Nintendo should be able to prevent cross border sales so that they can arifficially inflate teh prices people pay .... forget the little man Ninty deserves that extra cash !!! when will they learn !

  • LancerVI

    Posted May 22, 2008 9:37 am GMT

    The EU is ****** up. Sorry if that offends, but Jeeeesus. I would hate to do business there.

    Lancer VI

  • Agermemnon

    Posted May 22, 2008 9:11 am GMT

    Give up Nintendo you been done for this before lol .
    One must assume Nintendo have never heard the fraze once bitten twice smitten ?

  • markharris31

    Posted May 22, 2008 7:58 am GMT

    @goldeneye_basic (only the first part, the rest is just rant at... everyone i guess :p )

    I agree with part of your argument, that MS shouldn't be fined for the IE deal. However you turn on your yourself in the second part. Why should MS be fined for anything at all? Are there no other operating systems in existence? Are there no manufacturers in the world who will sell you a computer with XP, or with no operating system at all? Can you not buy parts and build your own computer or have it built for you? The answer is no. There are plenty of options for computer systems and operating systems, the public is just too damn lazy to look for them. So what do they do? They **** to the government that it's unfair and wait for someone to fix their problems for them. This is why the EC is an inept enabler, then pander to a lazy populace who would rather sit and pout instead of actually finding and purchasing alternatives. Seriously, if sales of new computers with Vista dropped sharply, and sales of computers with alternate or no operating systems spiked, and sales of XP software spiked, then all the major computer manufactureres would take notice and offer computers with XP. THAT'S HOW FREE MARKETS WORK! Does no one understand what freedom and free market means anymore!?!?!? You make decisions with your votes and your wallets. If you don't like something, don't f'ing buy it! Honestly, if you're going to fine MS then you have to fine Mac as well, since they bundle their computers with their own operating system, their own browser, their own media suite, etc, etc, etc. The Microsoft fine is an absurdity. It is not their responsibility to make your decisions for you, to include any and all software from competitors in their operating system, to tell you about every alternative, to hold your hand and fix all of your problems, to give every company on the planet their source code so everyone can easily copy and manipulate their software, ad infinitum. (the last part is not directed totally at you, it's pure rant)

  • beanofengland

    Posted May 22, 2008 3:51 am GMT

    i can understand why wiifit is in such a shortage, not only do you get the balance board (which is a pretty precise piece of wireless technology), which must be produced and shipped into the country, but there really IS a huge demand for it. while GTA IV is probably the biggets game of the year for ps3/360 owners, i'd say that pretty much every 'family owmed' wii has someone who wants the wiifit game, i work in a shop that sells the game and i got (and still get) a lot more quieries for wiifit than gta4...
    then theres the size of the box, storage is an issue with something that takes up that much room in a shipment, you can fit about 30 copies of GTA IV in the wiifit box... still, they should have done something to avoid this problem either by producing a lot more before launch day, and getting them to the stores earlier for the stockpiles to build up... not much of an excuse for mario kart wii, those wheels are just plastic, brilliant game though and i'm glad i reserved myself a copy at work... haha

  • goldeneye_basic

    Posted May 21, 2008 8:31 pm GMT

    @FallenOneX, Yes the price differences in different countries is because of exchange rates and tariff's and taxes and all that, but if people in one country find that a game or system is too expensive and decide not to purchase it, then the price will still drop. If EA can make money on Rock Band by selling it for $170 in the U.S, then, if nobody in G.B. buys it for 180 pounds ($360), they could still lower the price and make money on it to meet the demand of that region. So my supply vs. demand point is valid. EA charges that much because apparently enough people are willing to pay that much to justify the price.

    The comparison between Nintendo's fine and MS's fine wasn't about the nature of the fines. I brought it up because it was a much larger fine than Nintendo's yet the Nintendo lawyer said their fine was one of the biggest in EU history. I was calling out the uniformed Nintendo lawyer. Their fine was originally 10 times smaller than MS's and now is still 6 times smaller. It doesn't even matter if it is the second highest fine, which it isn't, those two fines aren't even in the same league so yes the Nintendo lawyer is wrong. Why would you bother to argue that?

