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”
I can understand that 'AAA games' have to be regionally priced, but come on, there is absolutely no need for all the other games to be regionally priced.
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.
avatar
lostwolfe: 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.
Yeah I agree with you on that. As I am mostly a strategy games player I just don't care that much about them but they dont really bother me.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Matruchus
high rated
avatar
popperik: I can understand that 'AAA games' have to be regionally priced, but come on, there is absolutely no need for all the other games to be regionally priced.
None of this is necessary to be a model to the big publishers that DRM and Regional pricing aren't needed to make money. There was no crisis to give up one of it's core values. This is a scam.
avatar
skeletonbow: 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.
It would be fair if the customer pay the tax. If I don't like it then it's my duty to vote and change the persons who guvern my country with others which promote lower taxes or other method of taxation.

Let's face it, we were spoiled by this "one world, one price". This is not fair for the developer, nor for GOG which have to pay the tax themselves.

On other hand, selling a game at a bigger price than the regular price + tax is an abuse. The australians prices are absurd, I'm wondering why do they bother to buy games.
high rated
avatar
skeletonbow: Call me silly if need be, but if GOG loses a customer over this regional pricing thing, who then decides to "go to their competitor", every competitor of GOG that I'm aware of has terms and conditions far less favourable to the customer than GOG.com does with or without this change. People often make false (or even real) threats to "leave for the competition" over some change they don't like with a company they're dealing with even if the actual competition that exists has conditions 10 times worse. As an example, a local ISP raised their prices by $5/month due to rising costs and having added additional features to the service, improved speeds etc. Someone I know was furious about having to pay $5/month more for their service and both threatened them on the phone angrily to switch to the other major ISP locally and when they didn't get their own way they did actually call the other ISP and switch services.

They ended up basically switching from ISP 1 with 25Mbps service and a 250GB/month download cap for $55/month that bumped up to $60/month to ISP 2 with 6Mbps service and a 40GB/month download cap for $78/month as a way of "showing them" in a childish temper tantrum. When I pointed out to them that they are now paying more money for a significantly degraded Internet connection with terrible tech support, and that the old ISP provided better service and support across teh board for $18 cheaper and 4+ times the speed and that they just shot themselves in the foot, they angrily defended their decision to me as a matter of principles.

Principles? Really? I dunno, I call it childish rage stupidity and self defeating sense of self entitlement, but I could be wrong. They raised my Internet $5/month too and sure nobody wants to pay more for something unexpectedly but you look at all the options you have and you compare the price you pay to the conditions and value you receive as a result of doing business with someone. If they later change things but they're still the absolute best option around, then one simply has to decide if the particular business is still the best option for the money available or not, and if not - go ahead and do change to another service, or cancel out and don't use that type of service anymore. Disconnect from the Internet entirely, stop buying games, whatever. But to shoot oneself in the foot out of anger over an unfavourable change that still results in a better option available than any competition out there makes no sense to me. I guess everyone needs to handle their outrage in a way that works for them though.

Personally, if GOG makes changes I don't like in the future, I'll evaluate them on a game by game basis and buy or not buy based on whether the given game gives me the value I perceive it has for the price I'm asked to pay (regardless of what someone else might pay more or less). If I don't like the price, I don't buy the game. I wont be angry or upset about it, and I wont hate GOG either. The worst that could happen is that I buy less games or no games

Incidentally, that interview you're linking to is a fantastic interview watched start to finish which I think people would have much more respect for GOG after watching than before, rather than cherry picking individual bits and pieces out of the video that fit into the current controversy.
A download service is a download service is a download service.

A companys principles on the other hand are totally different.

Do you think people who buy shoes from Toms Shoes - One-for-One movement would continue to buy shoes from them if they stopped sending out that second pair of shoes?

If you have the view of companies as faceless soulless entities that simply fulfil your need for a commodity then thats fine, you take what they offer, you go else where, you feel nothing for where or from whom you get your things as long as you get them. Thats fine, its not me to judge.

But if you invest in more than the stuff they offer and in the company themselves and what they stand/stood for then I think people are entitled to a little bit of "childish rage stupidity"

Everyone is different, and I like it that way :)
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."
avatar
keeveek: 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.
fair enough. it wasn't so much a reading comprehension mistake as an assumption mistake. when you started attacking 2d platformers, to me it essentially read as: "oh dear. indie games in general are terrible" and you were using "indie platformers" as shorthand for "all indie games, everywhere."
avatar
zels: They already have a client that requires logging in to download your games - the gog downloader. I don't see your point.
avatar
JudasIscariot: Yes, it does require logging in but the Downloader (because that's what it is) is entirely optional i.e. no game actually requires it to run. You can freely download all of your games via your browser from your account shelf :)
Another thing worth pointing out is that:

1) The GOG downloader is a piece of software which communicates to a webserver using the http protocol and logs in via http authentication to download software. Programatically, it is nothing more than a specialized http client.

2) A web browser is a piece of software which communicates to a webserver using the http protocol and logs in via http authentication to download software. Programmatically, it is nothing more than a generic http client.

