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
avatar
paulrainer: or gog could wait until ithe publishers let them see it for a flat price worldwide ;) instead of doing slippery deals and getting into bed with suppliers of these games to make a quick buck
avatar
CarrionCrow: And if the publishers don't? What happens then? GOG keeps going on indie games that are miss and hit while leaning on people to keep on buying the older games they have the rights for? What happens when the market becomes saturated? What happens when the sales we all love turn into failures because the user base has grabbed everything of interest and there's no expansion to bring people back to the checkout page? It's already happening. Check around for the "man, I thought everyone and their mother had already bought this game/bundle" comments for certain items. GOG can't stand alone forever as some utopian bastion exempt from the realities of the world around it. Making deals and getting into bed with suppliers is how you manage to hang around long enough to build up your power base.
ok so we adopt regional pricing now in the bid for getting new games to the catalogue , next it will be at the behest of these suppliers that gog offer drm
GOG have clearly demonstarated that their core principles are worth as much as the paper they are written on and are happy to change these foundations at the quest for making cash

DRM is next - mark my words
Post edited February 27, 2014 by paulrainer
avatar
Professor_Cake: I would even wager that it could entice a few people to think differently about their stance on this should a satisfactory explanation be offered.
avatar
paulrainer: there is only one answer to the regional pricing conundrum and that is greed by the publishers and they know it. You will not get 1 satisfactory answer from gog or any publisher on this matter - just that its "an industry standard" that cannot be changed , which as we all know is BS
To be fair Paul I wasn't really expecting one :)
avatar
CarrionCrow: And if the publishers don't? What happens then? GOG keeps going on indie games that are miss and hit while leaning on people to keep on buying the older games they have the rights for? What happens when the market becomes saturated? What happens when the sales we all love turn into failures because the user base has grabbed everything of interest and there's no expansion to bring people back to the checkout page? It's already happening. Check around for the "man, I thought everyone and their mother had already bought this game/bundle" comments for certain items. GOG can't stand alone forever as some utopian bastion exempt from the realities of the world around it. Making deals and getting into bed with suppliers is how you manage to hang around long enough to build up your power base.
avatar
paulrainer: ok so we adopt regional pricing now in the bid for getting new games to the catalogue , next it will be at the behest of these suppliers that gog offer drm
GOG have clearly demonstarated that their core principles are worth as much as the paper they are written on and are happy to change these foundations at the quest for making cash

DRM is next - mark my words
Agree on that. 1-2 years for drm to come on GOG in my opinion for if you change one principle then all the other become invalid.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Matruchus
How I envision the negotiations that took place in the past:

Larian: We promised our backers to come here. So here we are. You can have AoW3 on our conditions.

GOG: Fine. We're really interested. How about $40 worldwide simple and clean?

Larian: Not good enough, we want more. Regional prices it is. You do it my way or it's the highway.

GOG:
But ... that is a core value of us. Everything else would be unfair - a rip off of our beloved customers.

Voice from the off:
GOG, I'm your shareholder. I like value. I want more value. The others are right, you are wrong. Become like them. Now!

GOG:
Oh fuck. What about three diffrerent prices and we fully compensate the guys who pay more like we did in the past with Witcher 2?

Larian: You're wasting my time GOG. We will have full regional pricing. It's my way or the highway, you know.

Voice from the off again: GOG, your shareholder again. You must go with the industry standard. You don't want to be the lonely guy nobody talks with. Do it! Now!

GOG: Oh damn. Okay what about a purely symbolic compensation. A small game that probably doesn't mean much and certainly doesn't close the price difference... and we pay for it. Will calm down our customers.

Larian: Not again. It's my way or the ... Hey wait. I think that's acceptable. Deal. Good. Can't wait to see you next time. Here a bit of extra cash because you're such a nice boy GOG. But don't spend it all at once.

GOG:
Yippie, extra cash. They must be right. Live is much better now. Maybe we should have regional pricing everywhere. Sounds like a huge project - worthy of fine old GOG. Does anybody still know the number of that guy who does the ripping off so nicely?
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Trilarion
avatar
Daynov: Wow, somehow they managed to make a worse announcement than the one from a few days ago...
You got that one right and straight !
I just have some questions for TheFrenchMonk which are more or less related to the problem at hand, but I feel it could be good to have some answers on that while being at it. I have to say, beforehand, that I am a supporter of the new scheme, (I even bought AOW3 in euros !) but I do have some reservations.

Here it goes :

1) What will be the regional pricing of the future indie titles like The cat Lady, La Mulana, Shadowrun returns or the Banner Saga ?
Currently, it's 10, 15, 20 and 25 bucks.
WIll it be later something like Steam ?
So 9, 14, 19 and 23 in euros.
That represents a 30% bump right there. Far more than the 26% max VAT in hungary... And there is no retail market to justify that kind of screwing for those games....

