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”
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 for-profit companies is to make $.
avatar
PixelBoy: ...

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.
All companies are hardcore capitalist. Any company that states otherwise is a liar. Corollary: All companies lie.
avatar
oneworldoneprice: I'm not so sure you guys are as influential in the realm of classic games as you once were. Many titles from your classic catalog have been popping up on Steam or other sites (can't fault publishers for doing so, as your site did demonstrate that classic games could still be profitable). Night Dive Studios had to step in and help you guys secure games like System Shock 2 and I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream. I don't hold it against you that this is the case, and it's certainly not due to a lack of effort. Limitations of signing other highly sought classics are almost completely out of your control, so I sympathize, but I don't agree your influence is still as strong as it once was. That is evident in the fact that you've had to shift your catalog to incorporate indies and newer titles. I'm not criticisizing that, as it has worked out well for you overall.
Is it really "out of their control" and "certainly not due to a lack of effort"? What exactly happened that gog isn't "as influential in the realm of classic games" as they once were, what is the upper hand of Night Dive and others that are securing oldies and doing gogs "job" in this regard lately? I'm genuinely curious here, because it's an aspect I'm most concerned about (and the notion that after gog signs "LucasArts, Microsoft, Take2 and Bethesda" there will be no more worthy old games to seek out seems ludicrous to me).
Post edited February 26, 2014 by MoP
avatar
lunah: All companies are hardcore capitalist. Any company that states otherwise is a liar. Corollary: All companies lie.
[ ] You have worked in a few companies.
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!
avatar
lunah: 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.
Did you miss ethics class? Also, I'm not antagonizing, that's such an ugly and padded word. I'm simply insinuating that your lack of ethics places you in the same league as a company that produces one of the worst modern military shooters to date.
This announcement obviously divides the GOG community. Some of us will leave because they have a personal problem with GOG's decision. It is everyone's right to do so, of course. Personally, I do understand GOG's decision and I see no betrayal in it. Principles and core values are very important to me, but I think one should be open to think one's principles over. Sometimes you have to make compromises to achive your goal. Everyone has the right to change his opinion. GOG has the right to change its policy and terms of use. The market demands certain prices and conditions. GOG's market position is not strong enough to dictate the industry their conditions. I am surprised there is not more understanding in this community. GOG is not trying to punish us. They are trying to make the best out of the cirumstances which the market dictates.

Even with regional pricing, it does not mean that the new pricing will be unfair.

I also want to remind everyone that we all accepted GOG's terms of use. I quote: "GOG reserves the right to Change Prices and Availability of Products, which are subject to change at any time. [...] GOG may change, suspend, or discontinue all or any aspect of the Service at any time, including the availability of any feature, without prior notice or liability. [...] GOG at its sole discretion, reserves the right at any time, to change, modify, add or remove portions of these Terms of Use."

I know I cannot convince anyone and I don't want to. Everyone has the right to feel disappointed about the latest announcement and to delete his GOG account because of this.

GOG has already explained their decision. I think they don't have to give us any explanations at all. But they did, because they care about their customers. I don't expect any further justification on this from GOG.

No decision can please everyone. There will always be people who feel pissed of.
avatar
PixelBoy: ...

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
lunah: All companies are hardcore capitalist. Any company that states otherwise is a liar. Corollary: All companies lie.
Only examining every company and it's every member with a 100% certain lie detector would show your claim to be true.

But given what GOG.com, a company that has been build on "principles", has just done, the probability of your claim being true has increased.
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 $.
avatar
PixelBoy: 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.
And then there are customers who don't care about vegetarian pies, but recognise the higher quality of the bakery's home-made pies compared to the machine-made ones in the supermarket that are designed to be as cheap as possible to produce. Those might or might not care about that core value being broken (if nothing else, feeling sorry for their vegetarian friends).
avatar
Trilarion: Unfortunately we all aren't just averages. There will still be people in germany and people in russia where the situation is reverse. In these cases the situation is particularly screwed.
Of course there will always be exceptions, but there is no way for any digital store to know if the consumer they are dealing with is rich or poor. The best thing they can do is to take into account data from the average consumer. There are rich people in Africa, for example, but you can't really compare the average income in Africa to any country in Europe. The difference is brutal.

avatar
Trilarion: Still I think that three times more is brutal and not justified by differences in income.
But i think it's not fair to take the russian price tag as the base price. As others have already mentioned, the base price is the one set for the US. It would make more sense to compare the prices to the ones set for the US.

avatar
Trilarion: What is the meaning in earning more if you then have to spend more on the same things?
But that's economy for you. Things are always more expensive in places where people earn more. The more money there is in the local economy, the more expensive things become.

avatar
Trilarion: And there are cases when it just doesn't fit at all with the average salary, when the regional prices are partly uncorrelated with the income or the taxes and then regional prices vary just because the publishers can charge more.
Yes, i completely agree with you there. That's why i said that regional pricing is a double edged sword. It makes sense for russians to get lower prices than other countries, but it really doesn't make sense for australians to pay double the price an american would pay.

avatar
Trilarion: My view is more that $20-$40 is reasonable for a AA+ game like AoW3 and for many regions the price is probably partly or tremendously overcharged here. Regional pricing doesn't make anything cheaper but it makes things more expensive at least for some regions.
It does make things cheaper in Russia. Again, that's why i said regional pricing is a double edged sword. Some countries are indeed getting ripped-off.

avatar
Trilarion: Btw. how is the situation from Brazil with AoW3?
Well, we're not getting regional pricing from GOG, which means we get the same price as the US (U$39). On Steam it costs R$ 70 (something around U$30), cheaper than on GOG thanks to regional pricing. Not to mention the fact that i can buy with my local currency on Steam, which means i don't have to pay taxes for international transactions. Since Steam's DRM doesn't bother me that much, guess where i would buy AoW 3 if i wanted it? Can you understand now why GOG is offering lower prices for Russia?