Both are essentially the exact same thing. I understand someone having a preference for one over the other as everyone's tastes are different, but what I never understand is how some people not only hate the idea of using the downloader, but hate the fact that it exists for anyone to use at all, and hate the idea of any other option being available for anyone for any reason - when from a programming perspective they both at the core communicate to the same server using the same protocol and log in the same way and issue the same http requests more or less, the downloader giving some advantages in synchronization and data integrity etc. over a bare browser.

Disliking the downloader == freedom to choose. Hating it and taking a stance in great opposition to it existing and anyone else being able to use it or anything like it ever == irrational fear that I'm sure some pharmaceutical company makes medication to help combat, or some psychotherapist has written a self-help book for. ;o)
high rated
This is a betrayal of their principles no matter how it's painted. I've seen this before where it all goes piece by piece. Watch as over the years they make excuses for this and that and water it all down until they are no different from every other vendor. A pity. It was good while it lasted. This is moment they jumped the shark and tried to pretend nothing happened. :(

If this principle can be thrown into the bonfire (after it being highly trumpeted) when it is inconvenient there's no reason why they won't find an excuse for DRM and the other nasties. All hand waved away with excuses about how wonderful it is for us or how it lets them do deals with publishers. Give it time and the slide will continue down this slippery slope.
high rated
To the GOG Staff

I've been using gog for over an year now (more or less) and I simply love everything about the service, or better put it, I used to love everything about the service.
I love the drm free software, it invites me to actually buy games that I could get for "free" with minimal effort and to support the developers.
I love the fact that you have games from my childhood and adolescent that I tough I would never be able to play again.
And I used to love the fact that I was not being rip off by the direct currency exchange system... Bye Bye to that.
$49 is NOT equal to 49€, no matter how much taxes you put over it. So for me it's going to be a sad "see you later" as far as buying games from gog.
I understand you have to pay taxes, but direct conversion? That's plain robery, or maybe, it's the "American Way" of saying, "Euro can be a stronger currency than Dollar, but we can f... up your a...!"

I don't guys, but your arguments just don't make sense to me. One thing is to charge me $49+VAT (23% in Portugal), but another thing is the direct conversion system. That's just wrong.
avatar
dreamcaster: To the GOG Staff

I've been using gog for over an year now (more or less) and I simply love everything about the service, or better put it, I used to love everything about the service.
I love the drm free software, it invites me to actually buy games that I could get for "free" with minimal effort and to support the developers.
I love the fact that you have games from my childhood and adolescent that I tough I would never be able to play again.
And I used to love the fact that I was not being rip off by the direct currency exchange system... Bye Bye to that.
$49 is NOT equal to 49€, no matter how much taxes you put over it. So for me it's going to be a sad "see you later" as far as buying games from gog.
I understand you have to pay taxes, but direct conversion? That's plain robery, or maybe, it's the "American Way" of saying, "Euro can be a stronger currency than Dollar, but we can f... up your a...!"

I don't guys, but your arguments just don't make sense to me. One thing is to charge me $49+VAT (23% in Portugal), but another thing is the direct conversion system. That's just wrong.
where did you get your information about direct conversion?
high rated
It's things like this change for the worse it will make GOG.com pointless. If it ends up no different from every other downloadable software vendor then there's no reason to buy it here. It really is simple as that.
avatar
dreamcaster: To the GOG Staff

I've been using gog for over an year now (more or less) and I simply love everything about the service, or better put it, I used to love everything about the service.
I love the drm free software, it invites me to actually buy games that I could get for "free" with minimal effort and to support the developers.
I love the fact that you have games from my childhood and adolescent that I tough I would never be able to play again.
And I used to love the fact that I was not being rip off by the direct currency exchange system... Bye Bye to that.
$49 is NOT equal to 49€, no matter how much taxes you put over it. So for me it's going to be a sad "see you later" as far as buying games from gog.
I understand you have to pay taxes, but direct conversion? That's plain robery, or maybe, it's the "American Way" of saying, "Euro can be a stronger currency than Dollar, but we can f... up your a...!"

I don't guys, but your arguments just don't make sense to me. One thing is to charge me $49+VAT (23% in Portugal), but another thing is the direct conversion system. That's just wrong.
avatar
codenaga: where did you get your information about direct conversion?
Well the prices for AOW3 for most of Europe are 39,99$ = 39,99€ so he is right. Direct conversion there.
high rated
Wow, somehow they managed to make a worse announcement than the one from a few days ago...
high rated
avatar
Matruchus: Well the prices for AOW3 for most of Europe are 39,99$ = 39,99€ so he is right. Direct conversion there.
which is complete robbery and gog clearly support robbery by implementing regional pricing
its a sad day
high rated
avatar
Matruchus: Well the prices for AOW3 for most of Europe are 39,99$ = 39,99€ so he is right. Direct conversion there.
avatar
paulrainer: which is complete robbery and gog clearly support robbery by implementing regional pricing
its a sad day
Totally agree. This pricing model just promotes piracy and it is really bad that GOG is agreeing to it.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Matruchus