    Yes, I do disagree with the Internet Explorer fine because uniformed users is no reason to fine a company. Informed users still have a choice to use any software they want to install on the OS that was forced on them when they made the PC/laptop purchase. How many companies do you know spend money to inform their customers about their competitors? Do you think MS shouldn't even bundle their software with their OS just to make things fair for their competitors. That would make it even harder for new PC users to do anything. As far as the OS thing, even informed users have a hard time getting a PC or laptop that doesn't come with Vista. MS should lighten up and give me the option of choosing XP over Vista at the very least. At the most, companies such as HP and Gateway should step up and offer choices of which OS you want and not tolerate MS bullying them. So my point is MS should be fined for that, not for the Internet Explorer thing.

  • Ricksterlau

    Posted May 21, 2008 4:27 pm GMT

    Now that this interesting article has popped up, I'm beginning to believe more and more that Nintendo are withholding stock for the Wii and their first party games. A few weeks ago even Kotaku had the same thoughts [http://kotaku.com/390621/what-wii-hype-shortage-ploy-huh]. I live in the UK and although GTA IV generates the same amout of hype as Wii Fit or Mario Kart Wii, it's blatently obvious to say Nintendo are holding back at supply. Sure, all 3 games sold out within the first few days of release both online and retail. However within a week later the restocking of GTA IV was back, again both online and retail, whilst Wii Fit and Mario Kart Wii were still "out of stock." I don't believe for a second any of those 2 individual Nintendo games are outselling GTA IV in the UK. So if GTA IV can restock in a matter of days, why can't Wii Fit and Mario Kart Wii? There's only 2 reasons, either Nintendo are holding back stock or they are bloody slow at manufacturing pieces of plastic. I detest these cheap tactics used by a well-branded company.

  • trw534

    Posted May 21, 2008 4:26 pm GMT

    nintendo is cool and shouldnt be in any trouble neither should microsoft

  • FallenOneX

    Posted May 21, 2008 3:10 pm GMT

    Darth_DuMas
    I was wondering the same thing when I saw the headline. Sony cutting off imports good, Nintendo dealing with the stores bad.

    goldeneye_basic
    Supply and demand??? The price differences in different regions have nothing to do with supply and demand. Let me guess, Europe and Australia are always the last regions to get consoles because people there don't play videogames, right? It has nothing to do with exchange rates and high import taxes for certain purchases in different countries.
    And surely it has nothing to do with companies taking advantage of this and inflating prices, blaming it on previously mentioned taxes. It might have to do something with gamers being able to import a game, paying S&H and still coming up cheaper than if they gone to the store across the street. MS's fine, NO COMPARISON. And you confuse me, you state "Ms should be fined for forcing people to buy Vista when you buy a new pc. I should be able to buy a laptop with any OS of my choice" yet you disagree with the IE fine. why? Ask yourself this; how many people do you know that think IE is the only browser that works on Windows. How many people do you know that don't know what Mozilla of FireFox is? That was the problem with MS and IE, many had no idea there were choices, because windows sure as hell didn't make it easy for you Not to have to use IE.

    And by the way, a phrase like "One of the biggest" means that their fine was not THE biggest, just one of the biggest.... just like he said.....

