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
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.
Which could turn into a clusterfuck. DRM partly exists to prevent "scamming" the regional pricing bullshit. If anyone from here ever had the misfortune of getting an RHCP version of a game on Steam instead of ROW, they will know exactly what I mean.
avatar
Matruchus: Well TEnigmaticT thinks that all games he does not like are not worth bringing on Gog so thats the reason for it.
Alright, alright, no need to twist his words. It's not what "he likes", it's what "gog thinks will be viable to release". Of course we don't want this place to become a junkyard of every piece of trash from the past (well... nevermind :P), there has to be quality control just like with every other release.

But there's more to it than a score on a major site or the wishlist, there's dedicated communities, foras, I've seen devs show up out of the blue and talk about some of the brought up unknown titles. I'm not saying it's easy, it's obviously a fudge-ton of work tracking and acquiring the rights and making the games work (as many of the more devoted users here will attest -massive respect yo-), but for the lesser known titles at least the first part could potentially be less taxing.
Just hoped this constant "growth" would lead to more possibilities for gog in this regard, instead of resigning that "once we've got the big boys, were calling it a day".
Post edited February 27, 2014 by MoP
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: In Soviet Russia, regional pricing rip off publishers. ;)
avatar
unknown78: 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.
I know: "If we make it to expensive, the Russians will pirate the games."

Besides the obvious low regard for how principled Russians are(Ironic if you ask me), I wonder why they don't apply this to the rest of the world, especially since there are a lot of countries with even lower medium income than Russia.
avatar
silentbob1138: And it can't be stressed enough that a large part of the 69% consists of customers from poor countries.
avatar
StormHammer: 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 .....

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
Germany gets as always screwed ... our vats = 19% ... $ to € hovering around 35% right now ... so we have around 16% priceraise whenever $=€ --> AOW3 = 40€ * 0,16 so we pay around 6.4€ or close to 9$ more if we include VAT's
avatar
Matruchus: Well TEnigmaticT thinks that all games he does not like are not worth bringing on Gog so thats the reason for it.
avatar
MoP: Alright, alright, no need to twist his words. It's not what "he likes", it's what "gog thinks will be viable to release". Of course we don't want this place to become a junkyard of every piece of trash from the past (well... nevermind :P), there has to be quality control just like with every other release.

But there's more to it than a score on a major site or the wishlist, there's dedicated communities, foras, I've seen devs show up out of the blue and talk about some of the brought up unknown titles. I'm not saying it's easy, it's obviously a fudge-ton of work tracking and acquiring the rights and making the games work (as many of the more devoted users here will attest -massive respect yo-), but for the lesser known titles at least the first part could potentially be less taxing.
No twisting word there he said that most of the games in moby catalog - that by the way has almoust all the games that exist listed - are shit.

And there is no quality control > Daikatana.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Matruchus
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).
avatar
Matruchus: Well TEnigmaticT thinks that all games he does not like are not worth bringing on Gog so thats the reason for it.
i don't think that's the case.

i think what happens is they look at metrics. and of course [and i can't stress this enough] metrics are not always right.

he mentioned that they use metacritic. but as we've seen in the past [for example with spore] - those very metrics can be messed with by anyone.

for those who weren't around or don't know: when spore came out, ea had incredibly draconian drm on the game. it was something like, you had three lifetime installs and once you used them, you could never get more. you had to buy a new box.

the net result was that spore was - for a time - the most pirated game in history. it was also bombed with a score of one on amazon for ea's shortsightedness. [in much the same way as we bombed jack keane's score down a whole bunch during the insomnia sale.]

it does worry me somewhat that they cling to numbers like that, but i can /sort/ of understand. they're a business. what they really should be doing, though is using the wishlist, coupled with real user reviews of the games - not critic scores, because those sorts of things can be /very/ misleading.

[most notably, off the top of my head, i can think of one game that exemplifies this: "okami" was a critical darling, but sold so poorly that it killed clover studios.]

so...critic review score numbers? not always such a good idea.
avatar
Matruchus: Well TEnigmaticT thinks that all games he does not like are not worth bringing on Gog so thats the reason for it.
avatar
lostwolfe: i don't think that's the case.

i think what happens is they look at metrics. and of course [and i can't stress this enough] metrics are not always right.

he mentioned that they use metacritic. but as we've seen in the past [for example with spore] - those very metrics can be messed with by anyone.

for those who weren't around or don't know: when spore came out, ea had incredibly draconian drm on the game. it was something like, you had three lifetime installs and once you used them, you could never get more. you had to buy a new box.

the net result was that spore was - for a time - the most pirated game in history. it was also bombed with a score of one on amazon for ea's shortsightedness. [in much the same way as we bombed jack keane's score down a whole bunch during the insomnia sale.]

it does worry me somewhat that they cling to numbers like that, but i can /sort/ of understand. they're a business. what they really should be doing, though is using the wishlist, coupled with real user reviews of the games - not critic scores, because those sorts of things can be /very/ misleading.

