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: 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
Darkalex6: 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
lunah: All companies are hardcore capitalist. Any company that states otherwise is a liar. Corollary: All companies lie.
avatar
Darkalex6: 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 not ethics - that bitching is the force showing them what is acceptable and what is not.
My post is for those who felt "betrayed." If they realize that companies play pretend, then they would not be betrayed in the future. If you don't believe in Santa Claus, when your father's Santa Claus suit slips and reveals it was really your father, you would only laugh rather than cry.

Also companies don't care about your "bitching", they care about quarterly sales figures. The "bitching" only gives them a hard on.
Post edited February 26, 2014 by lunah
avatar
Snickersnack: A reversal would be disappointing but so long as GOG sticks to DRM-free distribution I wouldn't leave. I just might not have anything to buy. :(
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: You don't think there would be anything in GOG.com's old catalogue, or in the new(hypothetically less AAA/AA+) releases that would interest you?
DRM-free is the most important quality for me in proprietary games. I already have all of GOG's catalog of classics that appeal to me. While I'm sure they'll be able to add a few more 'must have' oldies, they seem to have most of the low hanging fruit. I prefer my indy games free/ libre and GOG has never offered many of those. That leaves games from mainstream studios. Newer games from mainstream studios tend to be entwined with platforms like Steamworks, GfWL, Uplay, etc. Games that depend on one exclusively very seldom see a platform neutral re-release or even a change of platform to keep them on the marketplace (see all the games soon to be fscked by the closing of GfWL). I'm concerned that if GOG doesn't line up newer mainstream games in development they are likely to never to see them that all. In such a scenario, I would have nothing to buy. :(
avatar
Darkalex6: 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.

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 not ethics - that bitching is the force showing them what is acceptable and what is not.
avatar
lunah: My post is for those who felt "betrayed." If they realize that companies play pretend, then they would not be betrayed in the future. If you don't believe in Santa Claus, when your father's Santa Claus suit slips and reveals it was really your father, you would only find it amusing rather than feel betrayed.

Also companies don't care about your "bitching", they care about quarterly sales figures. The "bitching" only gives them a hard on.
They do if that bitching translates to sales. My bitching has direct translation to sales - and I sure hope that on GOG a lot of people have the balls to be consistent and consequent.
Also, I felt and still feel betrayed in some way - and it's not because I believe that every company in the world is saint, it's just because I choose to support and buy from that companies that I like and feel ok with. That I feel that are doing something good, or at least not doing anything wrong. And GOG ceased to do so.
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: 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.
Well, then don't do it.
But, you only need to enter those games there once and they will remain in that file for as long as that file exists/computers are able to read it.
To this date, I haven't found more convenient way to keep track of media than Excel.

PROTIP:
You can even create separate sheets for different genres, but use a reference to the main list to get the information from. When you update game info in the main list, it automagically updates in genre-specific sheets too.


avatar
cmdr_flashheart: 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.
Well, that much is certain.
Two billion people in the world have never used any computers, so this is really a luxury issue to begin with. That doesn't change the problem we are facing. Unless you are proposing closing down GOG and using the liquidated assets to support poor countries in Africa or some place?


avatar
cmdr_flashheart: 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.
Don't put words to other people's mouths.
The original claim was that there is no other way besides GOG to get DRM-free games, or to get fair pricing. Buying from developers was mentioned as an option, not as a suggestion.

I also never said that I am entitled to the lowest price. My complain is that I am forced to pay the highest price?

Why do you deserve to get the very same game for less money than I do? And since you are living in a country which is statistically wealthier than mine, any claims about lesser purcasing power can be forgotten.


avatar
cmdr_flashheart: 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.
In flat pricing method, everyone is treated equally by the store.
In regional pricing method, everyone is treated unequally.

Yes, in both cases somebody is paying relatively more and relatively less.

But the underlying concept and ideology is completely different. First is fair and equal, second is discriminating and exploitative.

