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

×
Hey Goggers;

As many of you know, we announced on last Friday that we are going to introduce regional pricing for 3 new games coming up on GOG.com soon. Looking at the amount of reactions (over 3,500 comments at this very moment), it is obvious that this change is making many of you guys worried. We must have failed to clearly explain why our pricing policy for (some) newer games will change and what this means as a matter of fact for our PC & MAC classic games, which account for over 80% of our catalogue.

To be honest, our announcement was a bit vague simply because our future pricing policy is not 100% set in stone yet and we were just worried to make any promises before it was. You know, GOG.com has been growing quickly (thanks to you!), and the more we grow, the more we are worried to make some of you guys disappointed. This is why we were so (over-)cautious with our announcement.

We should have just been upfront about why we've made these changes and what they mean for us in the future and what we're planning. So let's talk. To be clear: what I'm talking about below is our plan. It's a plan that we believe we can accomplish, but while it's what we want to do with GOG, it may change some before it actually sees the light of day. Please don’t blame me for talking open-heartedly today and telling you about the plans and pricing policy we want to fight for and eventually achieve. The below plans aren't sure. The only guarantee I can give you is that we’ll do our best to fight for gamers while still making sure GOG.com as a whole grows (because well, we still want to be around 50 years from now, you know!). So, enough for the introduction, let’s get things started.

Why does GOG.com need to offer newer games at all?

We've been in business for 5 years now, and we've signed a big percentage of all of the classic content that can be legally untangled. There are still some big companies left we're trying to bring into the GOG.com fold, like LucasArts, Microsoft, Take2 and Bethesda, but what classic titles will we sign in the future once we have those partners on-board? We need to sign newer games or else just fire everyone and keep selling the same limited catalog. Either we bring you “not so old” releases from 2010+ or brand-new AAA titles, because these will become classic games tomorrow. It’s as simple as that.

Also, well, we want to expand beyond just classic games, hence the fact we have been offering you brand-new indie releases for almost 2 years now. Why expanding? Well, obviously, because the more games we sell, the more legitimacy we have on the market and the more likely it is that we can achieve our mission: making all PC & MAC video games 100% DRM-free, whether classic or brand-new titles.

To be straightforward (excuse my French):DRM is shit-- we'll never have any of it. It treats legitimate customers like rubbish and pirates don't have to bother with it. It's bad for gamers, and it's also bad for business and our partners. We want to make it easy and convenient for users to buy and play games; rather than give piracy a try. Happy gamers equals a healthy gaming industry; and this is what we fight for. Anyway, I am sure you well know our opinions about DRM.

To make the world of gaming DRM-free, we need to convince top-tier publishers & developers to give us a try with new games, just like they did with classic games. We need to make more case studies for the gaming industry, just like we successfully did back in 2011 with The Witcher 2. It was our first ever 100% DRM-free AAA day-1 release. GOG.com was the 2nd best-selling digital distribution platform worldwide for this title thanks to you guys, despite having regional prices for it. We need more breakthroughs like this to be able to show all the devs and publishers in our industry that DRM-free digital distribution is actually good for their business and their fans. And when I say breakthroughs, I am talking about really kick-ass games, with a potential metacritic score of 85% or more, AA+ and AAA kind of titles.

And this is exactly why we signed those 3 games we told you about last Friday. We believe those 3 games can be massive hits for hardcore gamers, that they can help us spread the DRM-free model among the industry for newer games and we did our best to convince their rights holders to give GOG.com a try. One of those games, as you see already, is Age of Wonders 3. We're planning more titles even beyond these first 3 soon.

Alright, but why is regional pricing needed for those (only 3 so far!) newer games then?

First of all, you have to be aware of an important fact when it comes to newer games: GOG.com cannot really decide what the prices should be. Top-tier developers and publishers usually have contractual obligations with their retail partners that oblige them to offer the game at the same price digitally and in retail. When they don’t have such contractual obligations, they are still encouraged to do so, or else their games might not get any exposure on the shelves in your favorite shops. This will change over time (as digital sales should overtake retail sales in the near future), but as of today, this is still a problem our industry is facing because retail is a big chunk of revenue and there’s nothing GOG.com can do to change that. We need to charge the recommended retail price for the boxed copies of the games in order for developers (or publishers) to either not get sued or at least get their games visible on shelves. You may recall that our sister company CD Projekt RED got sued for that in the past and we don’t want our partners to suffer from that too.

