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”
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: So the only game with enough votes on the wishlist to stand out from the pack doesn't have a good enough MobyScore where it's a hot prospect. Now we could evaluate the game further and see if it just didn't get a fair shake in the reviews, but none of the 12 games I pseudo-randomly grabbed are the kind of thing that we would evaluate and immediately say, "Yes, that's going to sell enough copies that we can afford to go through the acquisition process."

My previous reply sounded dismissive. I'm sorry and that wasn't my intent. I wasn't saying that GOG.com has abandoned our efforts to bring back classic games to users. I was simply stating the fact that, out of the thousands and thousands of games that are classics that we *could* acquire, the number of games that *should* acquire is much lower.
How about making a list of possible aquisitions, and asking your customers if/which they want?
avatar
NetAndy: It will not be radical (initially) but they plan to reprice all older games.
avatar
lostintime: If that is true, then it is cause for some concern... I initially read that as newer titles being priced. I hope they would not do that to games already in the catalog. Ideally they should just choose a price in one currency and convert to all others. Prices fluctuate after all.

Edit: gog already answered part of my own concern. Just curious, what if the value radically changes between currencies after these prices are set?
Of course we'll keep tabs on that. :)
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: So the only game with enough votes on the wishlist to stand out from the pack doesn't have a good enough MobyScore where it's a hot prospect. Now we could evaluate the game further and see if it just didn't get a fair shake in the reviews, but none of the 12 games I pseudo-randomly grabbed are the kind of thing that we would evaluate and immediately say, "Yes, that's going to sell enough copies that we can afford to go through the acquisition process."

My previous reply sounded dismissive. I'm sorry and that wasn't my intent. I wasn't saying that GOG.com has abandoned our efforts to bring back classic games to users. I was simply stating the fact that, out of the thousands and thousands of games that are classics that we *could* acquire, the number of games that *should* acquire is much lower.
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: How about making a list of possible aquisitions, and asking your customers if/which they want?
That's more or less what the wishlist is there for. We can't really tell people, "Hey, this is who we're talking to!" or we'll find more examples of studios swooping in and signing rights out from under our noses. :)
Post edited February 27, 2014 by TheEnigmaticT
avatar
silentbob1138: What's fair about a game costing 37,5% more for most Europeans, Africans and South Americans?
avatar
synfresh: There is nothing fair about, but GoG doesn't have the ability to dictate what's fair or not when it comes to regional pricing. I do find it ironic that people are inflaming GoG for the same reasons they inflame Steam when it comes to regional pricing, when in the reality neither have the ability to dictate those kind of terms.
Of course they have the ability. They are not forced to sell the games. That's what they have been doing for years.

And one of the regionally priced games is Divinity: Original Sin. They promised their Kickstarter backers a DRM-free version on Gog at a time when Gog didn't allow regional prices. They didn't even have the option to not be on Gog because they made a promise to their backers. Gog had all the power during negotiations with them.
avatar
silentbob1138: What's fair about a game costing 37,5% more for most Europeans, Africans and South Americans?
avatar
synfresh: There is nothing fair about, but GoG doesn't have the ability to dictate what's fair or not when it comes to regional pricing. I do find it ironic that people are inflaming GoG for the same reasons they inflame Steam when it comes to regional pricing, when in the reality neither have the ability to dictate those kind of terms.
I find it somehow ironic how you ignore the fact nobody could force them to step away from principals hey sold us as core principals they would never step away from. Their customers mostly went to them because of those ideals. Now they dictate new terms on their customers, see reprising of old titles and there are many questions unanswered like the one what happens if they are bigger changes in exchange rates. Plus intransparency is the last thing they should aim at after this stunt.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: snip

"Yes, that's going to sell enough copies that we can afford to go through the acquisition process."

snip.
How is "enough copies" determined? Could you give us a feeling about it, I mean I'm not asking for an actual number, but maybe a percentage of the customer base?
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: That's more or less what the wishlist is there for. We can't really tell people, "Hey, this is who we're talking to!" or we'll find more examples of studios swooping in and signing rights out from under our noses. :)
Dang, something like that has happened already? It's something I was afraid would happen with the 'Search for game rights' thread. It's why I don't want to share anymore 'definite' information on there.
I have been reading more of the replies from employees, and I would really like to thank Gog for engaging the community like they are on this issue.

Seriously, how many other businesses would have employees talking to users on this level? With many companies every reply reads like it is carefully vetted through both a legal and PR department.

I really hope the water eventually calms, and all these issues are resolved to some capacity. I still believe gog.com has higher principles, regardless of this recent controversy.

Edit: Minor typos
Post edited February 27, 2014 by lostintime
avatar
JudasIscariot: Wishbone, I really can't tell you the answer to that one because I don't know. The best thing I can recommend is saving that question for TET, OK?
avatar
Wishbone: Sorry, I figured since you were here and were talking, you might have been given some answers.

I think it's pointless throwing more questions at TET right now. He probably has enough on his plate. I'll wait until he posts some of the answers to the questions they've picked up from this thread. It's possible he'll mention it, and if not, I can ask him then.
Sorry I've been AFK today; I needed to get other work that's been pending over my head all week done finally today and couldn't really check out the forums.

