It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Hey Goggers;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What’s next?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Best DRM-free wishes,

Guillaume Rambourg,
(TheFrenchMonk)
Managing Director -- GOG.com”
high rated
To everyone stating "regional pricing is an industry standard":
DRM is also an industry standard. So you would be ok with GOG getting DRM with the same argument.
Maybe you should think about that.

Sorry for not posting that as a response to something definitive, I am still catching up on the thread and got fed up with some people stating that argument over and over again.
avatar
groze: Can you blame them? You guys look like a bunch of kids kicking and poking a dead cat just to feel happy and elated because it scratched you (even if the now dead cat was a good companion for 5 years).
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: Dude, if a dead cat scratched me I would freak out.

Mostly, we couldn't keep up with the number of comments and also figure out sensible replies, so rather than post something sort of coherent late yesterday, we're regrouping and working on this now.
In the interest of making positive oriented suggestions, one option that would partially solve this problem for some people I imagine (although I'm sure not everyone) would be to have a flag in the user accounts where you configure your password and whatnot that lets the customer choose from:

[x] I want to see the entire GOG.com catalogue of games.
[ ] I want to see only games which share one global price.

People who don't want to see or support regionally priced games can check the bottom box and GOG.com is basically as it has been all along for them. They will see any games they already own or which are added to their account in the future (either purchased or gifted) but they wont see regionally priced games or promotions.

This may or may not be technically feasible to implement, and I'm sure it would cause some issues with promos that are a combination of globally priced and regionally priced games, but it is a possibility to consider as an option at a very minimum. Not one that I personally think is necessary but if the number of customers lining up to revolt is large enough it's one thing to consider floating as an idea anyway.

What I'd personally be curious to see, is for other customers who have a stake in this to make suggestions to GOG about creative solutions to the problem which allow all parties to have their goals met with some form of compromises acceptable to all. As it stands there are game companies that have the stance "regional pricing or not at all" and gamers with "no regional pricing or I wont buy any games at all period", and both groups of people are harming the other and potentially causing splash damage to people in the middle who are either entirely neutral or who might have an opinion one way or another but are able to adapt and continue on despite the change.

So, I ask others: What /realistic/ alternatives to regional pricing do you think companies should consider offering in order for them to receive what they consider to be fair payment for their games? In particular I'm interested in positive proactive ideas people might have, although I'm sure I'll see responses that are in the other direction to as is the nature of things.

Personally I think some companies do this for legitimate reasons and others for greedy reasons and I don't think they should all be painted with the same brush per se. But for one particular example, if I was a game company selling my game for $5 a pop in North America of which I got $2 of that in profit, but in Europe there were government enforced taxes on top of the game price and the retailer had a policy of fixed global pricing and the taxes ate into $1 of that, then either my company that produced the game loses half of our profit (the $2), or both my company and the distributor (in this case GOG.com) split the loss. So at $1 tax, that would leave $4 profit, and with the 40% profit of that coming to my company, we would only end up receiving $1.60 for our game instead of $2. In this case it is the government(s) of Europe which are causing the unfairness. The unfairness is ultimately either going to the end customer the tax is targeting, or the business trying to produce a profit is unfairly getting shafted by it, or the distributor, or some split between the 3. What would people consider fair? Split the taxation 3 ways with the publisher, developer and customer all paying a portion of the tax? Or is not selling the game at all more fair? Honest question for this one scenario only. There are other scenarios in other countries which might be greatly different and each deserve their own question of similar nature. Fairness though needs to be considered from all sides IMHO, and not just the end paying customer. Businesses deserve fairness too.
avatar
Wishbone: Or...
avatar
skeletonbow: Reasonable of you to post your own opinion about how things might turn out as it is all just opinions, but not reasonable to do it modifying my words but retaining my name and attribution, as it appears as though I've said both things as they're quoted as having come from me. The first one appears to be what I said, and even though some people will realize that you've modified my quote in the bottom one and highlighted your changes, I'd appreciate it if you would be so kind as to edit the post and remove my name from the start of the modified paragraph so my name isn't attached to it, otherwise if people respond to you and lop off the first paragraph, it will appear to be attributed to me which isn't preferred etiquette when quoting. Other than that, I respect your opinion however.
I am sorry. You are correct. I thought it would be obvious that that was my personal perspective of an alternative outcome, but as you say, not everyone pays enough attention when browsing the forums, and might indeed mistake my edit for your original words. I shall correct it promptly.

