These were really great to read Wishbone. Thanks for posting them and can't wait to read the Epilogue. :)

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).

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): ** 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: 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.


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.

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.

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 ;)

fair enough
I still think the response to this topic is in general a rather muted protest. Which I find odd.

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).

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 is exactly the thing I didn't want to happen, so I'd rather not.



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.


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.

In early 2017, six community members went to GOG HQ, and were never seen again.

Several months later, their footage was found.

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".

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.

Maybe not everything but quite a lot - I do remember.
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 :)

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?

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