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

×
Community
General discussion (archive)<b>Letter from the M.D.</b>: About Regional Pricing(5517 posts) (5517 posts) 
(5517 posts) 
Pages:
1
75
131
132
133
134
135
225
300
368
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 25, 2014
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”
Posted February 26, 2014
high rated
A chance to argue with Commodore_Flashmob? Sweet.

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: Maybe you should read the polite, sincere, and considerate posts which mention why it's futile to keep going on like this, and why going on despite the futility is a mark of belligerence.
Way back at the end of 2011 (as memory serves) CD Projekt RED was going after pirates based on IP addresses on torrents. The subsequent backlash from people who recognized it as "RIAA strikes: CDPR Edition" complained about how they were only going after people in countries where it was advantageous, as well as explaining how IP addresses can end up with innocents caught in the crossfire. Then there's the whole fact that they said they wouldn't bother with all of that in the first place, so they were caught in a lie.

In the end, they stopped doing what they were doing and apologized to their fans. Given that the two are sister companies, I wouldn't say that applying continued pressure on GOG is futile or belligerent (though some on both sides have been unnecessarily brutal).

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: It has been established that regional pricing is the industry standard, and there are forces much bigger than GOG which control that. So, what exactly do you hope to achieve here? GOG is pretty awesome, but they're not capable of redefining the whole playing field by themselves.
Steam-only releases are the industry standard, too, and GOG has managed to get a bunch of awesome games here and make bank; this place has continually grown and made more and more money each year, so it's not like the only options were "go against our principles or disappear into vapor." Just recently, this site saw games like The Banner Saga (admittedly not first-day, though the reasons behind that are fuzzy) and Blackguards, and smaller "new" games have shown up here before, so it certainly appeared that they at least had momentum. I can't help but think that it'd be a mistake to paint GOG as helpless pawns who are unable to affect change, because they already have in a lot of ways.

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: We can't hold it against them to want to do something they think is best for their vision (preserving DRM-free w/o flat prices), not anymore than they can hold it against you for not spending money at their store.
Sure we can. If you market your business on trust and then turn around and knock down one of the pillars of that trust, you very much deserve the backlash you get. How else can companies be kept honest?
Posted February 26, 2014
low rated
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: I am sorry, but others are entitled to have their opinion of your views, just as you are to have of theirs. Maybe you should read the polite, sincere, and considerate posts which mention why it's futile to keep going on like this, and why going on despite the futility is a mark of belligerence.

It has been established that regional pricing is the industry standard, and there are forces much bigger than GOG which control that. So, what exactly do you hope to achieve here? GOG is pretty awesome, but they're not capable of redefining the whole playing field by themselves.

We can't hold it against them to want to do something they think is best for their vision (preserving DRM-free w/o flat prices), not anymore than they can hold it against you for not spending money at their store.

Moreover, I keep seeing "one price, one world" but how is that even fair? People don't all have the same income, if that's our concern; though, I think it doesn't make sense to demand so-called "fair" pricing on non-necessity items, but whatever.

The best thing is to realize that you don't have to spend any money that you don't want to spend.
avatar
Shendue: I find incredibly ironic how you are suggesting i should avoid complaining while the very first sentence of your reply is "others are entitled to have their opinion of your views", because not respecting my opinion of your views is exactly what you are doing with your post.
Having different weights for your rights and other people's rights is not at all a sign of politeness.
I respect any constructive criticism, even if i don't necessarily agree, but telling people what they could and could not express is a harsh violation of the very principles of freedom of speech, that your own consitution takes in so high consideration, for very good reasons.
I do have any right to express my opinion on the subject and i will do. And i perceive any attempt to disrespect those opinions as an act several grades of magnitude more belligerant then anything complaining customers may have wrote.
As a matter of fact, i did read the posts you mentioned. And i disagree with them. I do not think complaining it's futile. Actually, there are plenty of gaming sites all over the world that are reporting and discussing the subject PURPOSEDLY because of those complaints in this very moment. I do believe, as a matter of principle, and i'm not just talking about GOG, here, that people SHOULD (not could, SHOULD) complain when they have to suffer unfair treatment and fight in any possible way to remark their own rights as customers. Do you disagree? Fine. No problem. I respect your opinion. But that won't make me change my mind, and i'll keep acting accordingly.
Again, did I tell you to shut up? I explained why what you're doing seems like you're creating drama, even though it might not be your intention.