2) I honestly don't see much of a point in raising the friendliness for non english speakers and euro customers in regionalising the price for the classics like you said, if by the same time,, GOG doesn't get a regionalised UI (so a GOG page in french, german, italian, polish, russian... like steam has) and far more different language versions of its classics than it has right now.
Is it something you consider doing in the future or not ?
avatar
skeletonbow: Principles? Really? I dunno, I call it childish rage stupidity and self defeating sense of self entitlement, but I could be wrong.
avatar
Darkalex6: Well, for me it is all dependant on how I perceive my "relationship"* with given company.
If it's only business, I don't care about, as you have said, small increase in pricing of internet - it would not make me be sad or anything, because I picked that company in the first place because of good price/service offered ratio. No other strings attached. If they do something which changes that ratio, I just switch to other company. Simple as that.
But sometimes you do not only blindly follow price-to-service offered ratio, but for example view buying form company as a way of also promoting some values (all of ecological friendly products) - and when suddenly they stop promoting some of them, I would say you are "entitled" to feeling at least dissapointed.
I also think that people post here, not because they want to spit in GOG staff face, but because they want to have that issue resolved somehow, because the really like GOG.
Would you switch to another company that has policies that are totally worse for you across the board *and* charge you more money for it though? If one has a matter of principles they want to uphold and switches from a more free service that honours more of their principles/desires/preferences to one that honours less of their principles/desires/preferences and also possibly charges more money, I wouldn't call making the change one based on principle but based on irrational emotions. Or as Spock would say "That decision is highly illogical captain." ;o)

I totally agree that someone is entitled to feel disappointed of course, regardless of what it is they are disappointed about and whether or not someone else is disappointed about it. And I totally agree that people who feel disappointed about regional pricing have a right to feel that way too. One's feelings are their own reality and it is not to others to decide what is the right or wrong way to feel about something. But, I can respect one's feelings but disagree with the decisions they might make based as a result of their feelings too, and especially so if they are shooting themselves in the foot in doing so. I think some people do this reactively as a form of revenge actually. I've been in Linux channels and have seen people upset about something threaten people they don't even know that if they don't help them "I'll show you, I'll go and use Windows!" like that is some form of punishment to the random Linux user and will affect the Linux person's life in any way shape or form. Especially funny when they start out the conversation indicating they can't do what they want to do in Windows and heard it is easy to do in Linux. ;o)

I pretty much agree with what you've said though, it is good for people to express themselves and how they feel about things, but I just hope people try to see both the good along with the bad in things and not just see the bad in everything, as well as seeing it beyond just what is best for them. If GOG for example had to make a decision which was overall better for customers as a whole but which might impact me in a negative manner somehow, but that they were doing it for the greater good - I'd be disappointed perhaps but depending on what it was exactly I might be able to see that it was a good thing to do overall for the world of customers at large and bite my tongue and accept the situation.

As a totally fabricated hypothetical example, Windows XP support is being officially discontinued in April 2014 by Microsoft (that part is not hypothetical) and many if not most software vendors that have not already abandoned supporting their products on Windows XP very likely will stop support come April. Every company out there has to make this decision and way the pros and cons of supporting an obsolete unsupported operating system. On one hand, such systems are prone to more failures due to bugs in unsupported software both in the operating system itself and the software added to it which is no longer supported. These systems are more likely to have viruses and malware which cause the system and anything running on it to malfunction or not work at all, and as a result people will experience more software failures and problems and seek technical support from wherever they think the problem they're having is. If it is a video game not working, they'll probably try to contact the retailer they bought it from or the publisher or developer of the game, etc. and it very well could turn out to be that their problem is caused by their obsolete OS crumbling due to lack of security and updates for example. This becomes a problem large enough that it is just a burden to a company to continue to support, and at the same time the number of people who continue to use that obsolete system diminishes.

At a certain point someone has to make the judgment call to say "we no longer support that old system", in this case Windows XP. When that decision is made, people still using that system - as many or as few as they may be, very well may feel upset or angry at their system becoming unsupported and having no recourse to seek solutions for their problems (whether or not those problems are fairly the problem of the retailer/publisher or not).

So... if a given retailer like GOG for example sees the problem and decides "the number of people using XP right now is very low, the number of problems very high, and we're experiencing much higher than ever tech support requests from Windows XP users even though they number in the miniscule minority" would they be right or wrong in deciding to drop support, and how should I or anyone else feel about that? What is reasonable? Should a company be forced to support an obsolete unsupported OS forever or else be branded evil greedy bastards? Or is there a point where a company can be deemed to be reasonable for no longer supporting a system like Windows XP and if so what is that point when it is considered reasonable?

