04-12-2015, 01:10 AM
I realize that this is far from a perfect analogy, but bear with me.
Let's pretend that you go to the doctor because you're having a premature ejaculation problem. They put you with a woman, but you don't feel comfortable talking about this with a female doctor and you ask for a man. They send in male doctor, but it costs an extra $100.
That's not too far off from what's going on here. These game developers realize that more than half of their audience is female and decide to charge extra money for a female character that doesn't have any advantages over the male character. I think this is unethical.
I understand that this isn't the same kind of discrimination as segregation or not serving a person based on their ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation. It may even be debatable as to whether or not this is discrimination - after all, women are still able to play, just not as a woman, unless they pay for it. But that's where the term used in the article - "pricing discrimination" comes into play. It's kind of like if Nabisco charged an extra dollar for oreos that had absolutely nothing changed about them except for the label being in Spanish.
Let's pretend that you go to the doctor because you're having a premature ejaculation problem. They put you with a woman, but you don't feel comfortable talking about this with a female doctor and you ask for a man. They send in male doctor, but it costs an extra $100.
That's not too far off from what's going on here. These game developers realize that more than half of their audience is female and decide to charge extra money for a female character that doesn't have any advantages over the male character. I think this is unethical.
I understand that this isn't the same kind of discrimination as segregation or not serving a person based on their ethnicity/gender/sexual orientation. It may even be debatable as to whether or not this is discrimination - after all, women are still able to play, just not as a woman, unless they pay for it. But that's where the term used in the article - "pricing discrimination" comes into play. It's kind of like if Nabisco charged an extra dollar for oreos that had absolutely nothing changed about them except for the label being in Spanish.