More importantly, I am saying that you're not getting any mileage from your complaining because what you would like to change is very unlikely to change; it's out of GOG's control, that's why. I don't understand why you can't understand that. Or maybe I don't understand something, in which case, let me know.

Most people like saving as much money as possible, so for you to keep insisting that others are not understanding of your plight is plain wrong. I think it's a little overmuch for you to call this "untreatment"- again, you're not forced to buy games, you can just wait till the price suits you. Why is that unacceptable? Everyone does it, and not just video game players, but people don't take to the streets when they can't afford non-necessity items, like toys.

As for the gaming site reporting stuff, lol- that's what they live to do. Did you see them report anything in particular when thing are nice and calm? No- hubbub is their bread and butter, so to speak.

avatar
227: A chance to argue with Commodore_Flashmob? Sweet.

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: Maybe you should read the polite, sincere, and considerate posts which mention why it's futile to keep going on like this, and why going on despite the futility is a mark of belligerence.
avatar
227: Way back at the end of 2011 (as memory serves) CD Projekt RED was going after pirates based on IP addresses on torrents. The subsequent backlash from people who recognized it as "RIAA strikes: CDPR Edition" complained about how they were only going after people in countries where it was advantageous, as well as explaining how IP addresses can end up with innocents caught in the crossfire. Then there's the whole fact that they said they wouldn't bother with all of that in the first place, so they were caught in a lie.

In the end, they stopped doing what they were doing and apologized to their fans. Given that the two are sister companies, I wouldn't say that applying continued pressure on GOG is futile or belligerent (though some on both sides have been unnecessarily brutal).

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: It has been established that regional pricing is the industry standard, and there are forces much bigger than GOG which control that. So, what exactly do you hope to achieve here? GOG is pretty awesome, but they're not capable of redefining the whole playing field by themselves.
avatar
227: Steam-only releases are the industry standard, too, and GOG has managed to get a bunch of awesome games here and make bank; this place has continually grown and made more and more money each year, so it's not like the only options were "go against our principles or disappear into vapor." Just recently, this site saw games like The Banner Saga (admittedly not first-day, though the reasons behind that are fuzzy) and Blackguards, and smaller "new" games have shown up here before, so it certainly appeared that they at least had momentum. I can't help but think that it'd be a mistake to paint GOG as helpless pawns who are unable to affect change, because they already have in a lot of ways.

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: We can't hold it against them to want to do something they think is best for their vision (preserving DRM-free w/o flat prices), not anymore than they can hold it against you for not spending money at their store.
avatar
227: Sure we can. If you market your business on trust and then turn around and knock down one of the pillars of that trust, you very much deserve the backlash you get. How else can companies be kept honest?
Argue all you want :] I was leaving, so you're not going to get much, haha.

@ first point: psh, you people, you're too gung-ho on "keeping GOG honest", I don't understand this fetish. These people are human, and they make mistakes or can be wrong or contradict themselves- chill out, I think they've done SO much since then to "atone for their sins", and I don't know what else is required. A blood sacrifice!? I'll bring the altar ^^

@ 2nd paragraph: I get what you mean, but this is a whole 'nother beast- regional pricing is intertwined into the business of game selling in more ways than one. I think it's pretty amazing they were able to get away from it thus far.

@ 3rd paragraph: I can understand the reason for the backlash, but what I don't understand is why we think GOG can change the minds of corporate behemoths where regional pricing is concerned. It's true that these first three games are not from any "behemoth", but these are definitely a stepping stone for future games. Or do we want GOG to sequester itself into an uncompetitive corner, and just play with itself? That would be sad, I think.
Post edited February 26, 2014 by cmdr_flashheart
Posted February 26, 2014
high rated
avatar
KMJX: OK, I think most people here didn't get the actual message.

But let me clarify one thing first: I absolutely despise the way GOG.com dropped one of their core principles.

Now to the actual message:

- In that video of the conference that was linked somewhere in the other Thread, the GOG guys say, that in order to convince new publishers to join in on the GOG market, especially for the big ones, they need to do case studies to prove their model works and is profitable

- In the letter this is mentioned again, conveying the message that these 3 titles are the base for the case study they want to be able to present.
- Witcher 3 of course makes sense as it's their parent company's product, but that alone won't convince anyone. Having NAMCO/Bandai as distributor will still be a plus (name a company that your target can recognize and respect). Pretty sure the regional pricing thing could not be avoided, and getting another distributor didn't work, so they had to stick with what they had
- They went wit Divinity:OS, because they were already going to publish DRM Free, and as GOG supporters they want to help GOG grow. Regional pricing here is probably the result of wanting to keep the criteria for the case study consistent.
- for a case study to be taken seriously the needed at least one more Title, preferably in the "recognized brand/franchize" category. AoW3 presented itself as a good candidate because it overlaps with GOG's target audience. Quite possible that Regional pricing was asked as a conditional here too, in exchange for the DRMFree compromise.