My apologies.
avatar
Rusty_Gunn: One aspect of the Steam system I particularly despise is the "need" to download a good portion of the games when bought on disc that's what pushed me away from steam & from "retail PC games" as many use that system & partly why I'm here.
Actually there's a button on the Steam client to unpack the game's files from the disc and the only download you'd have to do is the latest patch.

Just go to Steam > Backup and restore games > Restore a previous backup.
avatar
Gabelvampir: To everyone stating "regional pricing is an industry standard":
DRM is also an industry standard. So you would be ok with GOG getting DRM with the same argument.
Maybe you should think about that.

Sorry for not posting that as a response to something definitive, I am still catching up on the thread and got fed up with some people stating that argument over and over again.
Exactly! "GOG's hands are tied! there's nothing they can do! That's all determined by the publisher". That can easily be said about making deals with the "AAA" game publishers who won't make deals unless there is DRM. "It's not GOG's fault they dropped DRM because that decision is made by the publisher. "
Guys, can we stop talking about steam ? That was no the point of this thread :d
avatar
Darkalex6: Guys, can we stop talking about steam ? That was no the point of this thread :d
I know but at the moment at least some of us STEAM and GOG users see an alternative since there is no difference between GOG and STEAM now, besides the STEAM client. Pricing is now going to be the same as STEAM so unfair to EU buyers.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: There are a whole lot of comments. We're posting our reply to the most common answers today, but reading fast enough to keep up with them wasn't very feasible yesterday. Indeed, you can see how far behind I still am this morning.
avatar
skeletonbow: GNG.com (Good New Games)
snipped for the sake of brevity:

this is an idea i like a lot, actually.
avatar
lostwolfe: this sort of attitude - that indies are "terrible" makes me sigh. it just says, loud and clear, "we only want aaa games that are bland and do not advance the industry at all."
The problem with you is that you don't really seem to have reading comprehension. shitty 2D indie platformers =! indie games are shit.

I played a lot of great indie games but guess what - most of them aren't even here.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by keeveek
avatar
Darkalex6: Guys, can we stop talking about steam ? That was no the point of this thread :d
avatar
Matruchus: I know but at the moment at least some of us STEAM and GOG users see an alternative since there is no difference between GOG and STEAM now, besides the STEAM client. Pricing is now going to be the same as STEAM so unfair to EU buyers.
GOG's focus is now almost solely on DRM-free. If that doesn't appeal to you there will be little benefit to getting it on GOG versus Steam unless there's reasons you don't like Steam.
avatar
Matruchus: Anybody knows how I can erase my account on GOG (after downloading all licensed games I own) as at this moment I can't see myself supporting them anymore, because of them going to regional pricing and abandoning their fair pricing principles. I do understand that GOG is a business and they have to make comprosises but there are lines not to be crossed.
avatar
silentbob1138: I would suggest keeping your account at least to get patches for your existing purchases. But if you want to delete it, instructions are here: http://www.gog.com/support/website_help/website_and_accounts
Yeah, GOG is constantly adding updates to old games such as FLAC soundtracks, additional installation and gameplay language selections, floppy/CD verisons of old games, new expansion packs for old games that have been liberated, maps, strategy guides, artwork, the occasional bug fix, support for new versions of operating systems as they come out (ie: Windows 8.x), and possibly in the future new platforms as well (Linux). To delete ones account is locking a permanent one way door to never see these enhancements on the possibly hundreds of products they've already purchased. It'd be sad to see someone make a highly emotionally driven decision like this now at the heat of the moment and then regret having done so a day/week/month/year later and have no way to reverse the decision. Personally I'd encourage anyone remotely considering this to simply not log into GOG anymore and leave their account in tact. It costs you nothing, harms you in no way, and gives you more options in the future than does closing your account prematurely.