[most notably, off the top of my head, i can think of one game that exemplifies this: "okami" was a critical darling, but sold so poorly that it killed clover studios.]

so...critic review score numbers? not always such a good idea.
They should forget the metrics and other stuff and just make a list lets say with 3 games that we can choose from that they would try to bring here and let us vote on that.
avatar
lostwolfe: [most notably, off the top of my head, i can think of one game that exemplifies this: "okami" was a critical darling, but sold so poorly that it killed clover studios.]
I still weep about that.
avatar
unknown78: 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
Ichwillnichtmehr: I know: "If we make it to expensive, the Russians will pirate the games."

Besides the obvious low regard for how principled Russians are(Ironic if you ask me), I wonder why they don't apply this to the rest of the world, especially since there are a lot of countries with even lower medium income than Russia.
Cause lobyism can controll other contries and they can force laws to be like they want it to be. But this just don't work in russia. Putin won't say o dear america we know you are right so we place this laws. So if there are no real laws or law enforcment you can't controll the masses.
avatar
dhundahl: The point is, regional prices just mean different prices in each region. It doesn't have to mean that price go up and so far we've got no real indication that GOG is going to hike the prices to any significant degree, at least not beyond what forces outside their control force them to do.
avatar
Wishbone: Of course we have seen the kind of price hikes which forces "outside their control" "force" them to do.
On a new release title that they really couldn't do much about. What you're saying is essentially that you'd rather not have the option of getting AOW DRM-free on release day if you have to pay the market price for it, which would in turn result in everybody who wanted to pay the market price ending up without the DRM-free alternative that is GOG.

You can throw that AOW3 list around as much as you want but the hard truth remains that it's a new release title and GOG just isn't a big enough player to dictate how they should be priced. What's much more interesting is how GOG ends up pricing the classics, which is a scene where GOG actually is a big player. If that ends up being as imbalanced as the AOW3 pricing then clearly they've abandoned their principle of keeping prices fair. If it ends up being withing a few cents of the local currency equivalent to the dollar price then the change is really quite minimal.
avatar
lostwolfe: i don't think that's the case.

i think what happens is they look at metrics. and of course [and i can't stress this enough] metrics are not always right.

he mentioned that they use metacritic. but as we've seen in the past [for example with spore] - those very metrics can be messed with by anyone.

for those who weren't around or don't know: when spore came out, ea had incredibly draconian drm on the game. it was something like, you had three lifetime installs and once you used them, you could never get more. you had to buy a new box.

the net result was that spore was - for a time - the most pirated game in history. it was also bombed with a score of one on amazon for ea's shortsightedness. [in much the same way as we bombed jack keane's score down a whole bunch during the insomnia sale.]

it does worry me somewhat that they cling to numbers like that, but i can /sort/ of understand. they're a business. what they really should be doing, though is using the wishlist, coupled with real user reviews of the games - not critic scores, because those sorts of things can be /very/ misleading.

[most notably, off the top of my head, i can think of one game that exemplifies this: "okami" was a critical darling, but sold so poorly that it killed clover studios.]

so...critic review score numbers? not always such a good idea.
avatar
Matruchus: They should forget the metrics and other stuff and just make a list lets say with 3 games that we can choose from that they would try to bring here and let us vote on that.
But what if people don't like the three games on the list. Maybe we should have a vote on what three games go for the vote, and maybe a vote for that, and that, ad infinitum.

Or we can vote for the games we want in the Wishlist section.
avatar
Wishbone: Of course we have seen the kind of price hikes which forces "outside their control" "force" them to do.
avatar
dhundahl: On a new release title that they really couldn't do much about. What you're saying is essentially that you'd rather not have the option of getting AOW DRM-free on release day if you have to pay the market price for it, which would in turn result in everybody who wanted to pay the market price ending up without the DRM-free alternative that is GOG.

You can throw that AOW3 list around as much as you want but the hard truth remains that it's a new release title and GOG just isn't a big enough player to dictate how they should be priced. What's much more interesting is how GOG ends up pricing the classics, which is a scene where GOG actually is a big player. If that ends up being as imbalanced as the AOW3 pricing then clearly they've abandoned their principle of keeping prices fair. If it ends up being withing a few cents of the local currency equivalent to the dollar price then the change is really quite minimal.
If the regional pricing is going to be on real time currency exchange value then i could agree on that but fixed currency exchange no way.
avatar
Matruchus: They should forget the metrics and other stuff and just make a list lets say with 3 games that we can choose from that they would try to bring here and let us vote on that.
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: But what if people don't like the three games on the list. Maybe we should have a vote on what three games go for the vote, and maybe a vote for that, and that, ad infinitum.

Or we can vote for the games we want in the Wishlist section.
Well they could make a weekly 3 games list. I just must say that the games that are coming on gog in the last year are mostly rpg, adventure, platformer of which i dont really care about. They are really boring.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
StormHammer: 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 .....