avatar
Trilarion: And finally there are legal problems. What if I would travel to russia for a business or personal trip. Would I be allowed to buy cheap during this time? I guess so, but I'm not sure.
Yes, you would. I'm pretty sure StringingVelvet bought some games on Steam when he was in Georgia and didn't have any issues with it.

avatar
Trilarion: Yesterday I was really upset because of the incredibly big spread in regional pricing and the swift action of GOG to make the whole catalogue regionally priced which I didn't see the necessitiy for it (and still don't see).
Yes, i agree with you there. There was no need to switch older games into regional prices in my opinion.

avatar
Trilarion: Today I see it more relaxed. If prices in my area are too high I just won't buy. Like AoW3 for example. I won't buy it from GOG maybe I won't buy it at all.
That's exactly my view on it. I think there is way too much internet drama going on around here (not talking about you). Backstabbing? Betrayal? I mean, seriously? GOG is a company just like every other company in the world. Companies exist to make money, not to save the world from evil (evil being DRM and regional pricing). There are non-profitable organizations and charity institutions that try to make the world a better place, but companies exist to be profitable. And like every other company, GOG offers you products. You can either buy from them because you feel that you are getting a good deal or not buy at all.

I seriously don't understand why people treat GOG like a religion. It's just a a company like Valve, EA, Ubisoft, or any other, the only difference is that they have a different focus and strategy. GOG didn't start offering DRM-free games because they're the good guys sent by God to purge DRM from earth. They did so because they found it to be profitable. It's a marketing decision. Instead of trying to mimic Steam like every other digital store out there, they found out that there is an unexplored market out there: the DRM-free market.

For me things are more simple. If GOG offers me a good deal, i'll buy from it, if it doesn't, i won't. Same goes for every other company out there.

There is nothing wrong with not buying from companies because of principles. But for me "one world, one price" is not a principle i'm willing to fight for. I'd rather see GOG focus on DRM-free and proving that DRM-free is viable for big publishers. But this is my opinion.

avatar
Trilarion: The only thing that still interests me is how gifting especially cross-region gifting is developing? Any answers there already?
Don't know how that will work. I'm pretty sure GOG won't block cross-region gifting. Not even Steam blocks it, why would GOG?
low rated
avatar
lunah: 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: Did you miss ethics class? Also, I'm not antagonizing, that's such an ugly and padded word. I'm simply insinuating that your lack of ethics places you in the same league as a company that produces one of the worst modern military shooters to date.
So I lack ethics because I state observations of reality? Would it be more ethical for me to cover up the lies and pretend to live in a fairytale?
Still no blue post for quite a while ? Guess this wasn't up for discussion or reconsideration anyway. I give up. Removed everything but 3 "Old" titles from my wishlist. Will buy everything else from Steam. If GOG can go back on pricing, tomorrow they can go back on no-DRM and region-locking too. Might as well buy from Steam if nothing here is different from there.
high rated
avatar
lunah: 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.
Well I still disagree - money have always been in the center of business but I would argue that companies that only strive for money are successful (afaik even Google added ads not because "omg we will earn so much", but simply because they wanted their engine to be able to sustain itself ). There is always a need to adapt your vision to market realites, but I really doubt that GOG has such bad sales forecast, that it needs to change.

avatar
PixelBoy: ...

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
lunah: All companies are hardcore capitalist. Any company that states otherwise is a liar. Corollary: All companies lie.
I am a hardcore capitalist if it comes to my politic views. I belive in Libertarianism to be precise.
But there is really huge thing I don't think you understand about idea of free market - that it is driven by the consument.
Even if they are only companies that pretend to follow ethics, they DO pretend. They act AS IF they actually had them. Why ? Because they fear clients reaction. The backslash, the possible loss of clients.
It is no matter wheater company pretend to have ethics, or actually have them - the outcome is the same, they try to follow certain rules to please the customer. Because the customer demands them.
So don't tell us to stop bitching about companies because they have no ethics - that bitching is the force showing them what is acceptable and what is not.
Post edited February 26, 2014 by Darkalex6
avatar
Darvond: Did you miss ethics class? Also, I'm not antagonizing, that's such an ugly and padded word. I'm simply insinuating that your lack of ethics places you in the same league as a company that produces one of the worst modern military shooters to date.
avatar
lunah: So I lack ethics because I state observations of reality? Would it be more ethical for me to cover up the lies and pretend to live in a fairytale?
You are compounding lies with more lies. Two wrongs aren't going to make a right here, and 2+2 will not equal 6.
avatar
Darvond: I'm simply insinuating that your lack of ethics places you in the same league as a company that produces one of the worst modern military shooters to date.
Let me ask you one thing: what's wrong with making a game that people want to buy? You're talking about COD, right? Has it ever occurred to you that there are people who enjoy modern military shooters and are willing to buy them? Activision doesn't force anyone to buy COD, does it?

Your post sounds to me like the same old elitism i'm used to read around here. "Activision is unethical because they make games that i don't want to buy". Same applies to EA and Battlefield.
Post edited February 26, 2014 by Neobr10
avatar
Darvond: and 2+2 will not equal 6.
It depends on in which algebraic Field we are doing that calculation :D
Post edited February 26, 2014 by Darkalex6
GOG could kick the drm-free principle at any time, even before their latest announcement. This fact has not changed at all. I know some people here will argue GOG has lost out trust...
Their Terms of Use can change at any time, and that is so from the beginning.