I've had friends do things like this before at other places online and then greatly regret it a few days/weeks later and be upset with themselves for acting emotionally rash in the heat of the moment. Throwing away dozens or hundreds of games seems rash to me.
avatar
silentbob1138: I would suggest keeping your account at least to get patches for your existing purchases. But if you want to delete it, instructions are here: http://www.gog.com/support/website_help/website_and_accounts
avatar
skeletonbow: Yeah, GOG is constantly adding updates to old games such as FLAC soundtracks, additional installation and gameplay language selections, floppy/CD verisons of old games, new expansion packs for old games that have been liberated, maps, strategy guides, artwork, the occasional bug fix, support for new versions of operating systems as they come out (ie: Windows 8.x), and possibly in the future new platforms as well (Linux). To delete ones account is locking a permanent one way door to never see these enhancements on the possibly hundreds of products they've already purchased. It'd be sad to see someone make a highly emotionally driven decision like this now at the heat of the moment and then regret having done so a day/week/month/year later and have no way to reverse the decision. Personally I'd encourage anyone remotely considering this to simply not log into GOG anymore and leave their account in tact. It costs you nothing, harms you in no way, and gives you more options in the future than does closing your account prematurely.

I've had friends do things like this before at other places online and then greatly regret it a few days/weeks later and be upset with themselves for acting emotionally rash in the heat of the moment. Throwing away dozens or hundreds of games seems rash to me.
Yeah will leave the account as it is for now and see what happens. But at the moment i dont see myself buying here again.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
Gabelvampir: To everyone stating "regional pricing is an industry standard":
DRM is also an industry standard. So you would be ok with GOG getting DRM with the same argument.
Maybe you should think about that.
I agree with that. Same goes to saying "blame the publisher instead". Sure it is the publisher who ultimately decides it for their games, but GOG enabled it. Ie. GOG has the power to say no (whether saying no is a good idea, that's another question).

So in the end it comes to the question whether one (the customer) accepts it or not. I find it a nuisance, but not a deal-breaker. I allow other people to be more pissed about it, if they really hate it.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by timppu
avatar
silentbob1138: I would suggest keeping your account at least to get patches for your existing purchases. But if you want to delete it, instructions are here: http://www.gog.com/support/website_help/website_and_accounts
avatar
skeletonbow: Yeah, GOG is constantly adding updates to old games such as FLAC soundtracks, additional installation and gameplay language selections, floppy/CD verisons of old games, new expansion packs for old games that have been liberated, maps, strategy guides, artwork, the occasional bug fix, support for new versions of operating systems as they come out (ie: Windows 8.x), and possibly in the future new platforms as well (Linux). To delete ones account is locking a permanent one way door to never see these enhancements on the possibly hundreds of products they've already purchased. It'd be sad to see someone make a highly emotionally driven decision like this now at the heat of the moment and then regret having done so a day/week/month/year later and have no way to reverse the decision. Personally I'd encourage anyone remotely considering this to simply not log into GOG anymore and leave their account in tact. It costs you nothing, harms you in no way, and gives you more options in the future than does closing your account prematurely.

I've had friends do things like this before at other places online and then greatly regret it a few days/weeks later and be upset with themselves for acting emotionally rash in the heat of the moment. Throwing away dozens or hundreds of games seems rash to me.
Damn it, no....

Like I said before, everyone at GOG is sitting in their underground bunker, counting money and devising new ways to lie to us! None of this talk of them doing good things!
avatar
lostwolfe: snipped for the sake of brevity:

a history lesson: the computer gaming industry you know and love now was created on the back of "indies." when there were no publishers and the like, games were made by one and two man teams creating something out of nothing at all.

to dismiss "indies" as "shit" suggests that a) you don't know what the early pc industry was like and b) that you have...interesting tastes.

you should certainly go and play "to the moon" or "limbo" or "primordia" - these games are all "indie" and not one of them could have been made under the "publisher" umbrella. a publisher would simply not know how to manage those particular games.

this sort of attitude - that indies are "terrible" makes me sigh. it just says, loud and clear, "we only want aaa games that are bland and do not advance the industry at all."
avatar
Matruchus: I think that indies are not really terrible. The problem at the moment is that they are mostly platformers now and people are just getting sick of them.
that's fair enough, but...

...there are many indie games that are not only platformers. admittedly, platformers seem to be getting the most attention at the moment, but there are games in other genres, like eschalon [a rpg] or the banner saga [a kind of viking oregon trail with strategy elements] or primordia [which i've already mentioned - a point and click adventure]

i figure that platformers are entry levels to game making because they're "relatively simple" to make as opposed to the other games, which is why there are so many of them.