So basically this whole Regional Pricing shitstorm is a case study that is aimed at proving the GOG concept as valid and profitable to the big names in the industry.
On the face of it, this seems like a reasonable explanation, and may even be true in the minds of those working at GOG.com. However, I cannot see it working in the way they expect, as I pointed out in my earlier post here: http://www.gog.com/forum/general/letter_from_the_md_about_regional_pricing/post1913

My understanding is that GOG.com are hoping for leverage to convince major publishers to release new AAA games DRM-Free on GOG.com, and their 'carrot on a stick' in return for going DRM-Free is the regional pricing model. They want to present evidence (these case studies) that show other publishers/developers were willing to 'opt in' to DRM-Free in return for utilising regional pricing. Correct?

Then how can they prove their point when at least two of the developers were going to provide their games DRM-Free from the outset? Larian Studios (creators of Divinity: Original Sin) had already stated their DRM-Free intent as far back as their Kickstarter campaign. So this independent developer (not backed by a publisher at all) has not been 'convinced' by GOG.com to become DRM-Free in exchange for regional pricing. They simply slapped regional pricing on in spite of the fact the game was already DRM-Free.

The Witcher 3, made by CD Projekt, was bound to come to their own GOG.com storefront anyway - which means they must have had DRM-Free in the back of their minds from the outset. Again, you can argue the case that this studio did not bargain to have regional pricing in order to be sold DRM-Free on GOG.com.

These two examples do not present a convincing case to a large publisher to follow suit, because both of these games are produced by independent studios not funded by publishers, and no major publishers took any risk to put those games on the GOG.com storefront as they were already intended to be DRM-Free releases.

From what I can see, essentially nothing was bargained for in order to obtain regional pricing for these games, which weakens GOG.com's stance when trying to convince major publishers to enter into negotiations to allow their AAA games to become DRM-Free on their storefront.

If these games sell in strong numbers, all they will prove is that their regional pricing model was accepted by customers - but not that the developers sacrificed DRM protection to make it work. That is a key element that is missing, and publishers will pick up on it.

Edited for clarity.
Post edited February 26, 2014 by StormHammer
Posted February 26, 2014
oops!
Post edited February 26, 2014 by rmuchall
Posted February 26, 2014
avatar
fr33kSh0w2012: I like my new avatar, I made this one myself! it's of myself!
avatar
monkeydelarge: Nice avatar. I like it.
you are going to LOVE this one! what you don't see is her wings and tail!

I made them using RPG Maker VX Ace, Took me a couple of minutes!

I'm going to replace her face with her real one which is Much Much more Like a cats!
Attachments:
angelique.png (19 Kb)
Post edited February 26, 2014 by fr33kSh0w2012
Posted February 26, 2014
avatar
Selderij: <span class="bold">Business strategy meeting at GOG.com headquarters.</span>
I love you.
Posted February 26, 2014
low rated
Well from i can see if you don t like the pricing on New releases, just ignore them, and gog won t have changed at all. Most new releases are crap anyway. Drm free is all that matters to me, at least when we re talking a few cents depending on currency rates on the entire catalog except these 3 games. I will never use steam again, and i don t have any interest in AOW3 but after reading all the assinine crap thats been spewed over the last couple days, i ll be preordering all 3 of these releases at full price in the hope that some of the new releases in the future i would like to play could come to gog drm free. I d be fairly bitter if steam/origin etc were my only way to play games. The fallout giveaway seems a long time ago.



.
Posted February 26, 2014
Just a quick reminder to vote here, if you wish to.
It won't change anything but at least it'll give us a count of people who care about this website's historic principles (I believe the appropriate term would be "antiquarians").
Posted February 26, 2014
avatar
monkeydelarge: Nice avatar. I like it.
avatar
fr33kSh0w2012: you are going to LOVE this one! what you don't see is her wings and tail!

I made them using RPG Maker VX Ace, Took me a couple of minutes!

