lightnica: Take a look at the information GOG requires when creating an account:
(desired) username
(desired) password
email address
date of birth

I don't think that GOG processes transaction differently based on where your from. In fact I'm not entirely sure that they even know where your from.

GameRager: ...

OneFiercePuppy: ...

Gersen: If you are selling a car or an airplane then maybe you have to care about that, otherwise, no. You don't have to give a damn about it, it's the buyer responsibility to pay for customs and to make sure that he is authorized to import the goods he buys not yours. When you sell some goods it's the law of the seller that is applied, if your website is in the US the it's US law that apply, no matter where your buyer is located.

HereForTheBeer: I'm not talking about paying the Customs fees. I'm talking about the cost of generating the necessary documentation with regards to tariffs, Customs, and trade agreements. So yes, I DO have to give a damn about it. I ended up creating 4 different documents to ship that $24 order. There is a cost to that complexity, even when going between two neighboring countries that have similar economies and are operating under a trade agreement. And that's just one nation. The rules are different, in small or large ways, for any other nation one wishes to do business with.

Now, if I'm understanding GOGs pricing model, GOG is sucking up any Customs / tariffs costs on behalf of the customer. This is shown in the checkout screen, where it states:

...snip...

They also cover any sales tax, and I would guess they also cover tariff costs. This doesn't happen for free. Different nations will have different rules and it probably happens that they make more per transaction from some nations than from others. Again, there is a cost involved. Should GOG be forced to operate at a loss if transactions to one particular nation cost more than the incoming revenue from the sale?

HereForTheBeer: I'm not talking about paying the Customs fees. I'm talking about the cost of generating the necessary documentation with regards to tariffs, Customs, and trade agreements. So yes, I DO have to give a damn about it. I ended up creating 4 different documents to ship that $24 order.

GameRager: Yes....just cover the cost across the board and all will be fine.

Also lrn2electronics document filing. Paper filing is bullshite nowadays anyways.

HereForTheBeer: So you think a company should be forced to face a loss for sales, by being forced to sell in a particular market where the cost of doing business overwhelms revenue? See, that doesn't make any sense to me.

HereForTheBeer: Yeah, I get the "loss-leader" concept for a small set off items, and where the price can change as market conditions change. But this is a different situation for a couple reasons. First, the loss-leader is voluntary for the business (in some states, it's illegal). Second, we're talking about just a few products out of the entire catalog, versus forcing the company to offer the entire catalog for sales to all nations, and all the admin and support costs that go along with it.

Anyway, my position is that this ought to be left in the hands of the business that has to pay to make it happen. Within our own country, we don't force businesses to sell and ship nationwide just because they have a web presence. Taking an admittedly absurd example, should your local furniture store be forced to ship a sectional sofa to me simply because I feel like buying from them? Kinda blurring things since there's a difference between physical and digital distribution, but I think it goes to the argument that having a website that can be viewed worldwide does not mean that you must sell worldwide.

Hesusio: That would be because it's their site and content and as such they can do with it as they please. Contrary to what you seem to believe, you and everyone else is not entitled to it.

HereForTheBeer: Yeah, I get the "loss-leader" concept for a small set off items, and where the price can change as market conditions change. But this is a different situation for a couple reasons. First, the loss-leader is voluntary for the business (in some states, it's illegal). Second, we're talking about just a few products out of the entire catalog, versus forcing the company to offer the entire catalog for sales to all nations, and all the admin and support costs that go along with it.

Anyway, my position is that this ought to be left in the hands of the business that has to pay to make it happen. Within our own country, we don't force businesses to sell and ship nationwide just because they have a web presence. Taking an admittedly absurd example, should your local furniture store be forced to ship a sectional sofa to me simply because I feel like buying from them? Kinda blurring things since there's a difference between physical and digital distribution, but I think it goes to the argument that having a website that can be viewed worldwide does not mean that you must sell worldwide.

orcishgamer: That's right, black people totally can't come into my restaurant either!

