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”
avatar
john_hatcher: I'm not exactly sure, if you are being a little sarcastic here, but the above post is simply my opinion and I will not stop you from discussing for the next 80 odr so pages, but I have made my decision and wanted to let the Gog staff know. And that is it for me, for now.
avatar
Lilim: Absolutely no sarcasm there! I actually think that you're post is an example of a proper decision making as a customer (regardless of the decision whatsoever). Sorry if it sounded otherwise :-)
Then a big sorry to you.
And I see it the way you do. I have no problems with people who still buy games from GOG, but I have a certain expectation from GOG, which they now do not deliver (from my point of view) and hence my decision to stop doing business with them.
avatar
Magnitus: Companies are not people. They don't have "principles". People have principles.
I don't know the law up there but here in the States they are legally considered as people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: And if a company adopted "principles" as a policy to please their target demographic?
Then, it wouldn't be a principle, it would be a company policy.

The key emphasis is on immutability.

A principle is a driving force that will shape policy. A policy is a way of functioning that is currently convenient, but may not be tomorrow.

GOG is DRM-free, because DRM-freedom is a principle that its customer base takes to heart, but if they stopped doing so "en masse" tomorrow, I guarantee you that they'd consider revisiting that policy.

avatar
hedwards: So do psychopaths. It's also a matter of semantics as in the distant past, the people running GOG had actual integrity.
If the company is traded in the stock, it has zero integrity.

If the company is ran by a marketing/finance guy, integrity is unlikely.

If the company is owned by someone who isn't running it (ie, cash cow), integrity is equally unlikely.

Overall, if the company is ran by more than 2-3 individuals sharing equal power and has been around for a while, the only thing they are likely to have agreed on is maximizing profits so integrity is very likely to have taken a back seat in this scenario as well.

And even if the company are ran by the most benevolent of owners, if it's beyond a certain size, mid to lower level management is very capable of corrupting the intent.

Integrity doesn't come easily to groups of people. You have to work hard to get integrity in a group.

avatar
Magnitus: Companies are not people. They don't have "principles". People have principles.
avatar
Rusty_Gunn: I don't know the law up there but here in the States they are legally considered as people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Just because the law says it is doesn't mean it is.

In my humble opinion, this is one of the things we got wrong in our system of law.
Post edited February 26, 2014 by Magnitus
high rated
avatar
lunah: It is so amazing how my people here supposedly claim to be "betrayed" by a company for abandoning "core values." The only core value of all pro-profit companies is to make $. Even many non-profit or charitable companies exist solely to pay wages to its workers. I thought this was common sense but apparently there are people out there who believe some companies to be their parents or lovers. Just be glad you are getting this awakening in the very harmless and meaningless setting of video games.
There are mainly two types of companies on market:
a) Those who do what they do to make money
b) Those who make money to do what they do

Both companies are of course trying to earn money, but the reasoning behind is different.

For example a company may want to make a game to earn a lot of $$$. So they analise the market, and make the game that is currently most popular. They make it so that anyone could play it. They make it for "every one to play". Then, there is hardly any place for passion in such project - you are doing certain things, because you want to fit your game into categories that sell best.
On the other side, company may solely want to make a great game. The game they thing is awesome. And with money earned, they will want to make another one - the focus here is not on profit, but actually having ability to pay yourself for creating your vision.
See the difference ? One approach is to, as you have said, make $ - that is our goal. Other one is to make $ in order to make another cool product.

I am not here to judge any type of approach, both have pros and cons, and both exists on market because there is need for companies working in such ways.
But what I am saying, I have been led to belive that GOG was a passion project, a company that is of type "b", a company which has a certain vision and tries to achive it. And now it's dropping down elements of its vision, with no particular reason besides cash. So, it is showing that their focus may not be where we though it was. And thus, we feel 'betreyed' .
Because we though we were supporting something more than a online-shop - if I wanted just that, i could have gone really anywhere else.
low rated
So much delicious drama going on everywhere, including game discussion forums and wishlists, m-m-m! Just as delicious as back when they transitioned from beta to final with a (bad) joke and people started questioning their ethics. But hey, that went and gone and forgotten. So as will this.

But really, it's unfortunate to see one of the promises broke and people leaving/boycotting the site heartbroken over a measure to get more publishers and avoid all that crap that they had to deal with Namco Bandai with TW2's pricing (.. if I'm right.) in order to keep the store going with more classic, indie and AAA games provided with no DRM.

And hey, it could be worse, MUCH worse. They could've just straight abandoned DRM-Free stance and repackage every game with online-only client, just to please Bethesda. IF that happened then I would fully understand quitting GOG for good and sticking to Humble.
Attachments:
Post edited February 26, 2014 by V_Racer
avatar
hedwards: No, the reason GoG is where it is today is due to shrewd marketing/advertising. A master salesman can sell regardless of product or demographic. If GoG is good at sales, it does not need your business or any of the supposedly "betrayed" customers. For everyone of you who leave, ten more will come.