I'm going to replace her face with her real one which is Much Much more Like a cats!
I love her eyes and white hair. The rest is nice too. I should get RPG Maker. I have a lot of good ideas and I'm sure all those good ideas would make an amazing RPG.
Posted February 26, 2014
Guillaume,

Thanks for posting this, I think many people needed the clarifications and reassurances. When I read the original announcement I automatically tried to think about what was behind it and quickly pieced things together myself and "got it". It made total sense to me that for GOG to keep growing as a company and to be able to keep bringing us new titles there has to be something to grow into and that while there are still "classic" titles not in the catalogue, GOG has done their best at bringing as much as possible here and that some titles are either tied up in legal complexities or the rights holders just couldn't be bothered or some similar reasons.

What some people don't realize is that limiting a store to *just* "old" games, restricts the businesses ability to grow larger and be more profitable. Also, what is an old game anyway? Who gets to decide the official meaning of the word "old" or even "classic"? Every individual does because there is no official definition of what an "old game" or "classic game" is other than how each individual chooses to see it themselves really. Some may argue about this but in doing so they only prove that the statement is true simply because if two people disagree about it enough to argue about it, there are differing opinions and no consensus. Thus, what is "old" for one person is not old in everyone's eyes. Either way, there is a finite limit of "old" or "classic" games no matter where someone draws the line and thus a hard limit of how much a company selling such games can expand and produce ongoing profit. I think the way GOG started out was a fantastic concept and very brilliant personally, but for a growing company to want to expand beyond their initial vision makes sense to me.

What makes even more sense to me though, is the core central vision of DRM-free. If one accepts the fact that this is the core mission, and that the company's views and ultimate end goal are to see all video games past, present, and future become available to customers DRM-free from day one as some sort of mission statement, then that is an amiable goal indeed which all gamers would benefit from regardless of all other conditions, including pricing paradigms.

You can have a set of values and and stick to them 100% rigidly and throw away many great opportunities which would allow you to grow your ultimate core mission (DRM-free gaming) potentially shooting yourself in the feet and ensuring the core mandate can never ever be reached via gridlock, or you can compromise on some things in a reasonable manner in order to reach the core mandate picking and choosing your sub-battles one at a time along the way. Too many people lose sight of the fact that in a war, sometimes you win battles along the way and sometimes you lose battles along the way but if you want to win and achieve your end master-goals you pick and choose those battles very carefully and sometimes have to compromise and give in to the opponent on some things in order for your goals to even be feasible.

I applaud GOG's ability to see this and to make such small compromises along the way knowing that it will make some people happy in the short term and some people unhappy, but making the big hard decisions now for the long term and not for the short term. As William Adama said in Battlestar Galactica, "Sometimes you gotta role the hard six." And it's true too. Sometimes we have to make difficult decisions which affect lots of people in various ways both good and bad in the short term in order to attain a long term goal that benefits everyone in the end and is greater than the losses along the way. It is especially important for a company to realize this and to make those difficult choices towards a long term goal such as this.

I for one believe that just like the music industry and book industry, that the movie/TV show industry and the gaming industry will eventually come around and realize that DRM harms consumers and also harms their own bottom lines much more than it helps either, and that they will move away from DRM eventually. I think that they all need to go through the long process never learning the lessons from other industries but having to figure it out for themselves, and that a company like GOG can help them by providing statistics along the way as the proof is in the pudding as they say.

As companies opt over time to go DRM-free and their games are released from the ridiculous prisons they are in, people will spend more money to enjoy them and everyone is happy. All of the other annoyances like regional pricing are completely separate issues to deal with entirely. They are IMHO not just another battle, but are a completely separate and orthagonically unrelated war altogether. To pair the two wars tightly bound together in parallel is to lose both wars simultaneously spreading oneself thin. Focus on one battle at a time however and one if not both wars can be fought and perhaps won serially over time, as well as many others.

I look forward to the expanding catalogue of games that will result from this decision now, and am grateful that I will have the option at my choosing now to spend a given amount of money for a particular game on GOG which I'd otherwise have had to buy from Steam or elsewhere previously if I wanted it. For example, I had to get Torchlight II from Steam because it just doesn't exist on GOG, and I waited forever for it to come here. I don't know if Torchlight II is one of the games held up on the regional pricing issue but if it is and it now might come to GOG, that is a huge win IMHO. Multiply that times all of the games we are missing out on here simply due to the pricing issue and a lot of good is to come I believe.

