It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion6 community members went to GOG HQ(1041 posts)(1041 posts)
(1041 posts)
Pages:
1
10
20
30
40
41
42
43
44
50
60
70
This is my favourite topic
Posted October 13, 2017
avatar
Wishbone: WISHBONE'S TALE
These were really great to read Wishbone. Thanks for posting them and can't wait to read the Epilogue. :)
Posted October 13, 2017
avatar
HypersomniacLive: The host here is GOG, which is a business. The guests are customers of GOG. The (primarily) purpose of the event was to discuss business related matters, not to socialise. Within this context, GOG mentioned its customers that were invited and didn't attend to those that did in ways that can uniquely identify them - let me say it one more time, customers were mentioned to other customers by uniquely identifiable names. That's a violation of their privacy if done without prior consent/permission, perhaps even a violation of business code, and certainly bad practice for a business, and no amount of NDAs changes this.
Now I am also curious because tbh I obviously don't see the problem. Even though legally speaking you may be correct here in terms that every buyer on GOG has the right to remain anonymous until he or she says otherwise. But just theoretically speaking I fail to see the point in which the fact that somebody was invited or was not invited would harm anybody - especially since nobody knows the exact criterias GOG used to select those who were invited. So being invited or being not invited imo does not say much about the person in question, or does it? Maybe I am missing information here but I really try to understand were the possible harm is. (Don't want to defend anything here - I just want to understand it).
Posted October 13, 2017
high rated
avatar
MarkoH01: I obviously don't have the data you have and certainly I haven't studied this practice quite as thoroughly as you did. So please forgive me if my conclusions were wrong here (that also goes to immi101 of course). My understanding so far was exactly what I said. People in different countrys were ABLE (not willing) to pay different prices and from the sight of a company the loss in one country/region could be compensated with the additional gain they'd get from other (richer) countrys. So in the end everything depends on each other. Like I said I have never compared any data with what I just said. I only saw that usually Germany and other countrys have to pay more and some other countrys have to pay less - that's all. So if you now are saying that the high prices for Germans (and others) and the low prices in poor countrys have nothing to do with each other I cannot argue much because I actually never studied these in depth. So what you are telling me is that even if there weren't any poor countrys at all - "rich" countrys would still have to pay more than the base price just because they are able to and companys are greedy? And even if there would only be poor countrys they still would get the discount (even without having the additional gain from the rich countrys)?

Since I don't really know the number of those who'd boycott such regional priced goods I cannot agrue much here either. I doubt that those would matter much but they are there and if there would not be any need for RP why risk it at all?
Your understanding disregards the most important factor - it's the "willing" to pay the increased prices, not the "being able"; if they weren't willing, and didn't, what would sustain this aspect of the regional pricing model?

Take a look at the "Good News: Price Updates", and let's take A Hat in Time as an example (and I quote):
A Hat in Time
publisher: Gears for Breakfast

>> 33.09$ +10% CH
>> 33.01$ +10% regCZ, regDE, DK, regIT, regRO, regRS
>> 32.99$ +10% NO, SE
**29.99$ base
>> 29.39$ -2% GB
>> 27.63$ -8% PL
>> 17.83$ -41% regAR, BR
↘↘ 29.99$ => 13.23$ -56% CN**
>> 8.39$ -72% RU, UA, regUZ
** added as per post #2172

Look at the increased prices and what percentages they represent, then look at the discounted prices and the percentages they represent. Do they look like they even each other out?

Also, note that regIT consists of Italy (IT), Cyprus (CY), Spain (ES), Greece (GR), Portugal (PT), regRO of Romania (RO), Bulgaria (BG), Estonia (EE), Croatia (HR), Lithuania (LT), Latvia (LV), Slovenia (SI), regRS of Serbia (RS), Montenegro (ME), Holy See (Vatican City State) (VA).

Now tell me, how many and which ones of these countries are more able to pay the increased prices than Great Britain?