  • markharris31

    Posted May 21, 2008 10:43 am GMT

    We may be using some minsnomers here and causing confusion. "Price fixing" does not mean the same thing as "setting a price". In this case, Nintendo did not collude with MS and Sony to fix prices for video games, they only set different prices for different regions, and attempted to eliminate cross selling. This is NOT price fixing, or price collusion. Nintendo has every right to set different prices in different regions, and then work with retailers to eliminate importing. I repeat, they did not get together with other members of the industry to try and set an artificial price point across the industry in any given region. OPEC, the oil cartel, does this. The oil producing nations get together to set output levels and oil prices worldwide for the entire industry. There is a big difference. What Nintendo did was try to limit the export of goods from a lower priced region to a higher priced region. Companies do this all the time, since they need to try and set realistic price points in different regions. It is NOT illegal. If the EU keeps this up, you will eventually see different locked consoles for every part of Europe. You'll have the English Wii, only playing games encoded for the England region (without modding); and also the German Wii, only playing German region games; etc. etc. These tactics are necessary to keep economic impact and sales reality consistent across different economic climates. A free economy would take care of the problem for you. If the price point is too high in any given area, and consumers refuse to buy, the price will come down. For example: if Nintendo games cost $50 in Germany, but $60 in England, and Nintendo sees dismal sales in England, they will drop the price until sales pick up. This is how free market economies work. The role of anti-competitive legislation is to eliminate individual companies, or groups of companies (through collusion) to operate as a monopoly in any given industry. Nintendo had no monopoly here. They clearly had competition from other companies in the same industry with whom they were not cooperating.

  • enoslives7

    Posted May 21, 2008 10:29 am GMT

    LMAO.....the mario factory is lucky is is'nt against the law to create false shortages, or they would be in deeper crap

  • Darth_DuMas

    Posted May 21, 2008 7:51 am GMT

    "by preventing export sales to higher-cost areas from countries where games were cheaper"

    What? I don't understand, weren't SCE shutting down, suing and preventing anyone from importing SCE products (where they too would have been cheaper)?

    Or is this just Pal regions? To be honest though, the EU haven't got much of a leg to stand on, for example, where are they when preventing us in the UK paying much higher prices for virtually everything. Calling Nintendo out for this seems like nit picking to me.

    They don't call it rip off Britain for nothing and no one from the EU commission seems to be jumping to our aid.

    The EU are just trying to make an example with a real cheap tactic.

  • sun_spirit

    Posted May 21, 2008 4:26 am GMT

    What is this? Rip on Nintendo day?
    "Oh, Nintendo is greedy whine whine!"
    Every gaming company does it for Gods sake, if you ask me all games are overpriced.
    Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of all formats, but it's a bit pathetic how one article on GS gets everyone ripping nintendo for high priced games, and say the Wii isn't a next-gen console...

    Look at the XBOX360 (Which I love).
    It's ridiculous, £200 for the console, fair enough, £40 a year for LIVE, okay you're pushing it a little but I'll still pay. Then £60 for the wireless adapter... That's manic.
    And i don't even want to talk about the ammount of Wireless headsets I've gone through, because they all broke for no apparent reason (£35 each.)

    Ever gaming company does it, every company in general does it!
    The world is overpriced and greedy, and it's that way because the goverment hides things, and the public doesn't know what's going on until their broke and homeless.
    End Rant

  • goldeneye_basic

    Posted May 21, 2008 3:40 am GMT

    a Nintendo lawyer told the court "The penalty was unfair, illegal, even shocking... This remains one of the biggest single fines in EU competition law."

    Well that lawyer apparently hasn't heard about the fine the EU imposed on MS for 899 million Euros or $1.4 billion back in February for not providing key code to rival software makers and "linking its Explorer internet browser to its Windows operating system at the expense of rival servers." Imagine Sony and MS being fined because the PS3 links to the PSN and the 360 links to Xbox live. Its the same thing, and they get fined $1.4 billion. At least with Windows, you have a choice on how to connect to something, MS just defaults to its own things. Nintendo's fine is peanuts in comparison. Ms should be fined for forcing people to buy Vista when you buy a new pc. I should be able to buy a laptop with any OS of my choice, but the hardware makers don't do that because of their agreements with MS.

    shadystxxx "Now sony should get fined for the £425($850) price tag of ps3 which i paid.
    Now EA should be fined for the £180($360) price tag of rockband which i refuse to pay."