Now I'd like to see GOG continue to support any system that is used widely enough as long as possible, but not to the point where they end up starting to spend 20% of their available support resources to support 1% of their customerbase. I don't know what numbers would be fair/reasonable but someone has to figure that out no? When the time comes to make such a decision, even if I were using a system like XP still I personally would have to say to myself that it is reasonable and fair that they get off the hook and not have to support this old crap anymore, but at the same time I'm sure lots of people clinging to XP like flies on crap will want to burn GOG.com (or whatever company) at the stake and take it personal, simultaneously not giving a crap at how lopsided the resource drain is on GOG to continue supporting their platform or how many other new exciting things GOG could do for the entire customer base if they could free up the disproportionately assigned resources on Windows XP.

I'd say if and when that happens, we'll see the discussion unfold here... but let's be real... *When*, no if... this happens we'll see the discussion here. Oops, I might have initiated it now. ;o)

Don't worry though, that whole discussion will totally get muffled by Linux buffs jumping up and down to get Linux on as a supported platform. (Hey, I'm a Linux buff for the record, just not jumping up and down. ;oP) Oops, I might have initiated another one... doh!! ;)
avatar
CarrionCrow: And if the publishers don't? What happens then? GOG keeps going on indie games that are miss and hit while leaning on people to keep on buying the older games they have the rights for? What happens when the market becomes saturated? What happens when the sales we all love turn into failures because the user base has grabbed everything of interest and there's no expansion to bring people back to the checkout page? It's already happening. Check around for the "man, I thought everyone and their mother had already bought this game/bundle" comments for certain items. GOG can't stand alone forever as some utopian bastion exempt from the realities of the world around it. Making deals and getting into bed with suppliers is how you manage to hang around long enough to build up your power base.
avatar
paulrainer: ok so we adopt regional pricing now in the bid for getting new games to the catalogue , next it will be at the behest of these suppliers that gog offer drm
GOG have clearly demonstarated that their core principles are worth as much as the paper they are written on and are happy to change these foundations at the quest for making cash

DRM is next - mark my words
They demonstrated that their priority is DRM-free for more than classic games and indie titles. Idealism versus reality and reality won, as it often tends to do. And of course they want to make cash. This isn't a frigging charity outfit. The game GOG's playing isn't free by any means, and they need more cash and more power to get more people's attention. That's how it works.

Additional - Also, if people have suddenly decided that GOG is crap, that they intend to turn the place into everything they don't like and that GOG won't listen to them because they're just that evil and moneygrubbing all of a sudden....why are people still talking about it? It's completely nonsensical. It's like saying, "That guy's the devil! But I'm going to talk sense into them! I can make the devil see it my way!" Makes no frigging sense at all.

Additional additional - I wish people had more of a spine. Have sat here and seen people passive-aggressively call GOG staff everything from liars to swindlers to idiots to Nazis, for fuck's sake. I really and truly wish that one person would have the spine to, when they see T or Judas or TheFrenchMonk around, to say all this shit to them up close and personal. It'd seem less cowardly that way, even if it's chock-full of assholishness.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by CarrionCrow
avatar
GabiMoro: 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.
avatar
Professor_Cake: This makes the assumption that such taxes are applicable to these products given the nature of their distribution and current laws. Given the tax beneficial location of GOG's servers (Cyprus), it would surprise me if such taxes needed to be paid in those countries. Regional pricing was generally understandable when physical distribution was the norm as taxes couldn't be avoided (as well as other costs inherent with physical distribution), but digital distribution negates practically all of these.

That being said, if GOG has an explanation for why regional pricing is necessary in the realm of digital distribution in spite of the above (as in what additional costs are incurred through selling digital goods to different countries online) then I'm sure that it would be welcomed. I would even wager that it could entice a few people to think differently about their stance on this should a satisfactory explanation be offered.
From GOG's Terms of Use: "All prices include VAT or Sales Tax (rate used at the date of purchase) which will be applied based on the Country chosen at the registration stage." In fact is based on the ip, not on the Country chosen because people easly switched that :).
avatar
Professor_Cake: <snip>

That being said, if GOG has an explanation for why regional pricing is necessary in the realm of digital distribution in spite of the above (as in what additional costs are incurred through selling digital goods to different countries online) then I'm sure that it would be welcomed. I would even wager that it could entice a few people to think differently about their stance on this should a satisfactory explanation be offered.
avatar
jlkawaii: In France, it's an obligation by law to pays VATS on digital buy. each individual is entitled to report; if they don't and are caught : a big fine at least. could be worse with actual law.
I don't know for other european country, but they have similary thinks with VATS, no ?
Strictly speaking I would imagine so, realistically speaking I seriously doubt that such laws are enforced or acknowledged by the respective people of each country. Even then, Cyprus is a member of the EU and so such arrangements could be seen to be in contravention of fair trade laws within it.