And if you take a look at the A Hat in Time OST [DLC] (same post), then these same countries have to pay an increased price while AU, NZ, GB, NO, and CA get a discount:
A Hat in Time OST [DLC]
publisher: Gears for Breakfast

>> 11.79$ +18% regCZ, regDE, regIT, regRO, regRS, SE
>> 11.75$ +18% DK
>> 10.36$ +4% CH
** 9.99$ base
>> 9.89$ -1% PL
>> 9.44$ -6% AU, NZ
>> 8.92$ -11% GB, NO
>> 8.77$ -12% CA
>> 6.36$ -36% regAR, BR
>> 5.47$ -45% CN
>> 4.19$ -58% RU, UA, regUZ
It's the same company, why isn't the regional model the same for both the game and the DLC (OST)?

This is just one of many examples. As I said, the way countries are lumped together in regions and regional zones that are charged higher prices has nothing to do with them being "rich"; it's all about making the max projected profit in each region/zone.

Offering discounts to certain countries is a strategic decision to penetrate big markets with low to zero sales. More often than not, these are countries with high pirating rates, and while every pirated copy is not a lost sale, (a percentage of) the people behind them could be turned into paying customers, however not at the nominal base prices. So, they're set to be appealing enough that people would spend their money. In other words, discounts for these "poor" countries aren't loses, instead they make for profits the companies didn't have before, and quite likely wouldn't make otherwise.

Take Russia as an example - you were there, how much was GOG's percentage in that market before they started getting their discounts? Did it increase afterwards? Does it keep increasing? According to a GOG conference from a few years back, their presence there was practically non-existent, and based on data released recently (don't have the thread link at hand, and a tad too lazy to go dig it up), it's on a steady rise for the past couple of years. If GOG's presence increases in that market, so do the sales of companies.

As Starmaker said, the gaming market is an oligopoly, and these are things that make suits tick. No company has confirmed anything, but this is my take based on what I see.


avatar
MarkoH01: [...] Since I don't really know the number of those who'd boycott such regional priced goods I cannot agrue much here either. I doubt that those would matter much but they are there and if there would not be any need for RP why risk it at all?
It's not that complicated, and the actual number doesn't change anything. There is a need for regional pricing, but not the kind you think. It's directly related to the max projected profit, and since the model is still in action, the risk analysis says that the number of those not spending money because of regional pricing is negligible enough to not pose a risk to sales and growth.
Posted October 13, 2017
avatar
HypersomniacLive: complete and logic explanation of how regional pricing works for real and what the intention is....
Thank you HypersomniacLive. You really made your point and it makes absolutely sense. You are also correct when saying if the model is still in place that the few not participating in it cannot be important enough - did not think about that. You don't happen to be a lawyer by any chance? Your arguments are spot on imo (yes, I am really impressed here).

However there is one tiny little point I still would like to disagree and that is the statement that customers are WILLING to pay the price that is set through regional pricing. Because (if my English is not mistaken) willing is basically meaning that they want to and I for sure don't want to pay that price but because of missing alternatives (if I still want to play that game) I have no real choice. "Want to" sounds as if I would actually like to pay that price.
Post edited October 13, 2017 by MarkoH01
Posted October 13, 2017
avatar
immi101: And that model of dollar price == euro price never went away. Because evidently it DOES work and customers in Europe are willing (=stupid enough) to pay the surcharge.
avatar
MarkoH01: To be fair the model 1 Euro = 1 DM also never went away and the official course is nearly 2 DM : 1 Euro - which means we Germans are used to this unfair practice ;)
while companies certainly used the chance to sneak in higher prices during the introduction of the Euro, I think it is a massive exaggeration to say everything was converted 1:1 (ie everything doubled in price).
At least I don't remember it like that.
I'm fairly certain looking at some price index statistic would easily disprove that, but since it is Friday evening I'm too lazy to dig something up :p
in general I think the situation of the DM->Euro switch is way too different from the today's Euro<->Dollar dynamic to use it as an analogy here. let's keep that topic for some history thread ;)

avatar
immi101: And that model of dollar price == euro price never went away. Because evidently it DOES work and customers in Europe are willing (=stupid enough) to pay the surcharge.
avatar
Starmaker: It "works" to the extent that people are generally buying games but in no stronger positive sense. The market is an oligopoly, and customers in Europe can't* go and buy a specific game cheaper, and so a point of comparison doesn't really exist. "Let's charge Europeans more" sounds good to a suit, and suits will hold onto anything that sounds good.