    Sony and EA should be able to charge whatever they want in a capitalist economy. Obviously enough people were paying that much for those companies to justify charging that much. It's supply vs. demand. If nobody bought those things then the prices will drop. Also, because Sony is taking such a hit on selling the PS3 below cost in the U.S., they have to make up for it by selling it for more in other countries. As far as this story though, companies shouldn't be able to collude with suppliers preventing people from buying games from other countries for a lower price.

  • kavadias1981

    Posted May 21, 2008 3:16 am GMT

    Hold off Ninty. Dont pay the fine. It is more than a little extortionate.

  • hannify

    Posted May 21, 2008 3:13 am GMT

    I think its EC who are getting greedy. I don't even know where all that money goes but it certainly don't come to england. Perhaps the 'high-lords' of the european committee

  • andrew_ribbons

    Posted May 21, 2008 3:09 am GMT

    "This was news in 2002; let me know when they actually pay it or are cleared of it. And I don't know why people are shocked that Nintendo could do this, look at that Wii, talk about a overpriced old technology that can't even play a dvd movie."

    ...I beg your pardon? The Wii can't play DVDs??

    ....Oh. Hrm, although i think there's wrong-doing in both directions here. Don't forget, this is the EU constitution that fined Microsoft about that much for including Windows Media Player in Windows.

  • peetowser

    Posted May 21, 2008 2:08 am GMT

    Nintendo need that money!

    Mario is old and needs his meds!

    They have been fixing prices since 1985 and they say "the infringement was not of a continuous intensity" ????

    NES games cost the same back then than Super NES, N64, GC and now Wii games cost, and they still pretend they aren't fixing prices? I paid the first Final Fantasy for the NES 90$ here in Canada when it was released in 1990, still remember it. They justified the cost cause it had some fancy battery to save your game (Zelda II : the Adventures of Link had a battery too but cost 60$ at that time), they just really knew it was the next big thing. For an 11 year old like me then, that was a fortune and I imagine it's still a hard chunk to cough up for them today...

    Lots of other companies release cheaper games on other consoles, Nintendo prevent that with the basic fee they charge to license a game for their systems, the licensing fee is about the same as what those games cost, so those developpers do not release their game on Nintendo systems ; it costs them too much and they know they can't sell a bargain bin game for 40$.

    That's another way Nintendo advantages its own games, because they can sell them at the price they like, cheaper than 3rd party games (they don't have to pay their own licensing fee of course) and still make more money on them than with just licensed games.

    And like Final Fantasy one, they can even license a game for North American release but sell it at a price where they can be sure it won't outsell their own games, for whatever twisted reasons they might have.

    Maybe their games are aimed at a younger demographic, but they sure use grown-up tactics

  • Ranteal

    Posted May 21, 2008 12:23 am GMT

    Dang Nintendo. First they train babys to steal flowers from old ladies,and now this. The 7 legged moose strikes again!!

  • dulun19 posted May 20, 2008 9:31 pm GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    dulun19

    Posted May 20, 2008 9:31 pm GMT (hide)

    nintendo is getting greedy... ... more money will not make you any happier than the people who have enough to pay their bills and some savings...!... it's similar to the housing market.. people got to greedy...

  • breed101

    Posted May 20, 2008 8:09 pm GMT

    "i believe the wii has 512mb flash memory actually. not 256. I hadnt heard of nintendo price fixing... dissapointing. At least their games are always cheaper then 360 and ps3 in aus"

    Mainly true, but Australians have to wait months after the other countries get their nintendo games, and for no apparent reason.
    This link explains all.....
    http://www.aussie-nintendo.com/?v=news&p=16776

  • BadMrSnake posted May 20, 2008 7:06 pm GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    BadMrSnake

    Posted May 20, 2008 7:06 pm GMT (hide)

    This is why Nintendo always falls behinds, things like this & refusing to lower the price of the Wii. They will stick their foot in their mouth again when Sony will introduce a $200 stripped down Ps3 by the end of this year!