Businesses that fail don't fail because of lack of good will, they fail because of poor salesmanship.
avatar
lunah:
Salesmanship can't change the fact that people despise you. You look at a listing of the most despised companies in the US and damn near all of them have a monopoly of some sort preventing people from buying elsewhere.

GOG's gotten a way with a lot over the years because of our support, and apparently they've gotten a bit big in the head as well. I'm not going to be buying from Steam as a result of this, but I will be giving Shiny Loot, Dotemu, the Humble Store and the others with DRM free games more of my business as a result of this.
low rated
avatar
lunah: It is so amazing how my people here supposedly claim to be "betrayed" by a company for abandoning "core values." The only core value of all pro-profit companies is to make $. Even many non-profit or charitable companies exist solely to pay wages to its workers. I thought this was common sense but apparently there are people out there who believe some companies to be their parents or lovers. Just be glad you are getting this awakening in the very harmless and meaningless setting of video games.
avatar
Darkalex6: There are mainly two types of companies on market:
a) Those who do what they do to make money
b) Those who make money to do what they do

Both companies are of course trying to earn money, but the reasoning behind is different.

For example a company may want to make a game to earn a lot of $$$. So they analise the market, and make the game that is currently most popular. They make it so that anyone could play it. They make it for "every one to play". Then, there is hardly any place for passion in such project - you are doing certain things, because you want to fit your game into categories that sell best.
On the other side, company may solely want to make a great game. The game they thing is awesome. And with money earned, they will want to make another one - the focus here is not on profit, but actually having ability to pay yourself for creating your vision.
See the difference ? One approach is to, as you have said, make $ - that is our goal. Other one is to make $ in order to make another cool product.

I am not here to judge any type of approach, both have pros and cons, and both exists on market because there is need for companies working in such ways.
But what I am saying, I have been led to belive that GOG was a passion project, a company that is of type "b", a company which has a certain vision and tries to achive it. And now it's dropping down elements of its vision, with no particular reason besides cash. So, it is showing that their focus may not be where we though it was. And thus, we feel 'betreyed' .
Because we though we were supporting something more than a online-shop - if I wanted just that, i could have gone really anywhere else.
Type "b" companies don't exist. Many type "a" ones disguise themselves as "b" as a sales tactic. I am not cynical. I'm just telling it like it is.
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: About Steam "DRM-free" games: there's no reliability in making them work. There are several games on the list, which I tried to make work, but they didn't. I didn't get any support in this case because Steam games are not meant to be used that way.
avatar
PixelBoy: Well, there are Steam games which *ARE* DRM-free, and there are games which *CAN BE TWEAKED* DRM-free. If you download any of the games which are DRM-free as is, they WILL work. I have tried. They work.

Of course any games which require registry hacks, patches and such to work without Steam client are another thing. Too bad if the hacks didn't work for you, but that can happen.

But those Steam games which are DRM-free are sometimes the very same files you find here, for example, just the method of downloading is different.

Of course the best thing is to buy DRM-free, that's true.

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: About Devs: come on, now I am supposed to keep track of 1000+ devs and the 1000+ accounts I will have to make with them to play/maintain/get support for their games? Way to make an appealing sale.
avatar
PixelBoy: It is an option.
Basically all you need is an Excel file in alphabetical order to keep track of your games. That's what I do.
Each game has it's own row, which shows what medium the game uses (disk, CD, DVD, file), there's a column indicating whether or not there's a patch for the game, there's a column for the online store where the game was bought from, etc.

So if I need to find all games that I have on GOG, I don't need to login to GOG service, I simply load my Excel file and use a "GOG" filter, and there it is.

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: I still don't understand why people find it unacceptable to wait till the right time to buy games.
avatar
PixelBoy: Me neither. There's always going to be a price drop, if the price itself is the issue.
But the thing is, with regional pricing "the next guy" is always getting the better deal, at least where I live in. So no matter how long you wait, you don't get that fair price.

It is not unacceptable to wait for the right price, it is unacceptable that one must MOVE OUT OF THE COUNTRY for the right price.
Or just accept being ripped off game purchase after game purchase.

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: @ your other post: good for you. But since you've never experienced service from other stores, my guess is that that's why you're not understanding why GOG is not unique in having to follow the rules which have been laid out for it.
avatar
PixelBoy: 1) What made GOG so unique to begin with, was that they chose not to follow the rules, but instead, laid a set of rules of their own. Which they made their very visible PR points. And which they have now, later, abandoned, and try to sell that policy change to us as great news.

2) Just because I haven't bought from the stores you mentioned, assuming that I have "never experienced service from other stores" is making up facts which have nothing to do with real facts.