*Also, "They're stupid because they don't quit gaming" is a stupid thing to say in the first place.
fair enough
I still think the response to this topic is in general a rather muted protest. Which I find odd.
Post edited October 13, 2017 by immi101
Posted October 13, 2017
high rated
avatar
MarkoH01: However there is one tiny little point I still would like to disagree and that is the statement that customers are WILLING to pay the price that is set through regional pricing. Because (if my English is not mistaken) willing is basically meaning that they want to and I for sure don't want to pay that price but because of missing alternatives (if I still want to play that game) I have no real choice. "Want to" sounds as if I would actually like to pay that price.
The fact that you're "willing to pay" a price does not mean that you "want to pay" said price, it means that you "can accept" paying said price. The opposite being "not willing", which is when you would not pay said price, but instead go without the good, or acquire it in another way that you figure has a lower price.

For example, you might figure that stealing bread is worth the risk of getting caught when you think the price of a loaf is high enough that you're unwilling to pay it (even though you're able to).
Post edited October 13, 2017 by Maighstir
Posted October 13, 2017
high rated
avatar
Olauron: A list of (possible) guests is a private matter of host. It is up to the host to share or not to share this list with another guests because inviting somebody is an intention and an action of a host.
avatar
HypersomniacLive: The host here is GOG, which is a business. <snip> let me say it one more time, customers were mentioned to other customers by uniquely identifiable names. That's a violation of their privacy if done without prior consent/permission, perhaps even a violation of business code, and certainly bad practice for a business, and no amount of NDAs changes this.
I made a similar point a few years back, when gOg had that swag giveaway for the 10 (or was it 20?) customers with the highest number of titles in their library. They made a thread and posted the names of those 10 customers, which I found to be information that they should not have been sharing. If the customer wants to say "Hey - I was one of them!" then that's one thing. The store doing it is something different, divulging information that the customer might not have wanted made public - even if only to a few other members - concerning their individual account.
Posted October 13, 2017
high rated
avatar
JMich: This does actually make me curious. Can you please link me (preferably in chat) the posts where this happened? Just to see if I can identify people through those posts.
This is exactly the thing I didn't want to happen, so I'd rather not.



avatar
MarkoH01: Now I am also curious because tbh I obviously don't see the problem. Even though legally speaking you may be correct here in terms that every buyer on GOG has the right to remain anonymous until he or she says otherwise. But just theoretically speaking I fail to see the point in which the fact that somebody was invited or was not invited would harm anybody - especially since nobody knows the exact criterias GOG used to select those who were invited. So being invited or being not invited imo does not say much about the person in question, or does it? Maybe I am missing information here but I really try to understand were the possible harm is. (Don't want to defend anything here - I just want to understand it).
Did my English fail me this badly? You've completely missed the point I was making; it's not about who was or wasn't invited.


avatar
MarkoH01: [...] However there is one tiny little point I still would like to disagree and that is the statement that customers are WILLING to pay the price that is set through regional pricing. Because (if my English is not mistaken) willing is basically meaning that they want to and I for sure don't want to pay that price but because of missing alternatives (if I still want to play that game) I have no real choice. "Want to" sounds as if I would actually like to pay that price.
Disagreeing is fine, and I'm not really trying to make you change your mind, just to see another perspective/take.

You say you don't want to pay the surcharge, yet you do because you want to play games that are regionally priced, hence you're willing to, and do, pay it.
I don't doubt that there are others in the same position as you, yet they still pay, and by doing so support the model. And then there are others that simply don't care, and they, of course, also pay.

The end result is that, for whatever reason, people are willing. Perhaps not all of them happily, but they do. And since a number of those not happy with the model still support it, those not supporting it will never become a critical enough mass to pose a risk, and in turn have the suits reconsider/adjust the model.
Posted October 13, 2017
In early 2017, six community members went to GOG HQ, and were never seen again.