In addition, I think GOG would have mentioned the need to account for taxation in the regionally priced game argument if they felt that it was applicable, if indeed they pay much in the way of regional taxes to the countries they sell their games to / in. It certainly would have helped them. Again, clarification on this issue from GOG would be appreciated.
avatar
Professor_Cake: This makes the assumption that such taxes are applicable to these products given the nature of their distribution and current laws. Given the tax beneficial location of GOG's servers (Cyprus), it would surprise me if such taxes needed to be paid in those countries. Regional pricing was generally understandable when physical distribution was the norm as taxes couldn't be avoided (as well as other costs inherent with physical distribution), but digital distribution negates practically all of these.

That being said, if GOG has an explanation for why regional pricing is necessary in the realm of digital distribution in spite of the above (as in what additional costs are incurred through selling digital goods to different countries online) then I'm sure that it would be welcomed. I would even wager that it could entice a few people to think differently about their stance on this should a satisfactory explanation be offered.
avatar
GabiMoro: From GOG's Terms of Use: "All prices include VAT or Sales Tax (rate used at the date of purchase) which will be applied based on the Country chosen at the registration stage." In fact is based on the ip, not on the Country chosen because people easly switched that :).
Well its best if we all stars using proxys with Russian IPS then for games here.
I didn't read the whole discussion, so I'm sorry if this has been asked already, but why is it necessary to change all GOG games to regional pricing?
avatar
Professor_Cake: This makes the assumption that such taxes are applicable to these products given the nature of their distribution and current laws. Given the tax beneficial location of GOG's servers (Cyprus), it would surprise me if such taxes needed to be paid in those countries. Regional pricing was generally understandable when physical distribution was the norm as taxes couldn't be avoided (as well as other costs inherent with physical distribution), but digital distribution negates practically all of these.

That being said, if GOG has an explanation for why regional pricing is necessary in the realm of digital distribution in spite of the above (as in what additional costs are incurred through selling digital goods to different countries online) then I'm sure that it would be welcomed. I would even wager that it could entice a few people to think differently about their stance on this should a satisfactory explanation be offered.
avatar
GabiMoro: From GOG's Terms of Use: "All prices include VAT or Sales Tax (rate used at the date of purchase) which will be applied based on the Country chosen at the registration stage." In fact is based on the ip, not on the Country chosen because people easly switched that :).
Switching IP is not much harder and you can always get your foreign friends to gift you games...
avatar
Paul31286: I didn't read the whole discussion, so I'm sorry if this has been asked already, but why is it necessary to change all GOG games to regional pricing?
There is no need they just want get more money that is all.
avatar
Matruchus: You do know you don't need internet connection to play games on steam. The connection is only needed for download of the game.
That depends entirely on the specific game. Some games can be played offline and some games are even DRM-free on Steam. But some other games require a mandatory online connection also to even play single player, and other games have multiple different DRM systems which require 57 online accounts to even start the game.

Mortal Kombat Kollection for example also contains Games For Windows Live, which in turn requires you have an account on Microsoft's servers (which I believe that requires you have a second different account on live.com or something) in order to even play the single player game period.

Grand Theft Auto IV on Steam and it's standalone expansion packs Episodes from Liberty City not only have Steam requirement, but also have Games For Windows Live DRM, Rockstar Social Club account requirement, SecuROM with a license key, online activation, limited number of activations, requires Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, and Internet Explorer and I believe also .NET to be installed. It's a crazy list of requirements that makes my eyes pop out. The game does have an offline mode to it but not until you make all those accounts and activate it online at least once. There are all sorts of other headaches as well.

Anyway, those are just two of many games on Steam that require ridiculous amounts of DRM bullshit including online connection to play even single player, and there are many more. A list of some of them can be found at:

http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/The_Big_List_of_3rd_Party_DRM_on_Steam

Highly recommend people bookmark that list and peruse it before purchasing any games on Steam to ensure that you're getting what you think you're getting. Also important to note is that even if a given game does not use Steamworks DRM itself to enforce always-online or similar draconian measures, they can and definitely do use one or more of SecuROM, Tages, Starforce, GFWL, and/or other proprietary DRM solutions which may or may not implement and require always-on or other annoying crap. ;o)