In regards to your question, I don't know either. :(

That's a bizdev question, and while we do follow Steam's conventions (for the most part) with the new game we've put up for pre-order, I do not know what that team is planning for classic games. That said, if you have a compelling reason why things should be one way or the other, be sure to share it with me and I'll pass it along.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: So we promised an answer for you guys today, and I've been hanging out at the office late in hopes it would develop; sadly, it seems that a few answers are still hung up on confirmations. Sorry about this, but we are going to be having a final go at it first thing tomorrow morning our time and will hopefully get all your questions answered by then.
avatar
dr4gz0r: Appreciating it TET!

Should we expect a further announcement (with the answers) regarding the situation, or rather you/the staff replying to some of the questions in this topic?
Both. I'll answer a few more myself here tonight, but we have a big list of questions we're working on getting official answers to tomorrow.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by TheEnigmaticT
avatar
lostintime: ...Keep in mind, this same scenario happened with the Witcher 2, but that game eventually lost regional pricing.

To me gog.com is still one of the good guys, I just wish more people could see the bigger picture here.
Usually if somebody refers to the bigger picture in order to convince an audience it is a sign that the situation will get even worse. However I have some hope. If GOG manages like they managed with Witcher 2 to make all their new good games to loose their regional pricing at some point (one year after release maybe) then they'll win me back. But not before.

And I doubt it somehow. Maybe Witcher 2 was an exception. After all now they seem totally comitted to regional pricing.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Trilarion
avatar
synfresh: There is nothing fair about, but GoG doesn't have the ability to dictate what's fair or not when it comes to regional pricing. I do find it ironic that people are inflaming GoG for the same reasons they inflame Steam when it comes to regional pricing, when in the reality neither have the ability to dictate those kind of terms.
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: They have....sorry had the ability to refuse publishers ripping off their customers.
You're right and what's been the end result of that? GoG continues to watch Steam grow in average daily usage. Enigmatic is telling you that there is a ceiling to what they are currently selling and they cannot grow without having new releases on the site.
avatar
NetAndy: Hmm, I see the same thing (Firefox) when I do not maximize the window.

EDIT:
I forgot to add attachement;)
avatar
JudasIscariot: Please write to us about that, OK? :)
OK.

avatar
NetAndy: It will not be radical (initially) but they plan to reprice all older games.
avatar
JudasIscariot: AFAIK, the plan to reprice the older games in the aforementioned currencies is to offset, for the most part, the fees incurred by currency exchange.
Well, you probably know more than me, but if that is true, does it mean we will be able to select the currency we want to use? I ask this because a) some people may have bank accounts with different currency that is used in their location (not to mention people using VPN) and b) none of the listed currencies is my own so I would prefer to choose for which currency I pay fees.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by NetAndy
avatar
synfresh: There is nothing fair about, but GoG doesn't have the ability to dictate what's fair or not when it comes to regional pricing. I do find it ironic that people are inflaming GoG for the same reasons they inflame Steam when it comes to regional pricing, when in the reality neither have the ability to dictate those kind of terms.
avatar
wintermute.: I find it somehow ironic how you ignore the fact nobody could force them to step away from principals hey sold us as core principals they would never step away from. Their customers mostly went to them because of those ideals. Now they dictate new terms on their customers, see reprising of old titles and there are many questions unanswered like the one what happens if they are bigger changes in exchange rates. Plus intransparency is the last thing they should aim at after this stunt.
Look, if you want to get on them because they need to abandon their 'core' principles because it's not long term business viable, then so be it. But at the same time you're not putting food on their table and you are not running their business. At some point the market for classic games will dry up, at that point what do suggest GoG do?
avatar
JudasIscariot: AFAIK, the plan to reprice the older games in the aforementioned currencies is to offset, for the most part, the fees incurred by currency exchange.
Well, the "repricing" does seem like mere "conversion+rounding up to the nearest .49/.99" to me.
Naturally, as the exchange rates of different currencies fluctuate, the initial (near-) parity is bound to be broken though.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Sanjuro
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: They have....sorry had the ability to refuse publishers ripping off their customers.
avatar
synfresh: You're right and what's been the end result of that? GoG continues to watch Steam grow in average daily usage. Enigmatic is telling you that there is a ceiling to what they are currently selling and they cannot grow without having new releases on the site.
GOG.com themselves said, that they have been growing each and every year, and proudly claimed that their winter sales always broke their servers, even though they increased them(doubled them even if I remember correctly) every year.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Ichwillnichtmehr
high rated
avatar
wintermute.: I find it somehow ironic how you ignore the fact nobody could force them to step away from principals hey sold us as core principals they would never step away from. Their customers mostly went to them because of those ideals. Now they dictate new terms on their customers, see reprising of old titles and there are many questions unanswered like the one what happens if they are bigger changes in exchange rates. Plus intransparency is the last thing they should aim at after this stunt.
avatar
synfresh: At some point the market for classic games will dry up, at that point what do suggest GoG do?
a snip, because this is the relevant bit for me.

with all due respect, i beg to differ. the pool of "classic games" will keep growing, steadily but surely. that's how this whole thing works.

it's now 2014. if we take the cutoff date for "classics" at 7 years ago, then that leaves every game from +/- 1979 to 2007 as a potential product gog can sell.

when it's 2015, that cutoff date goes to 2008. then 2009. etc.

so there will always be "classic games" to sell.