The fact is, that I have about 1500 legal PC games in my collection.
Admittedly, some of those are remaining from the times when I used to write game reviews as a freelancer, and in addition to a small writing fee, I got to keep the games (with only one exception, which was some Star Trek game).

I have also bought bundles from HIB, IR, BIAB, Groupees and few other places, I have bought from DotEmu and so on. Not to mention Kickstarting several games and buying straight from the developers.

So while I haven't experienced the pleasure of being a paying Steam customer*, I believe that even with my limited understanding, I am entitled to voicing my opinion.

* = I did once "buy" a commercial game from Steam with a 100% discount though, if that matters. And yes, I can run that game without any Steam client installed.
About steam "DRM-free" games: yes, too bad for me, indeed, which is why I don't spend money on so-called DRM-free games which need to be tweaked, and only those on which are listed as truly DRM-free, or are from a reliable DRM-free seller, like GOG. So you can capitalize "will work" all you want, but giving those games as an example of DRM-free Steam games is not good for your argument.

It's entirely possible to get the other DRM free games from the Devs as well, so why use Steam or GOG? Read on.

About Devs: Again, come on, man- now I have to use a spread sheet to keep track of my games? That sounds reliable and convenient for sure! In theory, I wouldn't mind paying Devs straight up for DRM-free installers, but it's a matter of convenience for me- I don't want to use a spread sheet to track my fucking DRM-free games, so no thanks- I'll stick to my GOG account.

About flat price: Why do you think paying the lowest price is a "fair" price? You're buying a luxury item, essentially, and you're not forced/entitled to pay any other price besides the one which suits you.

It's funny how you're being anti-GOG and proposing we buy straight from Devs, and then in the same breath you're saying, I am entitled to the lowest, low price possible because it hurts my feelings that someone else is paying less, I don't care about your effort/art; you're not being consistent.

My perspective is that if it suits your wallet, buy it. If not, then don't.

About GOG rules: Yes, I agree- they changed a rule upon which they marketed themselves. But let's be honest- flat price was always a bad rule, anyways- it's good for some people, but for others it creates the same "unfair" scenario; at least now, people in Russia, for example, get to pay less. So essentially, nothing has changed- some people will still pay more than others.

But again we come to this problem of video games not being something which are a human rights-based necessity- they don't demand any inherent need for fair pricing. So for people to sit in the luxury of their homes, with working electricity and internet, and to demand to pay less prices on toys is so fascinating to me.

Secondly, you are free to type here all you want, but I think since you're not actively exposed to buying games from other stores, you can't really appreciate why people are suggesting it's okay to wait to buy till they're at a price which suits your interests.

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: Can you also mention, for the record, where you're going to get your DRM-free, flat priced games now?
avatar
kaileeena: You keep confusing principals and options. Yes GOG is the best option currently to get DRM-free games but its a company that has no principals as far as I can see, so yes most will still use GOG to get their dosage of DRM-free games once their backlog is done or if a crazy great title came but they are no longer supporting GOG. and just an FYI a lot of the reasons community is great here is because people are supporting GOG, gifting, re-buying games just to support GOG, being helpful and I don't think a lot of people are interested in supporting a company with no principles and doing business as usual.
I get where you're coming from, but GOG is neither our family, nor our friend, so I think it's unwise to be so attached to their principles. Or if you care, then I guess you could extend some leeway for understanding why they might be doing XYZ, and only in so far as you think it suits you. It's up to you, really.

edit: logging off, will reply later if there's anything interesting.
Post edited February 26, 2014 by cmdr_flashheart
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: And if a company adopted "principles" as a policy to please their target demographic?
avatar
Magnitus: Then, it wouldn't be a principle, it would be a company policy.

The key emphasis is on immutability.

A principle is a driving force that will shape policy. A policy is a way of functioning that is currently convenient, but may not be tomorrow.

GOG is DRM-free, because DRM-freedom is a principle that its customer base takes to heart, but if they stopped doing so "en masse" tomorrow, I guarantee you that they'd consider revisiting that policy.
They revisited the "one world, one price"-policy, even though the customer base didn't stop doing so "en masse", so I guess you are correct.

When GOG.com made all those statements about having principles that they would stick to, they were simply lying to their customers to get their money.
Post edited February 26, 2014 by Ichwillnichtmehr
avatar
hedwards: ...The only reason that GOG is where it is today, is because of the early customers that believed in what GOG was representing itself as...
avatar
lunah: The reason GoG is where it is today is due to shrewd marketing/advertising. A master salesman can sell regardless of product or demographic. If GoG is good at sales, it does not need your business or any of the supposedly "betrayed" customers. For everyone of you who leave, ten more will come.