  • ShockG707

    Posted May 20, 2008 7:04 pm GMT

    Shame on Nintendo...again. Anyone remember when they were selling N64 games for $100?

  • metalisticpain

    Posted May 20, 2008 6:44 pm GMT

    i believe the wii has 512mb flash memory actually. not 256. I hadnt heard of nintendo price fixing... dissapointing. At least their games are always cheaper then 360 and ps3 in aus

  • PEELEDbanana

    Posted May 20, 2008 6:07 pm GMT

    Gamecubepad: ROFL!!! 256MBs? Is this a joke? Then again, non-HD games are way smaller, but still, 256 is pretty dinky. I just saw that and had to say something.

  • mjc0961 posted May 20, 2008 5:34 pm GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    mjc0961

    Posted May 20, 2008 5:34 pm GMT (hide)

    "Don't get me wrong, the wii is a great console for what it is for, but it is far from being the 'only' or 'top' dog when it comes to next gen."

    Hell, it's far from being next gen itself. When you take away the Wii Remote (which a lot of games give you the option to do, and you will because the Wii Remote isn't that accurate [I currently reference Mario Kart Wii as my game of choice]), it's completely overwhelmed by the 360 and PS3 in terms of processing (graphics, enemy AI, draw distance and such things) and online play. So really, Wii isn't even at the next gen table compared to its opponents.

  • Stracos1

    Posted May 20, 2008 5:23 pm GMT

    What this boils down to is that:

    You don't have Nintendo holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy their product. Can't afford it? Then don't buy it... simple and easy! Also where will Nintendo get charged the money? It's like oil or any commodity, you start charging these companies and the consumer has a target on their back and gets charged more.

  • Stracos1

    Posted May 20, 2008 5:12 pm GMT

    I hope Nintendo refuses, threatens to pull all of it's products out of the region and let the fans shread this cocky lawyer apart!

    Also if they take this to an international court and win they can sue the EC for "legal expenses" and teach them a lesson.

  • Sins-of-Mosin

    Posted May 20, 2008 5:10 pm GMT

    This was news in 2002; let me know when they actually pay it or are cleared of it. And I don't know why people are shocked that Nintendo could do this, look at that Wii, talk about a overpriced old technology that can't even play a dvd movie.

  • gamecubepad

    Posted May 20, 2008 5:09 pm GMT

    @Murdoch,
    What? How is capitalism religion? Our current religious views? If you're referring to religion we have had the same majority religion for over 200 years. You are tripping, you should go to sleep. Free trade/capitalism is not a religious belief.

  • Murdoch17 posted May 20, 2008 4:59 pm GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    Murdoch17

    Posted May 20, 2008 4:59 pm GMT (hide)

    @ gamecubepad, what im going to say has nothing too do about the topic at hand, but your babbling on about America. So i just wanna point out that your current religious views are what we had over 100 years ago, the victorian era.
    ok, off to bed now, damn need to sleep...

  • HK88

    Posted May 20, 2008 4:57 pm GMT

    EU is absurd. I hope there is never a North American Union.... That would add more big government and more regulations that will hamper free markets and personal liberty. YOU are not required to BUY anything from a company. If a company sells a product at a higher price than you want, then you do not buy it. Why do people think that the government owes them something and that corporations owe them something too.... Stop being parasites...

  • phase4illini

    Posted May 20, 2008 4:53 pm GMT

    Tenjikuronin, just because it happens doesn't make it right. With the cost for gaming going up quite a bit in the past several years, I'm glad that there are people out there analyzing all this to make sure that none of these companies are trying to pull and fast one and screw the consumer.

  • delcidanddarth

    Posted May 20, 2008 4:51 pm GMT

    @internationaal

    Maybe I missed something here, but I don't think the way game companies work is by telling the distributors (read: stores) what price they may sell their product. There is always the suggested retail price, but by the time the games arrive at the store, Nintendo and Microsoft and Sony have already made their money. That's because the store paid to receive this product, and now the store wants to scratch out a living by selling the games at slightly higher prices (read: the suggested retail price). I'm guessing this is the way it works overseas, except a little more complicated due to import tariffs.

