Same here - I get the USD price ever since the beginning of the Summer Sale, though I can't say with certainty if it was in EURO before that (hadn't checked lit ately). My guess is that either it's been flatted out for this sale or it has already moved to flat pricing. But we'll only know for sure after the sale's over or if a blue text chimes in. ;-)

And I'm seeing $ instead of £ here.

I guess it's the same for many new releases that have regional pricing restrictions. Case in point Witcher 2. Initially different regions had different prices (and fair price vouchers, where applicable), but after a while it went to a single price globally, as it is now.

I think that it may have to do with deals made with retailers. After that expires, GOG is free to go the 1-world-1-price way as usual.

Eh, no - GOG has to work it out with the devs/ pubs and only if they agree we'll see flat pricing.

But there are no games with regional pricing except specific new releases. So if what you are saying is true, that would translate to either having the game in the catalogue or not at all.

I think it has being mentioned before that the reason behind regional pricing is retail shops and contractual deals with them. I could be wrong though, not really following the business part of gaming all that much.

If you are in the know and can shed some light, I would appreciate it.

Games released here before the announcement of regional pricing are flat priced, because that was the only model GOG was operating under. But you need to keep in mind that regardless of retail, the devs/pubs set the price and they had to accept GOG's flat pricing model. The flat pricing model (along or independently of DRM-free) is speculated to have been the obstacle for some publishers not being here, like LucasArts and Take-Two Interactive (no on can say for sure, as these things are always all hash-hash). So yes, if they didn't agree, the games didn't get a GOG release.

With regional pricing introduced, GOG's still going to try to get releases under the flat pricing model, but if that fails, games will get a regional priced release here. And yes, it's tied to retail publishing deals, but even with that out of the way, it's not up to GOG's sole discretion to switch prices from regional to flat, and devs/ pubs still have to agree to it. That means, that there's always a chance that a game released with regional pricing never goes under the flat pricing model.

TW2 was the odd title that was struck by the regional-retail-pricing mess back then, yet it was released here (regionally priced) because it's a CDPR title - was there any other title released regionally priced before the official announcement a few months back? Being a CDPR title is the reason it can't be used as the norm to judge how things will turn out for titles from third party pubs.


I'd have expected a celebratory announcement for AoW3 permanently going flat priced because of the uproar the initial announcement caused. Not saying that it hasn't, but only the end of the Summer Sale will tell for sure.

As for the rest of the catalogue, that's still open - it could very well happen when agreements come up for re-negotiations, there are no guarantees. But so long as GOG's compensation policy is in place, I don't expect regional pricing to become the norm on GOG as that could drive them out of business sooner than later.

The Witcher 2 was not actually released region priced, but rather that was something that was added afterwards, due to a court case

My memory might be a bit hazy, but I think the thread you linked was about the use of Geo-IP system to determine buyer's location and that they couldn't just rely on good ol' trust they had been thus far.

My first game bought here was a pre-order of Witcher 2 and I had paid the full European amount, $60.97. I've kept the receipt. As you can see from my joining date, that was a few months before December 2011, the court case announcement and the forced use of Geo-IP.

Here's a snippet from the post from the fist paragraph: Maybe someone that remembers clearly might want to chime in to correct me, but I think that they were charging according to location from the first day.