Businesses that fail don't fail because of lack of good will, they fail because of poor salesmanship.
Don't you have some company to make a souless husk? That kind of talk is sickening. A master salesman cannot sell me shampoo to restore hair to a balding head, because I've got plenty of hair. What need, or even want would I for even more hair?

Go back to Infinity Ward where you belong.

Are you telling me that Nintendo is failing to sell the Wii-U, despite it being a poorly executed concept, underpowered, and an abysmal failure of content, just because they can't 'sell it right'? Businesses have indeed failed due to a lack of consumer goodwill, combined in part with plenty of other factors!
avatar
Niggles: GOG is pretty much the only DRM free store (maybe aside from the tiny DotEmu one) out there. Everyone else is pretty much a steam key reseller or heading there fast
avatar
ViDRa: Humble Store and Gamersgate has also DRM free games. GOG is now only ordinary shop... without Steam keys...
Humble Store and Gamersgate both offer DRM-free downloads on only a minor subset of their entire catalog, certainly much fewer than are available on GOG. Humble is still a lot better than Gamersgate in this matter. This being said, I hate seeing GOG move to a less fair and more Steam-like pricing model in spite of a stated policy not to, and until at least the EU price is brought down to match the US price, I'll more likely turn to Humble Store for my (hopefully) DRM-free gaming fix. I don't mind paying more than regions with obviously less purchase power such as Mexico or Africa, but I very much do mind the 1$ = 1€ business model because in the world of digital downloads it can't really be justified the way it can when it comes to physical goods (transports, import taxes, V.A.T, toll fees and whatnot).
Post edited February 26, 2014 by XzavierHyde
avatar
lunah: The reason GoG is where it is today is due to shrewd marketing/advertising. A master salesman can sell regardless of product or demographic. If GoG is good at sales, it does not need your business or any of the supposedly "betrayed" customers. For everyone of you who leave, ten more will come.

Businesses that fail don't fail because of lack of good will, they fail because of poor salesmanship.
avatar
Darvond: Don't you have some company to make a souless husk? That kind of talk is sickening. A master salesman cannot sell me shampoo to restore hair to a balding head, because I've got plenty of hair. What need, or even want would I for even more hair?

Go back to Infinity Ward where you belong.

Are you telling me that Nintendo is failing to sell the Wii-U, despite it being a poorly executed concept, underpowered, and an abysmal failure of content, just because they can't 'sell it right'? Businesses have indeed failed due to a lack of consumer goodwill, combined in part with plenty of other factors!
No, a business does not fail due to lack of good will, because "good will" is only a means to an end. Successful salesmen find other means when good will is unavailable. Businesses that fail lack successful salesmen.

I'm not sure why you used antagonistic language against me. I'm just stating observations of reality. The more you know about how the world works, the more wiser and informed decisions you make, and then you will not be "betrayed" by any company again in the future.
avatar
Darvond: Are you telling me that Nintendo is failing to sell the Wii-U, despite it being a poorly executed concept, underpowered, and an abysmal failure of content, just because they can't 'sell it right'? Businesses have indeed failed due to a lack of consumer goodwill, combined in part with plenty of other factors!
"Please understand. I would like to apologize for not properly advertising the unique features of the Wii U!"
high rated
avatar
lunah: It is so amazing how my people here supposedly claim to be "betrayed" by a company for abandoning "core values." The only core value of all for-profit companies is to make $.
While you are technically speaking correct, you are also very wrong.

There is such a thing as "ethics", even in business. It doesn't exist as a legal concept, but it exists as a working method for the company.

If a bakery makes a promise to use only vegetarian ingredients to make pies, that's a core value for that company. Those customers who feel that vegetarian values are important are going to buy pies from that bakery, even though the nearest supermarket offers better deal price-wise for a factory-made meat pies.

If that bakery later would make an announcement "Great news! We are expanding our pie ingredients to high-quality pork!" you would not see customers approving that.

Now those people who have been buying meat pies from that supermarket, really don't care either way. And if that bakery offers lower prices, they can start buying products made by that bakery.


I think you have confused the concept of "core values" with "survival".
Every company in free economy must in the end make more money than running the company takes.

But there is room for business ethics, unless you are a hardcore capitalist, who would accept doing anything which is legally possible to ensure maximized profits.
avatar
Darvond: Are you telling me that Nintendo is failing to sell the Wii-U, despite it being a poorly executed concept, underpowered, and an abysmal failure of content, just because they can't 'sell it right'? Businesses have indeed failed due to a lack of consumer goodwill, combined in part with plenty of other factors!
avatar
Grargar: "Please understand. I would like to apologize for not properly advertising the unique features of the Wii U!"
Unique features that I might add that even Nintendo themselves are having trouble figuring out uses for. :B

Also, you can only say 'Please Understand' so many times before your goodwill is smashed asunder.