On top of that, you have to know that there are still many top-tier devs and publishers that are scared about DRM-free gaming. They're half-convinced it will make piracy worse, and flat pricing means that we're also asking them to earn less, too. Earn less, you say? Why is that? Well, when we sell a game in the EU or UK, VAT gets deducted from the price before anyone receives any profit. That means we're asking our partners to try out DRM-free gaming and at the same time also earn 19% - 25% less from us. Other stores, such as Steam, price their games regionally and have pricing that's more equitable to developers and publishers. So flat pricing + DRM-Free is something many devs and publishers simply refuse. Can you blame them? The best argument we can make to convince a publisher or developer to try DRM-Free gaming is that it earns money. Telling them to sacrifice income while they try selling a game with no copy protection is not a way to make that argument.

Getting back to those 3 new upcoming games coming up. The first one is Age of Wonders 3, which you can pre-order right now on GOG.com. The next 2 ones will be Divine Divinity: Original Sin and The Witcher 3. We’re very excited to offer those games DRM-free worldwide and we hope you’ll love them.

Still, we know some countries are really being screwed with regional pricing (Western Europe, UK, Australia) and as mentioned above, we’ll do our very best, for every release of a new game, to convince our partners to offer something special for the gamers living there.

And don’t forget guys: if regional pricing for those few big (as in, “AA+”) new games is a problem for you, you can always wait. In a few months. The game will be discounted on sale, and at 60, 70, or 80% off, the price difference will be minimal indeed. In a few years it will become a classic in its own right, and then we have the possibility to to make it flat-priced anyway (read next!) The choice is always yours. All we are after is to present it to you 100% DRM-free. We are sure you will make the best choice for yourself, and let others enjoy their own freedom to make choices as well.

So, what is going to happen with classic games then?

Classic content accounts for about 80% of our catalog, so yes, this is a super important topic. We've mentioned here above that we can’t control prices for new games, but we do have a lot of influence when it comes to classic games. GOG.com is the store that made this market visible and viable digitally, and we're the ones who established the prices we charge. We believe that we have a good record to argue for fair pricing with our partners.

So let's talk about the pricing for classics that we're shooting for. For $5.99 classics, we would like to make the games 3.49 GBP, 4.49 EUR, 199 RUB, and $6.49 AUD. For $9.99 classics, our targets are 5.99 GBP, 7.49 EUR, 349 RUB, and $10.99 AUD. This is what we’ve got in mind at the moment. We’ll do our best to make that happen, and we think it will. How? Well, we have made our partners quite happy with GOG.com's sales for years - thanks to you guys :). We have created a global, legal, successful digital distribution market of classics for them. This market didn't exist 5 years ago. By (re)making all those games compatible with modern operating systems for MAC and PC, we've made forgotten games profitable again. When it comes to classic games, we can tell them that we know more about this market than anyone. :) Being retrogaming freaks ourselves, we know that 5.99 EUR or GBP is crazy expensive for a classic game (compared to 5.99 USD). We have always argued that classic games only sell well if they have reasonable prices. Unfair regional pricing equals piracy and that’s the last thing anybody wants.

What’s next?

We will do our very best to make all of the above happen. This means three things:

First, we will work to make our industry go DRM-free in the future for both classic and new games (that’s our mission!).

Second, we will fight hard to have an attractive offer for those AA+ new games for our European, British and Australian users, despite regional pricing that we have to stick to.

Third, we will switch to fair local pricing for classic games, as I mentioned above.

TheEnigmaticT earlier mentioned that he would eat his hat if we ever brought DRM to GOG.com. I'm going to go one step further: by the end of this year, I'm making the promise that we will have converted our classic catalog over to fair regional pricing as outlined above. If not, we'll set up a record a video of some horrible public shaming for me, TheEnigmaticT, and w0rma. In fact, you know what? Feel free to make suggestions below for something appropriate (but also safe enough that we won't get the video banned on YouTube) so you feel that we're motivated to get this done quickly. I'll pick one that's scary enough from the comments below and we'll let you know which one we're sticking to.

I hope that this explanation has helped ease your worry a bit and help you keep your faith in GOG.com as a place that's different, awesome, and that always fights for what's best for gamers. If you have any questions, comments or ideas, feel free to address them to us below and TheEnigmaticT and I will answer them to the best of our abilities tomorrow. We hear you loud and clear, so please do continue sharing your feedback with us. At the end of the day GOG.com is your place; without you guys it would just be a website where a few crazy people from Europe talk about old games. :)

I end many of my emails with this, but there's rarely a time to use it more appropriately than here:

“Best DRM-free wishes,

Guillaume Rambourg,
(TheFrenchMonk)
Managing Director -- GOG.com”
high rated
The following are my conclusions from this:

1. I have been a long time member and I always supported GOG as well as spread the word as much as I could for the confidence the company has built. For me as a gamer, GOG.com was not an online seller, it was a company that should be actively supported.