There are also economies of scale at play too. Every barrier to entry which can be reasonably removed or softened (and for the record everyone agrees that allowing DRM is not reasonable so nobody need get worked up about that concept) in the short term allows what GOG can do to scale and as this happens it will certainly catch the eye of bigger and bigger fish.

When we see AAA titles from all the big studios starting to show up at least once a month on their own first day of release, we'll know we've won the war on DRM. At that point, make a list of the other wars including regional pricing to fight, and rally the troops.
Posted February 26, 2014
avatar
Selderij: <span class="bold">Business strategy meeting at GOG.com headquarters.</span>
avatar
almabrds: I love you.
Agh hahahahahahahahahaha! THAT WAS AWESOME!
Posted February 26, 2014
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: Again, did I tell you to shut up? I explained why what you're doing seems like you're creating drama, even though it might not be your intention.

More importantly, I am saying that you're not getting any mileage from your complaining because what you would like to change is very unlikely to change; it's out of GOG's control, that's why. I don't understand why you can't understand that. Or maybe I don't understand something, in which case, let me know.

Most people like saving as much money as possible, so for you to keep insisting that others are not understanding of your plight is plain wrong. I think it's a little overmuch for you to call this "untreatment"- again, you're not forced to buy games, you can just wait till the price suits you. Why is that unacceptable? Everyone does it, and not just video game players, but people don't take to the streets when they can't afford non-necessity items, like toys.

As for the gaming site reporting stuff, lol- that's what they live to do. Did you see them report anything in particular when thing are nice and calm? No- hubbub is their bread and butter, so to speak.
"Going on despite the futility is a mark of belligerence" doesn't strike me as an invite to express freely my opinions. I think that keeping reacting to legitimate complaints based on strong logical reasoning and facts by minimizing them as "drama" is absolutely futile as well, since it's as useful as trying to stop a fire with gasoline.

The fact you think this is out of the control of GOG is where we are disagreeing. As far as i remember, that's their own store, so they have all the control they want. If companies don't agree to jump aboard with their games unless GOG throws away one of its core principles, then just don't add those games to your selection and stick to indie games. There's already plenty of stores selling those games anyway. The different offer mostly consisting of old classics and indie games is what attracted me in the first place.

As for the price, i don't accept it because having to pay different prices from other users for the very same things it's a scam. And when the very foundation of the popularity of this store is being fair to customers, i can't accept them advocating a scam.
I came on GOG because they were different and i believed in their vision. If they are no more, and their vision changed, i see no reason to keep substaining them. The fact that i can afford an ice cream priced 50 bucks doesn't mean that i wouldn't scream on top of my lungs to the seller that he's robbing people. Everyone just calmly wait for the price to lower and never complain, like good, obedient, mindless sheeps (i'm not trying to insult anyone, it's just that i can't prevent from seeing that behaviour as anything different)? And why exactly i should do the same if i don't understand at all such a behaviour and it seems to me it doesn't make any sense at all?

Gaming press reports stuff only when thing are troublesome and people argue about something? Well, i rest my case then. I'll keep being verbose about my points so they'll keep writing about it, helping more people to be informed about the situation.
Posted February 26, 2014
low rated
avatar
skeletonbow: Guillaume,

Thanks for posting this, I think many people needed the clarifications and reassurances. When I read the original announcement I automatically tried to think about what was behind it and quickly pieced things together myself and "got it". It made total sense to me that for GOG to keep growing as a company and to be able to keep bringing us new titles there has to be something to grow into and that while there are still "classic" titles not in the catalogue, GOG has done their best at bringing as much as possible here and that some titles are either tied up in legal complexities or the rights holders just couldn't be bothered or some similar reasons.

What some people don't realize is that limiting a store to *just* "old" games, restricts the businesses ability to grow larger and be more profitable. Also, what is an old game anyway? Who gets to decide the official meaning of the word "old" or even "classic"? Every individual does because there is no official definition of what an "old game" or "classic game" is other than how each individual chooses to see it themselves really. Some may argue about this but in doing so they only prove that the statement is true simply because if two people disagree about it enough to argue about it, there are differing opinions and no consensus. Thus, what is "old" for one person is not old in everyone's eyes. Either way, there is a finite limit of "old" or "classic" games no matter where someone draws the line and thus a hard limit of how much a company selling such games can expand and produce ongoing profit. I think the way GOG started out was a fantastic concept and very brilliant personally, but for a growing company to want to expand beyond their initial vision makes sense to me.