I guess you can't see the difference, because for you the prices will be the same in either case (if your country there is your real country, that is).
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: You don't think there would be anything in GOG.com's old catalogue, or in the new(hypothetically less AAA/AA+) releases that would interest you?
avatar
Snickersnack: DRM-free is the most important quality for me in proprietary games. I already have all of GOG's catalog of classics that appeal to me. While I'm sure they'll be able to add a few more 'must have' oldies, they seem to have most of the low hanging fruit. I prefer my indy games free/ libre and GOG has never offered many of those. That leaves games from mainstream studios. Newer games from mainstream studios tend to be entwined with platforms like Steamworks, GfWL, Uplay, etc. Games that depend on one exclusively very seldom see a platform neutral re-release or even a change of platform to keep them on the marketplace (see all the games soon to be fscked by the closing of GfWL). I'm concerned that if GOG doesn't line up newer mainstream games in development they are likely to never to see them that all. In such a scenario, I would have nothing to buy. :(
The new releases on GOG.com have increased, more and more games announce that they will realease on GOG.com(as well as other platforms), and Kickstarter games are nearly all realeased on GOG.com, so I don't see a problem in that regard.
high rated
I kind of get the management's idea: If there are enough people who are stupid (sorry, I mean enthusiastic) enough to pre-order games, then chances are those people are also stupid (sorry, goddammit, I mean enthusiastic) enough to pay a rip-off price and not to grasp the long-term implications of GOG abandoning their principles and bending over to the publishers.

@GOG: It was probably alarmingly naive of me to have trusted you in the first place, since, after all, you're not idealistic revolutionaries but businessmen. I'm not really angry, just disappointed. Sad.

My 2 cents.
avatar
lunah: My post is for those who felt "betrayed." If they realize that companies play pretend, then they would not be betrayed in the future. If you don't believe in Santa Claus, when your father's Santa Claus suit slips and reveals it was really your father, you would only find it amusing rather than feel betrayed.

Also companies don't care about your "bitching", they care about quarterly sales figures. The "bitching" only gives them a hard on.
avatar
Darkalex6: They do if that bitching translates to sales. My bitching has direct translation to sales - and I sure hope that on GOG a lot of people have the balls to be consistent and consequent.
Also, I felt and still feel betrayed in some way - and it's not because I believe that every company in the world is saint, it's just because I choose to support and buy from that companies that I like and feel ok with. That I feel that are doing something good, or at least not doing anything wrong. And GOG ceased to do so.
In the future, if you wish to not feel betrayed again, do not develop "brand loyalty" and don't make purchasing decisions based on intangible "principles" or "goodwill." That is my advice. However, if you want to continue letting companies play with your feelings, that is your choice. Their power over your emotions is only as much as you give to them.
Post edited February 26, 2014 by lunah
Damn, a lot of posts on this issue! I don't really like going regional (even though I am American), but I do understand why they did it. It's a matter of business and they want to provide more options to the drm free community. It's not to say that this is to the benefit off the customer though. It's to grow their business and make more money.

I take no issue with those legitimately concerned, but I do call b.s. on many of those swearing to never buy again from the site. If you don't agree to the asking price, then don't buy until it falls within reason of what you would pay.

With all that said, I will continue to trust gog.com, but will carefully look at any future changes that may occur..... I will also be backing up my existing games just in case!
avatar
lunah: My post is for those who felt "betrayed." If they realize that companies play pretend, then they would not be betrayed in the future. If you don't believe in Santa Claus, when your father's Santa Claus suit slips and reveals it was really your father, you would only laugh rather than cry.