2. Now as it grew, it has transformed into a company which has no core values or no ideals for the sake of gaming industry. It is only seeking profit, which is perfectly understandable.

3. What is not understandable is that the company used the customer trust to become maybe the biggest after steam. Thereafter misused this trust for its transformation.

4. This does not however mean that I should stop buying from GOG. But for me, GOG's word has no value. Zero. This means that for every game, I make my purchases wherever convenient.

5. For newer games, this is almost always Steam. That is due to much better patching support as well as mostly better multiplayer capabilities. Please don't tell me GOG is DRM-free, as I said, for me this is what the case is at the moment and always subject to change.

6. For indie games, purchases should usually be made directly from the developers. There is no reason to support GOG. But there is good reason to support the devs. So why cut their share for GOG?

7. For old games, GOG still seems to be the best place to get them. This is also however may be subject to change as soon as a new "GoodOldGames" is formed by some entrepeneurs. I would happily switch all my purchases to another company, if there was one.

Please take the above as my personal, subjective feelings & opinions.
Post edited February 26, 2014 by damien
Thinking about it, it seems to me that Gog needs to change if it wants to be competitive with day one releases. It doesn't ship Linux versions (contrary to e.g. Gamersgate) and it's far from Steam's easiness of patching. Not a problem with old games, but I remember that when Magicka came out it got a patch every single day for a while. On Steam that was a breeze, on Gog that would be really annoying.
avatar
HeadClot: Honestly I want to see how bad these prices are in practice before I say what I am going to say.
You can already see how bad the prices are with Age of Wonders 3. For most of Europe, Africa and South America the prices are 37,5% higher than the US price. Even if you wanted to argue that some European countries are rich, that is certainly not the case for all of them. And Africa and many parts of South America aren't exactly known for their wealth either.
avatar
rampancy: No regional pricing was one of GOG's founding principles, in addition to being DRM-free and selling complete editions of games without DLC.
I don't want to start a debate over it, but I'm thinking goodies and value, not complete editions with no dlc. I don't recall them ever saying that.
why switch to fair pricing and not simply stay with flat (= equal) pricing? Let the banks take care of converting USD to EUR, etc. !
I can understand your point with regional pricing to be able to get new games on board. Switch them to flat pricing as soon as the price falls, end of story. Why convert EVERYTHING to regional pricing (which is - be honest - essentialy what "fair pricing" is) just because of these few new games?
This regional pricing model is simply just bulshit and I'm always trying to get around this by buying online from different countrys, since most keys from keystores in the US work just as well in the rest of the world. There will be ways to avoid the regional pricing at GOG and I'm sure I'm not the only one who will prefer those, even just to save a few cents...
Just throwing my opinion in here without reading the whole thread (come on - it's over 1.000 posts!!).

In the years that GOG has existed they have always done right by me. Fair prices, good games, and most important of all - NO DRM!! That they offer new games is great, and whenever possible I have always strived to buy my indie games first and foremost from GOG. If they expand their catalogue to include AAA titles - great! I will continue to strive to buy all my games from GOG.

That they start to include regional pricing is not a big deal in my mind. I can see the reasoning behind it and understand it. In the end, it only means that they are doing what almost every other retail seller in the digital market do, so... The fact that they are bothering to explain to their customers the reasoning behind it is one of the things that sets GOG apart from many other digital stores - most would simply give an announcement and that would be that. So kudos to you, GOG, for that.

The one thing that would make me stop buying games from GOG would be the inclusion of DRM. That is where I draw the line. That would make them just one among many, instead of the one shining exception that they are today.
avatar
rampancy: No regional pricing was one of GOG's founding principles, in addition to being DRM-free and selling complete editions of games without DLC.
avatar
JohnnyDollar: I don't want to start a debate over it, but I'm thinking goodies and value, not complete editions with no dlc. I don't recall them ever saying that.
You are correct. They never said anything about DLC. it was just good value and goodies. That can be interpreted as "complete editions and no DLC" I suppose, but that was never what they said. The DLC appeared about half a year or so after they ran their annual survey. The survey in question asked for opinions about season passes, DLC, etc. Apparently enough people must have expressed enough interest in DLC for GOG to try selling it (not me, but I'm not the sum of all GOG users).

