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
Matruchus: Agree with that is really is a form of DRM that is since it regulates your right to buy the game, since it discriminates buyers all over the world.
avatar
ViDRa: on facebook they said:
"region locking IS a form of DRM, and for that exact reason we never plan to introduce it. We didn't take that extra step now to be able to secure more DRM-Free games, only to abandon our DRM-Free mission afterwards."

i dont know why they dont answer these questions here...
if this is the case, then this is all sorts of confusing.

they may as well not bother having regional pricing, because all that will happen is that everyone will look at the region prices, move to russia, buy the game and be done with it.
avatar
StormHammer: 3% of countries will pay less. 28% will pay the same. 69% will pay more.
avatar
silentbob1138: And it can't be stressed enough that a large part of the 69% consists of customers from poor countries.
Well the thesis that gog is gone away from fair pricing is confirmed by above data.
avatar
ViDRa: on facebook they said:
"region locking IS a form of DRM, and for that exact reason we never plan to introduce it. We didn't take that extra step now to be able to secure more DRM-Free games, only to abandon our DRM-Free mission afterwards."
I took the liberty of highlighting the operative word in that sentence. We've seen a lot of phrases of that nature these past couple of days. Note how they very carefully avoid saying they will never introduce it, just that they haven't planned to do so. The plans could be made tomorrow. Or more likely, once a few regionally priced new titles have been released here, and people start gifting them across differently priced regions, a publisher will "force" GOG to implement it.

It's completely outside their control, you understand. No, they would never willingly do something like that. They will however willingly put themselves in a situation where this can be "forced" on them.
avatar
ViDRa: i dont know why they dont answer these questions here...
That is a damned good question. On the other hand, GOG unfortunately has a long history of preferring social media to their own site.
Not just directed at GOG, but I'm curious how the game industry will respond to my country driving the value of the dollar into the ground (as in how it will impact prices both here and abroad). Should the value of USD decrease significantly I wonder what this will mean in regards to the "fair local pricing" and regional markups those of you in other regions receive. Will they adjust prices? Or just sweep it under the rug like the "industry standard"?
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: No, I mean that they're legitimately either not games we want or are games that are very challenging to sign. All the games with +500 votes on the wishlist? We've been trying to get them. We know you want them. We want them, too. But they're the cream of the crop, if you will. The best games from history. Most games aren't as good.
...
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
Phc7006: I can agree with the lower number of "should acquire" games, but I sincerely hope that you have other criteria than a mobygame rating above 70 ( a very subjective measure of quality) and the wishlist (which is even worse imho as it is biased toward some iconic games. Voters probably explore very little towards things they do not know )
And this is exactly why I found this attitude in the letter quite disappointing. I was hoping this place would be for discovering the heaps of lesser known gems from the past, not just re-discovering the big-names everybody's heard of. Maybe that was unreasonable of me from the get go.

And again, I acknowledged that a sizable chunk of the the titles won't be coming here, for one reason or another. But really, You have (going by the rough numbers) ~5.3% of the adventure games only up to the year 2000 here; that just doesn't sound like reaching the end of the "cream of the crop" anytime soon. After all these years I really hoped Your "net" would be more encompassing than the wishlist and the "metacritics", which just seems short-sighted.

Hoping Your sights will widen eventually (or somebody creates a GOY, "Gems of Yore" or something and gets to it ;P).
Post edited February 27, 2014 by MoP
An idea for a formular which might be as fair as possible:

"gameprice in the country of the devs or publishers" / "monthly average wage of this country" * "monthly average wage of the country from the customer"

This formular is based on the idea of if you can by 10 games in america for the average montly wage -> you can also by 10 games in russia for the average monthly wage

Also the value of the game is basically equal in every country and the publisher / dev gets the same profit in every country compared to this countries monthly wage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_in_Europe_by_monthly_average_wage
avatar
ViDRa: on facebook they said:
"region locking IS a form of DRM, and for that exact reason we never plan to introduce it. We didn't take that extra step now to be able to secure more DRM-Free games, only to abandon our DRM-Free mission afterwards."

i dont know why they dont answer these questions here...
avatar
lostwolfe: if this is the case, then this is all sorts of confusing.

they may as well not bother having regional pricing, because all that will happen is that everyone will look at the region prices, move to russia, buy the game and be done with it.
In Soviet Russia, regional pricing rip off publishers. ;)
avatar
lostwolfe:
Haha yah, the irony of that phrase is just perfect.