Also companies don't care about your "bitching", they care about quarterly sales figures. The "bitching" only gives them a hard on.
when they break the public trust in them, that is is precisely where they can feel it. the sounds of credit cards being sheathed, wallets & checkbooks slamming shut although inaudible is likely very loud to their bottom line
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.
avatar
Neobr10: 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.
avatar
Neobr10: 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?
avatar
Neobr10: 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.
avatar
Neobr10: 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.
avatar
Neobr10: 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?
avatar
Neobr10: 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.
avatar
Neobr10: 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).
avatar
Neobr10: 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.
avatar
Neobr10: 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?
avatar
Neobr10: 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?
I think that what happened to many people, maybe including me in some regard, is that the GOG customers had the ideal that GOG had a week before. They just feel like happy customers in a great store that they could relate to because of that principles and ideals. For most, or for a lot of the customers here, GOG was not only one more digital store, but was the one that they feel was great with the customers due to that principles. And I think GOG know or knew that. People were not just buying games because they wanted to play them or find them a 'good deal' but instead they were buying because they were supporting with their money a digital store and its publishers and developers partners that had that same great principles DRM-free, one-world pricing. Now, after GOG abandon one of them, people felt like they were betrayed, that their money, which was suppose to support such principles, is going now to just a digital store like any (or almost any) of the others that exists in the market. They, GOG, lose a lot of their special quality with this change.

People didn't like the change at all, and it was worse because GOG did the announcement as a "Great News!" post. I for example, would be doing the same as you, and I think is the most logical thing. Continue to buy games that I feel great acquiring, but since I don't like that kind of pricing for digital old games (it just doesn't make any sense to me) I just don't buy the games that has abusive prices in any region, but that's just me. GOG is now for many people just one more digital store where you could buy, for now, DRM-free games a bit expensive than in other digital stores.
avatar
lunah: My post is for those who felt "betrayed." If they realize that companies play pretend, then they would not be betrayed in the future. If you don't believe in Santa Claus, when your father's Santa Claus suit slips and reveals it was really your father, you would only laugh rather than cry.

Also companies don't care about your "bitching", they care about quarterly sales figures. The "bitching" only gives them a hard on.
avatar
Rusty_Gunn: when they break the public trust in them, that is is precisely where they can feel it. the sounds of credit cards being sheathed, wallets & checkbooks slamming shut although inaudible is likely very loud to their bottom line
Indeed. Just ask Lululemon.
Two words: Slippery Slope. A fallacy in Logics, a very real risk in the World Of Things.
avatar
BinaryPoet: 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.
Yes, they can their policy and I accept that, however I reserve the right to be unhappy with some changes and bitch about it. And yes, they can lose our trust by changing policy.

Again I do not care that much about those 3 AA+ games, but when it comes to older games I want to be able to choose currency and price in which I pay, I do not want to be forced to pay in euros if it is cheaper for me to pay in dollars. Again gog can do whatever they want, worst case scenario is that I will stop buying games here... I may be just a drop in the ocean but the ocean is formed by tiny drops. Without them, there is no ocean.
avatar
lunah: My post is for those who felt "betrayed." If they realize that companies play pretend, then they would not be betrayed in the future. If you don't believe in Santa Claus, when your father's Santa Claus suit slips and reveals it was really your father, you would only laugh rather than cry.

Also companies don't care about your "bitching", they care about quarterly sales figures. The "bitching" only gives them a hard on.
avatar
Rusty_Gunn: when they break the public trust in them, that is is precisely where they can feel it. the sounds of credit cards being sheathed, wallets & checkbooks slamming shut although inaudible is likely very loud to their bottom line
Every business venture entails risks. In the search for more customers/sales, GoG risked alienating some current customers. It will be interesting to see how it plays out and if the payoff is worth the risk. Many here seem certain that the result will be/is a loss, but I am excited to see what ingenious plans/manuvers GoG will pull off. Perhaps everything here is going according to their master plan. I am always eager to find young companies with great talent that deal expertly with risk and overcome adversities. It is like watching a good chess match.
Post edited February 26, 2014 by lunah
The thing that makes me resign is that I know that we can complain all we want - it won't change anything.

Let's face it, it all comes down to profit. We are just those who are allowed to pay and play along the rules the publisher make.
And GoG does not skip the opportunity to make some extra money by playing along with the publishers games.

I understand that profit is what makes a company go round but is it really worth it? Especially if it seems like it worked out before.

I think probably it will be a neutral win/loose situation for GoG in the end. They will loose some and gain some customers. But that result will probably be seen as a win-scenario because after that, all or most of the skeptics are gone and a following change of the ToS won't cause that much rumble.
Post edited February 26, 2014 by Fakum12