(if you're thick, that's sarcasm to illustrate that Hesusio is wrong, though it's a commonly held misconception)

Hesusio: And you're, what, the fifth person in this thread to compare blocking digital content in certain countries to racism, despite the fact that it's been shown to be a completely wrong comparison several times?

orcishgamer: The point stands, you don't always have the right to say who consumes your services, the state can step in and tell you otherwise. If you'd like we can compare it to mothers breastfeeding in public, there's laws on the books in several states that prevent shopowners and service providers from refusing to admit or serve them. There's even laws in some areas forcing you to serve a topless woman if a topless man would be served.

Enjoy, you can shout slippery slope all you want. It's an incorrect viewpoint that a content or service provider gets to set all the rules for their content and services, clearly they don't.

EDIT: I see no one who has "proven" any of this to be an in-apt comparison. You made a broad statement that was implied to be valid all the time, all you have to do to call BS on something like that is find one case where it's not true. Just because 10 people went "Duh, Jim Crowe laws!" merely means it was obvious to 10 people.

HereForTheBeer: I think you're missing a significant point. People love to criticize "greedy big business", using the argument that profits trump all else. Your paper states something to the effect that "there's money to be made in those other countries, so those companies should be trying to get it." If we stick to that reasoning, then there is likely some financial reason that they don't pursue that business, that revenue.

With regards to your questions above, here's how I see it:

If someone inside America wants to buy a product form me, I don't care what ethnicity flows through their veins, or their nationality. It makes no difference to my own costs of doing business, so selling to a white guy is the same is selling to an Afghani, Filipino, Venezuelan, or one of those dirty Canadians. ; )

If someone from outside the US wants to buy my product (Canadians being the only ones so far), I have to consider the cost of completing that sale. For instance, I have not the first idea of what paperwork hoops one must jump through to sell to South Africa, what tariffs need to be dealt with, Customs procedures, the international agreements and laws regarding product support, and on and on. After spending umpteen hours finding the answers to these issues, it may turn out to be a losing proposition for my business to take on those customers.

Since my items are advertised online, should I be forced to accept a loss simply because I would be forced to sell to all who ask? I would point out, also, that there is a significant difference between refusing entry to a physical store and refusing to complete an online sale. In-person sales means that the cost of that sale is equal, regardless of national origin of the buyer; any difference in profitability comes from the specific products purchased and the method of payment. Customs and import / export rules, should the buyer be taking the product out of the country, become the problem of the buyer, not the seller or shipper. Edit: there are probably some restrictions for certain products; for instance, a sale of prescription medications to a foreigner in Canada might incur some extra costs.

As shown previously, online sales are not necessarily equal when ordered from different nations. This applies to both a physical product shipped to the customer and digital products 'delivered' digitally, as both face import and export restrictions, tariffs, etc. As the buyers we don't usually see the hurdles of completing these sales, but they do exist and there is a cost to dealing with them.

Hesusio: It's an in-apt comparison because your assumption that it simply must be bigotry rather then a legitimate, financially motivated reason is bullshit. Do you have any idea what kind of paperwork and added costs are involved in selling internationally, digital or not? Let's just say, it's not exactly cheap. Since another poster summed it up far better then me, I'll simply direct you to his post:

orcishgamer: I didn't say it had to be bigotry as a motivation. You said "That would be because it's their site and content and as such they can do with it as they please. Contrary to what you seem to believe, you and everyone else is not entitled to it. "

I said hold on, there's some pretty clear precedent that this is not true in physical locations, your broad assertion is wrong.

orcishgamer: It has nothing to do with bigotry, it has to do with disproving the absurd assertion that only one party's rights matters. Neither shopkeepers nor service providers maintain unilateral privilege to do whatever the hell they want. There's some pretty damned clear case law on the matter if you care to look it up. I'm not even arguing that all service providers somehow need to instantly serve the whole world, just that your statement is wrong.

Geddit?