I do agree with some of the comments on here that regional price gouging (not sure about how they'll implement different currrencies (they probably should have called it "Option to Use Different Currencies" instead of "Regional Currency Pricing"), but I refer to our current only example AoW3) ends up being a form of DRM. Not necessarily on the line with the strict definition, but I imagine the effect in sales is similar.
avatar
Phc7006: I can agree with the lower number of "should acquire" games, but I sincerely hope that you have other criteria than a mobygame rating above 70 ( a very subjective measure of quality) and the wishlist (which is even worse imho as it is biased toward some iconic games. Voters probably explore very little towards things they do not know )
avatar
MoP: And this is exactly why I found this attitude in the letter quite disappointing. I was hoping this place would be for discovering the heaps of lesser known gems from the past, not just re-discovering the big-names everybody's heard of. Maybe that was unreasonable of me from the get go.

And again, I acknowledged that a sizable chunk of the the titles won't be coming here, for one reason or another. But really, You have (going by the rough numbers) ~5.3% of the adventure games up to the year 2000 here; that just doesn't sound like reaching the end of the "cream of the crop" anytime soon. After all these years I really hoped Your "net" would be more encompassing than the wishlist and the "metacritics", which just seems short-sighted.

Hoping Your sights will widen eventually (or somebody creates a GOY, "Gems of Yore" or something and gets to it ;P).
Well TEnigmaticT thinks that all games he does not like are not worth bringing on Gog so thats the reason for it.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: Alien Rape Escape: 44 MobyScore
This game on GOG and regional pricing is forgiven :)
But, being serious for a short minute, this:
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: No, I mean that they're legitimately either not games we want or are games that are very challenging to sign. All the games with +500 votes on the wishlist? We've been trying to get them. We know you want them. We want them, too. But they're the cream of the crop, if you will. The best games from history. Most games aren't as good.
makes me more sad and worried more than this whole regional pricing thing.
I really, really, really hope that GOG investigates more than the wishlist and MobyGames where everybody can troll the score as they see fit.
Come on, GOG, do some Boulder Dash and dig up some gems for me.
And any metacritic-style thing is shittier than the shittiest of those games they rate :)

EDIT.
Hey! The alien game is freeware!
And pretty funny Larry style. Also, short.
:)
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Novotnus
avatar
StormHammer: 3% of countries will pay less. 28% will pay the same. 69% will pay more.
avatar
silentbob1138: And it can't be stressed enough that a large part of the 69% consists of customers from poor countries.
For the sake of clarity for other members of the community, here is the list of countries that would currently be affected by a price rise (using the AOW3 list as a basis for other games utilising regional pricing):

Algeria
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Bolivia
Bulgaria
Colombia
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
Estonia
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guyana
Hungary
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Kenya
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
Morocco
Netherlands
Nigeria
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Portugal
Romania
Senegal
Serbia
Slovakia
South Africa
Spain
Suriname
Sweden
Taiwan
Thailand
Ukraine
United Kingdom

People from each of these countries will have a better idea of how negatively impacted they will be by this regional pricing model.

Speaking as a resident of the UK, I can say that the price we would pay (for AOW3) is relatively fair as it is just over what we would have to pay with 20% VAT rate added. I cannot speak for other countries, not knowing their VAT rates or 'purchasing power'. :P

Source: http://www.gog.com/forum/age_of_wonders_series/post_your_regional_price_for_aow3/page1

Edit - please remember that this was in relation to new AA+ games. The pricing of classic games in the catalogue is different (and in my view, more reasonable).
Post edited February 27, 2014 by StormHammer
Just my 2 cents here. You all do realize that all of this is regional nonsense is easily circumvented by applying a few relatively simple technological solutions that don't require advanced skills in computing/programming/inter-web-wizardin? We could, collectively, "move" to Russia to make a point.
avatar
ViDRa: on facebook they said:
"region locking IS a form of DRM, and for that exact reason we never plan to introduce it."
The key phrase being 'never plan to'. Had you asked them a year ago if they planned to introduce regional prices they would have stated something along the lines of:
'regional pricing typically entails regional locks which are enforced by a form of DRM, and for that exact reason we will never change our flat pricing policy.'
avatar
lostwolfe: if this is the case, then this is all sorts of confusing.

they may as well not bother having regional pricing, because all that will happen is that everyone will look at the region prices, move to russia, buy the game and be done with it.
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: In Soviet Russia, regional pricing rip off publishers. ;)
Not sure if that realy is the case. Even it might sound crazy but i think the idea behind being that cheap on russia helps the publisher / dev sell at least a few copies. If they would raise it ... lets say russia knows exactly how to force pressure.
avatar
Brahmaparush: Just my 2 cents here. You all do realize that all of this is regional nonsense is easily circumvented by applying a few relatively simple technological solutions that don't require advanced skills in computing/programming/inter-web-wizardin? We could, collectively, "move" to Russia to make a point.
You mean using proxies?