    Back when I used to know the cost of games (because I worked in a gaming store, and the employee discount was 5% above cost), a $50 game actually cost the store $45 to get from the publisher.

    So, unless distribution economics in this country or any other country have changed recently, your statement of:

    "What basically happens is that the companies say the console/game may NOT be sold under a certain price. And if you DO sell it at a lower price, we aren't going to deliver any stock to you. It's as simple as that."

    ...is basically wrong. You're suggestion of how things work is incredibly over-complicated. It is much simpler that the middle-man (video game stores) buys the product for price X from Nintendo, and the middle-man sells it to the consumer for a slightly higher price. If they don't, they lose money, but Nintendo still gets paid.

    Be a little more logical in your argument, e.g. don't jump to the kyoto protocol when talking about video games.

  • gamecubepad

    Posted May 20, 2008 4:44 pm GMT

    @tarmadaj,
    Yes they will. They will make sure that they simply introduce products at a unified higher price. If they would have started selling a game $75 in all countries in the EU instead of selling it for $50 in couple lucky countries there would be no problem. In 2002, the EU was fairly new and not established as it is now, so it's understandable that Nintendo would have the right to sell in each country as it pleased. These anti-capitalistic sentiments do nothing but cause companies to shy away from selling products in the EU. The EU is not a country, that's why there are different prices in different areas. I say abandon the EU and let them make their own games. That's what the EC is pushing things towards.

  • tarmadadj

    Posted May 20, 2008 4:38 pm GMT

    to gamecubepad:
    at least nintendo is going to think twice before take that kind of measures

  • athenian29

    Posted May 20, 2008 4:31 pm GMT

    Jeez. Everything is a double-edged sword.

  • Tenjikuronin

    Posted May 20, 2008 4:19 pm GMT

    I don't see what the big deal is. Price fixing happens all the time in Asia....

  • Andy639_basic

    Posted May 20, 2008 4:18 pm GMT

    It sounds to me like Nintendo's just whining. If they were found guilty of the crime, they need to pay the friggin fine and quit bellyaching.

  • gamecubepad

    Posted May 20, 2008 4:12 pm GMT

    @international,
    Final remark:
    ""If we stop going to see them and the companies know it's because of a high price then they will lower them."
    WRONG! If music and movie sales go down... they point to the consumers, sue them and get them to pay ridiculous fines! No way they're going to lower prices!!!!!! Because the current way the RIAA and MPAA are seeing things isn't exactly listening to the consumers, is it..."

    No my friend, you are wrong. In the US the PS3 made it's debut at the $599 price point. Nobody wanted it and sales were horrible. Sony was losing billions so in order to sell they adjusted the price to $499. That's the power of free trade Mr. Socialist. Then they didn't sell well because that price was too high so now they sell a $399 unit. That's a $200 price change by a corporation in 1 year. That's supply and demand. No government fines required. Free trade in a free country. The consumer holds the power by not buying the product, let's see the socialist EU pull off a $200 price drop. It's funny, but while we got a drop, people like Shady still have to pay $850 for a PS3. Band together and show us your will to fight. Stop being wimpering babies.

    See in America, if you live in a state with sales tax you can usually just cross the border into a state without sales tax and get a cheaper price. This is the case with Oregon(no sales tax) and Washington(sales tax). We are a solid unit, one country. You are a giant corporation. Please understand the benefits of living in a free country.

    *EDIT* You are from Holland. I'm so jealous of your liberal drug laws. I wish I could just walk into a coffee shop and buy 1oz of dank. But I digress, we get cheap flowers from local growers here in Oregon where I live. People in New York or Florida might not, but that's their problem. Cheap video games > cheap flowers. Don't hate. Change your world through the distribution of knowledge.

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Tags

nintendo

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!