This, folks, is why your answers to the yearly surveys are actually important.

avatar
borsook: Thinking about it, it seems to me that Gog needs to change if it wants to be competitive with day one releases. It doesn't ship Linux versions (contrary to e.g. Gamersgate) and it's far from Steam's easiness of patching. Not a problem with old games, but I remember that when Magicka came out it got a patch every single day for a while. On Steam that was a breeze, on Gog that would be really annoying.
But then again, Steam is in and of itself DRM. For many of us that use this site that means that Steam versions are not even an option, and what Steam does or doesn't have is pretty much a non-issue due to DRM policies. I can't comment on GamersGate as I do not purchase from them. The only other digital distribution company I use is GameFly, and even then DRM plays a major decision in what I do or don't consider as a viable purchase.
Post edited February 26, 2014 by photoleia
avatar
rampancy: No regional pricing was one of GOG's founding principles, in addition to being DRM-free and selling complete editions of games without DLC.
avatar
JohnnyDollar: I don't want to start a debate over it, but I'm thinking goodies and value, not complete editions with no dlc. I don't recall them ever saying that.
This was something that wasn't trumpeted as loudly as fair pricing and no DRM, and it was often lumped into the general category of "customer love". But (from what I recall, and my memory is fuzzy) the idea at the beginning was the GOG would sell games that were the "complete" editions, as opposed to making you buy games piecemeal.

avatar
photoleia: You are correct. They never said anything about DLC. it was just good value and goodies. That can be interpreted as "complete editions and no DLC" I suppose, but that was never what they said. The DLC appeared about half a year or so after they ran their annual survey. The survey in question asked for opinions about season passes, DLC, etc. Apparently enough people must have expressed enough interest in DLC for GOG to try selling it (not me, but I'm not the sum of all GOG users).

This, folks, is why your answers to the yearly surveys are actually important.
Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
Post edited February 26, 2014 by rampancy
I'm sure this has been mentioned already in one of the 50-odd pages, but the UK is a part of Europe. We may be separated from the continent by sea, but we're still European.
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: It seems facist regimes cannot be used as hyperbolic responses to hyperbolic uses of facist regimes.
avatar
Shaolin_sKunk: Except you didn't just talk about the fascist regime you also decided to include the single greatest atrocity committed in human history to prop up an argument regarding video games.

These are fucking toys. Real people with actual lives died thanks to the Nazis and you're going to compare that with having to pay more for your toys than someone else on the globe? That is fucking heinous to say the least.
You are correct.

I shouldn't have answered hyperbole with hyperbole.

That was immature of me, and I should have known better.
Okay, for me it is completely clear. With same pricing worldwide GOG gets less money of purchases from other countries, because, practically, THEY have to pay the VAT then.

(from the letter) --> "Earn less, you say? Why is that? Well, when we sell a game in the EU or UK, VAT gets deducted from the price before anyone receives any profit. That means we're asking our partners to try out DRM-free gaming and at the same time also earn 19% - 25% less from us."] "Earn less, you say? Why is that? Well, when we sell a game in the EU or UK, VAT gets deducted from the price before anyone receives any profit. That means we're asking our partners to try out DRM-free gaming and at the same time also earn 19% - 25% less from us."

So, to attract more developers, they had to do something about this and the plan of GOG is absolutely understandable to me.
avatar
photoleia: GOG is finding in a tough spot where they can't really win either way. At the end of the day though, the fact that they are DRM-free is the reason I came to their site. It is also the reason I continue to support them. They are one of the most visible faces of the DRM-free "movement" (if you will) and I see where they are coming from. I had honestly wondered how long they'd be able to maintain the no-regional pricing policy after what happened with the Witcher 2. GOG is also not saying that a return to region-free pricing is off the table. What I'm seeing is that they need to have their priorities. If they can show that DRM-Free Day 1 releases can be successful, then they will have more weight in the future. That weight could be used to get both DRM Free AND region free pricing ... they just don't have that kind of influence yet. Look at how far they have come in 5 years though. I've been around for just over 3.5 years of that and the (positive) changes that have occurred in that time are massive.

I guess it boils down to this guys - have a little faith. GOG has an established history of doing right by their customers and the gaming community. In the few times that they've misstepped, they have also had a history of making things right. Even those few missteps though, were the result of trying to do something that they felt would benefit the consumer base and their DRM-free mission. This experiment may not turn out the way that GOG intended - only time will tell. In the meantime, The French Monk has shown us that this is not being done without thoughtful consideration. Let's see where it goes, with the knowledge that GOG is gauging customer feedback and community response all along the way.