What makes even more sense to me though, is the core central vision of DRM-free. If one accepts the fact that this is the core mission, and that the company's views and ultimate end goal are to see all video games past, present, and future become available to customers DRM-free from day one as some sort of mission statement, then that is an amiable goal indeed which all gamers would benefit from regardless of all other conditions, including pricing paradigms.

You can have a set of values and and stick to them 100% rigidly and throw away many great opportunities which would allow you to grow your ultimate core mission (DRM-free gaming) potentially shooting yourself in the feet and ensuring the core mandate can never ever be reached via gridlock, or you can compromise on some things in a reasonable manner in order to reach the core mandate picking and choosing your sub-battles one at a time along the way. Too many people lose sight of the fact that in a war, sometimes you win battles along the way and sometimes you lose battles along the way but if you want to win and achieve your end master-goals you pick and choose those battles very carefully and sometimes have to compromise and give in to the opponent on some things in order for your goals to even be feasible.

I applaud GOG's ability to see this and to make such small compromises along the way knowing that it will make some people happy in the short term and some people unhappy, but making the big hard decisions now for the long term and not for the short term. As William Adama said in Battlestar Galactica, "Sometimes you gotta role the hard six." And it's true too. Sometimes we have to make difficult decisions which affect lots of people in various ways both good and bad in the short term in order to attain a long term goal that benefits everyone in the end and is greater than the losses along the way. It is especially important for a company to realize this and to make those difficult choices towards a long term goal such as this.

I for one believe that just like the music industry and book industry, that the movie/TV show industry and the gaming industry will eventually come around and realize that DRM harms consumers and also harms their own bottom lines much more than it helps either, and that they will move away from DRM eventually. I think that they all need to go through the long process never learning the lessons from other industries but having to figure it out for themselves, and that a company like GOG can help them by providing statistics along the way as the proof is in the pudding as they say.

As companies opt over time to go DRM-free and their games are released from the ridiculous prisons they are in, people will spend more money to enjoy them and everyone is happy. All of the other annoyances like regional pricing are completely separate issues to deal with entirely. They are IMHO not just another battle, but are a completely separate and orthagonically unrelated war altogether. To pair the two wars tightly bound together in parallel is to lose both wars simultaneously spreading oneself thin. Focus on one battle at a time however and one if not both wars can be fought and perhaps won serially over time, as well as many others.

I look forward to the expanding catalogue of games that will result from this decision now, and am grateful that I will have the option at my choosing now to spend a given amount of money for a particular game on GOG which I'd otherwise have had to buy from Steam or elsewhere previously if I wanted it. For example, I had to get Torchlight II from Steam because it just doesn't exist on GOG, and I waited forever for it to come here. I don't know if Torchlight II is one of the games held up on the regional pricing issue but if it is and it now might come to GOG, that is a huge win IMHO. Multiply that times all of the games we are missing out on here simply due to the pricing issue and a lot of good is to come I believe.

There are also economies of scale at play too. Every barrier to entry which can be reasonably removed or softened (and for the record everyone agrees that allowing DRM is not reasonable so nobody need get worked up about that concept) in the short term allows what GOG can do to scale and as this happens it will certainly catch the eye of bigger and bigger fish.

When we see AAA titles from all the big studios starting to show up at least once a month on their own first day of release, we'll know we've won the war on DRM. At that point, make a list of the other wars including regional pricing to fight, and rally the troops.
More than +repping you, I would very much like to shake hands and buy you a cup of coffee (or other beverage of your preference).

Thank you for this excellent post, I'm snipping absolutely nothing, it needs to be read entirely.
Posted February 26, 2014
high rated
You're horrible for depriving me of the chance to argue with you at length until one of us is beaten and battered. Sigh.

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: I don't understand this fetish.
I've never thought of honesty as a fetish, but if it is, then bring on the ball gags because I'm the kinkiest one here.

Honesty is one of those things that has a history in gaming, and many people have memories of this company or that company suddenly beginning to mislead their fans about their priorities. Thinking that GOG will suddenly jump into DRM is slippery slope nonsense, but letting companies get away with saying one thing and then doing another has a proud history of leading nowhere good. In fact, that history is probably why emotions tend to run high when a company's honesty is questioned.

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: I don't know what else is required. A blood sacrifice!? I'll bring the altar ^^
Mm'kay, I'll grab the incense and tell Redge to meet us in the forest.