Several months later, their footage was found.
Attachments:
gogp.jpg (84 Kb)
Post edited October 13, 2017 by tinyE
Posted October 13, 2017
avatar
HereForTheBeer: I made a similar point a few years back, when gOg had that swag giveaway for the 10 (or was it 20?) customers with the highest number of titles in their library. They made a thread and posted the names of those 10 customers, which I found to be information that they should not have been sharing. If the customer wants to say "Hey - I was one of them!" then that's one thing. The store doing it is something different, divulging information that the customer might not have wanted made public - even if only to a few other members - concerning their individual account.
This case is different. There is nothing (contrary to the "one of top10") about a customer that is revealed. It is just like GOG saying "Hey, we've randomly chose forum names and they are the following".
Posted October 13, 2017
avatar
HereForTheBeer: I made a similar point a few years back, when gOg had that swag giveaway for the 10 (or was it 20?) customers with the highest number of titles in their library. They made a thread and posted the names of those 10 customers, which I found to be information that they should not have been sharing. If the customer wants to say "Hey - I was one of them!" then that's one thing. The store doing it is something different, divulging information that the customer might not have wanted made public - even if only to a few other members - concerning their individual account.
avatar
Olauron: This case is different. There is nothing (contrary to the "one of top10") about a customer that is revealed. It is just like GOG saying "Hey, we've randomly chose forum names and they are the following".
It's not revealing that they won, but revealing that they have approximately X number of games in their library. This should be information kept between the customer and the store.

Sorry, that was my point, and I wasn't real clear about that in the earlier post.
Posted October 13, 2017
avatar
HereForTheBeer: It's not revealing that they won, but revealing that they have approximately X number of games in their library. This should be information kept between the customer and the store.

Sorry, that was my point, and I wasn't real clear about that in the earlier post.
I understand you point and I somewhat agree with it (it is not a big deal from my point of view yet it is revealing the previously unknown information about a customer, there is no doubt). But in case of invitation there is nothing to reveal, user names are public. There would be revealing information about a customer if the reason to invite those specific persons is revealed too and it is based on private information (like the top-something in case of games owned; on the other hand, if the reason is top-something of reputation, it is not revealing private information because reputation is public).
Posted October 13, 2017
high rated
avatar
HereForTheBeer: It's not revealing that they won, but revealing that they have approximately X number of games in their library. This should be information kept between the customer and the store.

Sorry, that was my point, and I wasn't real clear about that in the earlier post.
avatar
Olauron: I understand you point and I somewhat agree with it (it is not a big deal from my point of view yet it is revealing the previously unknown information about a customer, there is no doubt). But in case of invitation there is nothing to reveal, user names are public. There would be revealing information about a customer if the reason to invite those specific persons is revealed too and it is based on private information (like the top-something in case of games owned; on the other hand, if the reason is top-something of reputation, it is not revealing private information because reputation is public).
Yeah. Well, I think we have a decent idea of the criteria used for choosing people for the visit: certainly more than just a random thing, and I think it was a matter of reputation and not the Reputation number. After, the users themselves chose to reveal the whole thing. So I'm good with this specific case.

I'm making more of a statement of agreement with HypersomniacLive's position in general: the user can divulge any info about themselves that they want, and the store should keep things private unless the user gives permission.

Anywho, pretty cool that they got to go. I hope both sides have a better idea of the others' perspective on game ownership, the store, etc. More importantly, I hope it brings some improvements as a result.
Posted October 13, 2017
avatar
immi101: while companies certainly used the chance to sneak in higher prices during the introduction of the Euro, I think it is a massive exaggeration to say everything was converted 1:1 (ie everything doubled in price).
At least I don't remember it like that.
Maybe not everything but quite a lot - I do remember.
avatar
immi101: in general I think the situation of the DM->Euro switch is way too different from the today's Euro<->Dollar dynamic to use it as an analogy here. let's keep that topic for some history thread ;)
That's completely all right with me. When I said that it should not be more than a sidenote. I never intended this to be a discussion and I never expected it to become one :)

avatar
HypersomniacLive: Did my English fail me this badly? You've completely missed the point I was making; it's not about who was or wasn't invited.
I think it probably is more that way that my English is not good enough to understand what you are trying to say. So, if it is not the information of who is and who is not invited that could harm someone of which information are you talking about then? What sensible data is it that should not have been disclosed?
Post edited October 13, 2017 by MarkoH01
Posted October 13, 2017
avatar
GR00T: So, here it is: the companion to Wishbone's Tale:

GR00T's RETURN HOME ODYSSEY

*snip*
Holy shit, GR00T... I feel bad now for complaining about my train delay :-D

I'm glad you did finally manage to get home, but 34 hours?! I'd have been dead O_o
Pages:
1
10
20
30
40
41
42
43
44
50
60
70
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion6 community members went to GOG HQ(1041 posts)(1041 posts)
(1041 posts)