In the meantime please remember this - Calm/rational discussion is helpful. Reactionary responses made when emotions run high also have their place, but they generally to not result in productive conversation.
This.

However, the CEO's message is rather disheartening in the sense that they had struggled to convince other (more popular) devs and publishers to adopt the GOG business model post Witcher 2. That doesn't mean their efforts (and ours as customers) are in vain, but rather there's something lacking in the way they're selling the benefits to other devs and publishers. Also, it is kind of sad that other devs and publishers are hesitant of the GOG model even with enough supporting case studies, stats and even anecdotal evidence to support a DRM-Free and fair-pricing digital distribution model.

Even if there was an overall net loss made in selling a game on GOG it's probably worth a truckload more in exposure, branding and everything else in between that customers love in terms of respect, care and appreciation. Sometimes - just sometimes - it makes sense to make a financial loss if only to gain more exposure and respect in the long term.

The regional pricing move seems somewhat a retreat of sorts and maybe that's a sign of GOG yielding to market demand. Whatever it is they now have a trust/confidence issue to address as a whole and not just their business development team.

---

Personally, I'm for supporting devs financially, especially the ones that are worth supporting. I want to play their games, recommend them to others and be a part of their community. GOG already has a supportive payment model for devs (70/30 their way or an advanced royalty payment with a 60/40 return until the advanced payment is paid off) and, as far as we know, nothing's changed on that front. Logically, regional pricing on GOG makes sense.

Emotionally, I felt more could've been spent on a greater emphasis on transparency and on the ability to convey their message without the impression that they had little choice but to relegate to a transactional business model. Either way, GOG is a business and they have responsibilities to their customers. They just need to figure out who are their *real* customers.

-Martin
avatar
rampancy: No regional pricing was one of GOG's founding principles, in addition to being DRM-free and selling complete editions of games without DLC.
avatar
JohnnyDollar: I don't want to start a debate over it, but I'm thinking goodies and value, not complete editions with no dlc. I don't recall them ever saying that.
It was never described as a core value, but offering a complete game was something Gog did until last year when they allowed episodic games and DLC.
Awesome letter, very well written, thanks guys, everything is crystal clear now.

p.s. To those who think that regional pricing for new games is a bad thing - just do not buy these games, stick to the old games, it is that simple, whats the problem. This is a Good Old Games website, perceive new games as a bonus opportunity that is given to you - take it if you want it, leave it if you don't.
For me it is VERY CONVENIENT to have all my games (all my games!) on one! website, this is what I really want.
All my games under one account in the internet. No physical boxes that occupy expensive real estate, all the content in one digital place, under one account. This is the target state for me, and GOG is advancing forward to provide me with the opportunity to reach this target state.

FOR THOSE ABOUT TO GOG, WE SALUTE YOU!
Post edited February 26, 2014 by kiselev
avatar
turin1988: In hindsight I think GOG.com has grown too fast for its own good. It would be loved more as a very small, niche service dedicated only to DRM free classic games.
100% right on!!!

There's really nothing wrong with competing with newer releases as such. But what GOG has done, they have given up the very core values that created the service to begin with.

OK, DRM-free is still there... but let's be honest here, DRM was never a major problem with older titles, which used to be GOG's forte. You can take even any DosBox game from Steam, and with few copy-paste clicks, it will be a DRM-free game. And for other games, you can always find some cracked exe if needed.

What made GOG such a damn fine place was their dedication to preserving and reviving old school gaming, treating customers better than other services, offering complete editions of games, free soundtracks, fully patched games and one price for all, and on top of that, games were DRM-free from the moment you bought them.

Now, the only thing remaining is DRM-free. And as has been said, there are other services which make that as their main selling point, such as DotEmu. So what is the difference between GOG and DotEmu from now on?

And as for GOG trying to compete against Steam... well... I suppose getting even a small number of new game purchases equels to decent money, iow profits. It is totally understandable.

But there's also another thing to consider. The road GOG is following now, makes GOG "just another store". Had they chosen another path, let's say offering legal C64/Amiga/Atari ST games, things would be different. Of course it's not a great business as such... you would need to sell maybe 25 older games to gain the profits you gain from 1 regional ripoff game sale.

But by choosing that road, GOG would have chosen to become even more unique, if completely niche, service. So what is more valuable? To become another average store offering new lame games with regional prices, or becoming the only store in the world to offer older games and gaining de-facto monopoly in that business?

Well, GOG sure made their choice known loud and clear.
The problem is, most of GOG's most loyal customers never wanted them to compete with any other store, but instead, wanted them to remain faithful to those core values that they began with.