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
avatar
unknown78: Germany gets as always screwed ... our vats = 19% ... $ to € hovering around 35% right now ... so we have around 16% priceraise whenever $=€ --> AOW3 = 40€ * 0,16 so we pay around 6.4€ or close to 9$ more if we include VAT's
I'm sorry to hear that.

For the UK calculation... $40 = ~ £23.98 add 20% VAT = ~ £28.78

Age Of Wonders 3 is priced at £29.99, so we're basically paying another £1.20 ( ~ $2) on top.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by StormHammer
avatar
Matruchus: Well TEnigmaticT thinks that all games he does not like are not worth bringing on Gog so thats the reason for it.
avatar
lostwolfe: i don't think that's the case.

i think what happens is they look at metrics. and of course [and i can't stress this enough] metrics are not always right.

he mentioned that they use metacritic. but as we've seen in the past [for example with spore] - those very metrics can be messed with by anyone.

for those who weren't around or don't know: when spore came out, ea had incredibly draconian drm on the game. it was something like, you had three lifetime installs and once you used them, you could never get more. you had to buy a new box.

the net result was that spore was - for a time - the most pirated game in history. it was also bombed with a score of one on amazon for ea's shortsightedness. [in much the same way as we bombed jack keane's score down a whole bunch during the insomnia sale.]

it does worry me somewhat that they cling to numbers like that, but i can /sort/ of understand. they're a business. what they really should be doing, though is using the wishlist, coupled with real user reviews of the games - not critic scores, because those sorts of things can be /very/ misleading.

[most notably, off the top of my head, i can think of one game that exemplifies this: "okami" was a critical darling, but sold so poorly that it killed clover studios.]

so...critic review score numbers? not always such a good idea.
Reviews in general are a bit of a CF. They are entirely subjective and as you said prone to abuse, whereas to make decent decisions businesses need objective data. I really hope GOG doesn't put too much stack in things like metacritic with their processes as there have been numerous games I adored that by review scores would be considered "shit" (on the flip-side some games that got golden reviews are terrible boring affairs imo). Communicating with their users to at least determine what is desired (I realize they have to be vague on their end for certain business things, but there is still valuable data the community would be more than willing to provide be it the wishlist or surveys) should take top priority, since our collective purchasing habits may not be necessarily in line with the "industry standard".
avatar
Wolfsherz: So, you take a lot of words to tell European Customers that the prices on GOG actually increase.

$9.99 is not €7,49! ==> Should be €7,26
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: You mean to tell me that your currency exchange fees are less than 26 eurocents?
I fully expected to answer you, "Paypal doesn't charge me fees, they just have a slightly worse conversion rate, to the tune of 3% at a guess. Which means 0,26 EUR fee => ~8,67 EUR price, which is more than your $9.99 games ..."

Then I thought, "What the heck, let's use REAL numbers. I pay via PayPal, let's see if I can't get out what I paid GOG in USD and what PayPal made of that in EUR ...". Turns out you can get the data (max 2 years at a time), even in CSV. With conversion data. But each transaction is 4 lines. ByeBye spreadsheed, hello manual labour.

So instead I wrote a small Perl script. I debugged it, making sure the values add up and make sense.

Then I threw it at all the data ... and it said (I quote it completely):
USD: 520.03
EUR: 402.76

I spent ~520 USD on GOG since October 13th, 2012 --- which matches my first purchase, Evil Genius.
I paid a bit over 400 EUR for that ~520 USD.

Let's see: If GOG had the conversion rate $9.99 => EUR 7,49, I'd have paid ...

520.03 USD / (7,49 EUR / 9.99 USD) = 389,89 EUR

and at $5.99 => 4,49 EUR ...

520.03 USD / (4,49 EUR / 5.99 USD) = 389,81 EUR


That means: IF GOG HAD HAD REGIONAL PRICING all the time I was there IT WOULD HAVE COST ME -12,87 EUR or - 3.20% more. (observe the fact that the numbers are negative!)

F...iddlesticks. F...IDDLESTICKS!!
Here I go and collect incriminating, unrefutable data that GOG's gonna cheat me out of EUR 0,26 per whatever and that that is $HUGE_SUM by now from someone who bought well over 150 games and ... F...iddlesticks ... my own data backstabs me.


As to the "fair price" --- is it the same sum, the same sum proportional to available income (for a rather poor country $10 is way more than for a well-off country), the same sum proportional to the local prices, or what? Sure, there's an exchange rate from USD to everything, but does it convert proportional value-to-the-buyer-of-games? If the EUR crashes down, is it fair to me to pay more and more EUR for the same thing --- especially if I don't get a raise that sorta matches the currency fall? Is it fair if due to a rising EUR I pay less and less for the same item?

Just sayin', the "identical USD value" may be "easy", but not necessarily fair.