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: regional pricing is intertwined into the business of game selling in more ways than one. I think it's pretty amazing they were able to get away from it thus far.
That's really what makes everything so frustrating. It appeared that they were making real progress on both the DRM-free and one world price fronts, and then this comes out of nowhere.

Granted, one world price isn't that fair, but if this was about getting better deals for people in other countries, they would have been upfront about it and (probably) converted the back catalog first. Instead, it seems like the change to the back catalog is just a distraction from them giving up on fair regional pricing for new games.

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: It's true that these first three games are not from any "behemoth", but these are definitely a stepping stone for future games. Or do we want GOG to sequester itself into an uncompetitive corner, and just play with itself?
Isn't GOG second only to Steam in terms of sales? I wouldn't say that what they've been doing since 2008 is non-competitive because of all of the success they've found, but even if that were the case, they couldn't have chosen worse games to roll this out with. What will Witcher 3 and Original Sin prove that Witcher 2 and Dragon Commander didn't? Couldn't they have waited for a more compelling example while converting the back catalog?

I mean, that would have probably been far more PR-friendly than the way this has gone down thus far.
Posted February 27, 2014
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: Again, did I tell you to shut up? I explained why what you're doing seems like you're creating drama, even though it might not be your intention.

More importantly, I am saying that you're not getting any mileage from your complaining because what you would like to change is very unlikely to change; it's out of GOG's control, that's why. I don't understand why you can't understand that. Or maybe I don't understand something, in which case, let me know.

Most people like saving as much money as possible, so for you to keep insisting that others are not understanding of your plight is plain wrong. I think it's a little overmuch for you to call this "untreatment"- again, you're not forced to buy games, you can just wait till the price suits you. Why is that unacceptable? Everyone does it, and not just video game players, but people don't take to the streets when they can't afford non-necessity items, like toys.

As for the gaming site reporting stuff, lol- that's what they live to do. Did you see them report anything in particular when thing are nice and calm? No- hubbub is their bread and butter, so to speak.
avatar
Shendue: "Going on despite the futility is a mark of belligerence" doesn't strike me as an invite to express freely my opinions. I think that keeping reacting to legitimate complaints based on strong logical reasoning and facts by minimizing them as "drama" is absolutely futile as well, since it's as useful as trying to stop a fire with gasoline.

The fact you think this is out of the control of GOG is where we are disagreeing. As far as i remember, that's their own store, so they have all the control they want. If companies don't agree to jump aboard with their games unless GOG throws away one of its core principles, then just don't add those games to your selection and stick to indie games. There's already plenty of stores selling those games anyway. The different offer mostly consisting of old classics and indie games is what attracted me in the first place.

As for the price, i don't accept it because having to pay different prices from other users for the very same things it's a scam. And when the very foundation of the popularity of this store is being fair to customers, i can't accept them advocating a scam.
I came on GOG because they were different and i believed in their vision. If they are no more, and their vision changed, i see no reason to keep substaining them. The fact that i can afford an ice cream priced 50 bucks doesn't mean that i wouldn't scream on top of my lungs to the seller that he's robbing people. Everyone just calmly wait for the price to lower and never complain, like good, obedient, mindless sheeps (i'm not trying to insult anyone, it's just that i can't prevent from seeing that behaviour as anything different)? And why exactly i should do the same if i don't understand at all such a behaviour and it seems to me it doesn't make any sense at all?

Gaming press reports stuff only when thing are troublesome and people argue about something? Well, i rest my case then. I'll keep being verbose about my points so they'll keep writing about it, helping more people to be informed about the situation.
Well, yeah- if there's no recourse for someone, but you keep insisting that they invent a recourse to make you happy, then yes- that is belligerent. I can't help it if you feel bad when I point that out to you.

It's true that this is GOG's store, but they have to work with entities besides themselves, which have their own visions and values. It's also true that GOG made a decision which is different from the kind you might have expected them to make, but that's the reality of it- they decided that they want to go in a direction which they think will help them keep providing DRM-free games, and not just classics or indies.

Regional pricing may or may not be a scam, but I can see why they say it's the industry standard- everyone is doing it. If you dislike being "scammed", then my guess is that you'll have to stop buying games.

Also, it's rather disturbing that you think being patient to spend money, or spending it wisely, is "sheep like", haha. Wow.

If you think complaining to anyone on a forum or whatever will make regional pricing go away, then I think you're mistaken. You're free to try, so let's see what happens.

Overall, however, are not entitled to buy video games at "fair" prices, only at the price which you think is most deserving of your expenditure.

avatar
227: You're horrible for depriving me of the chance to argue with you at length until one of us is beaten and battered. Sigh.

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: I don't understand this fetish.
avatar
227: I've never thought of honesty as a fetish, but if it is, then bring on the ball gags because I'm the kinkiest one here.

Honesty is one of those things that has a history in gaming, and many people have memories of this company or that company suddenly beginning to mislead their fans about their priorities. Thinking that GOG will suddenly jump into DRM is slippery slope nonsense, but letting companies get away with saying one thing and then doing another has a proud history of leading nowhere good. In fact, that history is probably why emotions tend to run high when a company's honesty is questioned.

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: I don't know what else is required. A blood sacrifice!? I'll bring the altar ^^
avatar
227: Mm'kay, I'll grab the incense and tell Redge to meet us in the forest.

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: regional pricing is intertwined into the business of game selling in more ways than one. I think it's pretty amazing they were able to get away from it thus far.
avatar
227: That's really what makes everything so frustrating. It appeared that they were making real progress on both the DRM-free and one world price fronts, and then this comes out of nowhere.

Granted, one world price isn't that fair, but if this was about getting better deals for people in other countries, they would have been upfront about it and (probably) converted the back catalog first. Instead, it seems like the change to the back catalog is just a distraction from them giving up on fair regional pricing for new games.

avatar
cmdr_flashheart: It's true that these first three games are not from any "behemoth", but these are definitely a stepping stone for future games. Or do we want GOG to sequester itself into an uncompetitive corner, and just play with itself?
avatar
227: Isn't GOG second only to Steam in terms of sales? I wouldn't say that what they've been doing since 2008 is non-competitive because of all of the success they've found, but even if that were the case, they couldn't have chosen worse games to roll this out with. What will Witcher 3 and Original Sin prove that Witcher 2 and Dragon Commander didn't? Couldn't they have waited for a more compelling example while converting the back catalog?

I mean, that would have probably been far more PR-friendly than the way this has gone down thus far.
Yeah, I knew you were itching to argue, hence the deprivation *muahahaha*

But I know what you mean, and honestly (har) I wish they would have broken this news a bit more tactfully, for those who needed that cushioning, than they did, but I guess they knew themselves that it would create a shit storm no matter what, so there you have it- they knew all along what it meant to break one of their so-called pillars, but they think the present direction is better for DRM-free gaming.

I mean, I didn't even know DRM-free gaming was a possibility because all I heard was friends and others talking about something called "steam", and when I first jumped onto steam, I was like, why is this a big deal? You have to have internet to play and you need a clunky game tracker-keeper, so it just seemed liked such a hassle to me.

GOG just made playing games so much easier for me, and they were literally the first people I saw who provided something like this- this is why I appreciate their DRM-free value more than anything else.

I do agree that regional pricing doesn't make sense, especially from a consumer perspective, so here's hoping that maybe one day we don't have to have it. I don't think that time is here, though. Maybe I am wrong.

But here's why I don't think I am wrong- there are a lot more other sellers at this point who are also doing DRM-free gaming, but it seems that everyone is kowtowing to regional pricing. When DRM-free sellers start dropping, then I think it will be the beginning of the end.

So maybe it's the right time to focus on DRM-free gaming, but not on fair pricing.

But you're not wrong- the change was unexpected...for us. But I think someone who was watching carefully may have expected it because other sellers like Humble and GMG also had to change their ways regarding flat pricing, so really, this was written in the stars, it seems.

I don't disagree that GOG does well for itself, but relatively speaking, providing DRM-free games is a risky venture for devs and publishers, and if GOG has to accept regional pricing to gain their trust in order to bring big or AAA titles here, then I guess that's what it has to do. Personally, I would love to buy DRM-free AAA games, so I am looking forward to that.

Though I also agree that these three games aren't that amazing (because they were very expected, and not because they are bad games), but I think these are just a stepping stone- GOG is playing the long game, here, I think.

But if they don't deliver on the AAA end, then yes, let's proceed with the blood sacrifice ^^ On that note, I have to go, but I'll argue with you as long as you like >:]
Post edited February 27, 2014 by cmdr_flashheart
Pages:
1
75
131
132
133
134
135
225
300
368
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)<b>Letter from the M.D.</b>: About Regional Pricing(5517 posts) (5517 posts) 
(5517 posts)