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
jfanno: I hope one of the affected customers is a master of DDOS attack.
That's not a very nice thing to say. So you're hoping that I can't get to download my games because you don't like getting a DRM free title on release day or potentially paying a few cents more for a classic title? I'm not pleased, good sir. May your next game purchase be Starforce protected!!
avatar
lostwolfe: that's why there's feedback. they could go ahead and work on all three, but allocate resources accordingly.

pick one gets 5 guys assigned to it.
pick two gets 3 guys assigned to it.
pick three gets 1 guy assigned to it.

at the end, they all do a report and the customers see where they got to.
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: C'mon, as a customer, I am not interested in their reports, but maybe you are (and I can't imagine why, honestly).

I just want games, so when I want something which isn't here, I vote on the wishlist. But I think what you and others want is some sort of confirmation that GOG is working on the wishlist.

It would be nice to get that, but I think the reason they don't is because they need to negotiate back and forth with their partners, and it's silly to raise customer's hopes up by telling them "oh we're working on this!" because what if it doesn't pan out. It looks bad on GOG to fail like that publicly.

There's still the desire of forum people wanting to feel like their wishes are being looked at, but there should be a better way to address it other than "vote for three and then report back".
Look i voted on the wishlists for years and not one game from that was released till now so that much about that.
avatar
jfanno: I hope one of the affected customers is a master of DDOS attack.
avatar
dhundahl: That's not a very nice thing to say. So you're hoping that I can't get to download my games because you don't like getting a DRM free title on release day or potentially paying a few cents more for a classic title? I'm not pleased, good sir. May your next game purchase be Starforce protected!!
Its not cents in the moment its in the range of 2digit price increase.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
Matruchus: Would not dare to bet on that anymore.
avatar
paulrainer: for being gamers and hating regional pricing as its a rip off and also DRM where are they today
yeah - they just hate drm - they relaxed their stance on fair pricing

they are as changeable as the weather so to trust them would be foolish
Unfortunately, so are the customers.
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: C'mon, as a customer, I am not interested in their reports, but maybe you are (and I can't imagine why, honestly).

I just want games, so when I want something which isn't here, I vote on the wishlist. But I think what you and others want is some sort of confirmation that GOG is working on the wishlist.

It would be nice to get that, but I think the reason they don't is because they need to negotiate back and forth with their partners, and it's silly to raise customer's hopes up by telling them "oh we're working on this!" because what if it doesn't pan out. It looks bad on GOG to fail like that publicly.

There's still the desire of forum people wanting to feel like their wishes are being looked at, but there should be a better way to address it other than "vote for three and then report back".
avatar
Matruchus: Look i voted on the wishlists for years and not one game from that was released till now so that much about that.
...
That sucks, sorry to read that. Maybe the games you like are particularly niche, and not many would buy them? If that's the case, you'll lose out with the "Vote for three" method as well.

Or maybe they're hard to get at the moment.
avatar
Matruchus: Look i voted on the wishlists for years and not one game from that was released till now so that much about that.
...
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: That sucks, sorry to read that. Maybe the games you like are particularly niche, and not many would buy them? If that's the case, you'll lose out with the "Vote for three" method as well.

Or maybe they're hard to get at the moment.
I like simulations and strategy games and these really aren't plenty here. And since gog has a tiny catalog in comparison to other sellers what can i do.

And since there are more and more strategy games released on steam and other platforms i just have to go there and that a bummer.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: That sucks, sorry to read that. Maybe the games you like are particularly niche, and not many would buy them? If that's the case, you'll lose out with the "Vote for three" method as well.

Or maybe they're hard to get at the moment.
avatar
Matruchus: I like simulations and strategy games and these really aren't plenty here. And since gog has a tiny catalog in comparison to other sellers what can i do.
You get to save your money! :D
avatar
lostwolfe: that's why there's feedback. they could go ahead and work on all three, but allocate resources accordingly.

pick one gets 5 guys assigned to it.
pick two gets 3 guys assigned to it.
pick three gets 1 guy assigned to it.

at the end, they all do a report and the customers see where they got to.
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: C'mon, as a customer, I am not interested in their reports, but maybe you are (and I can't imagine why, honestly).

I just want games, so when I want something which isn't here, I vote on the wishlist. But I think what you and others want is some sort of confirmation that GOG is working on the wishlist.

It would be nice to get that, but I think the reason they don't is because they need to negotiate back and forth with their partners, and it's silly to raise customer's hopes up by telling them "oh we're working on this!" because what if it doesn't pan out. It looks bad on GOG to fail like that publicly.

There's still the desire of forum people wanting to feel like their wishes are being looked at, but there should be a better way to address it other than "vote for three and then report back".
it doesn't have to be a full-on "we tried x tactic and it failed, so we tried y tactic." it can be as simple as five or so lines that make up a communication back to the core audience.

"we pursued game x, but didn't manage to secure it this time around, but stay tuned! we'll try again in the future."

this will do a couple of things: it'd let the public here know that the wish list was being looked at and worked through.

it would also allow customers to help steer gog. and this would help them have better metrics for working through their lists. for example. if game x was an adventure that had comic elements and game y was a deeply serious adventure with no sense of humour at all, but most people voted for game x, then that suggests that they need to find more space quests and monkey islands and the like.

and, really, this is just an idea. you're completely right. there may be better and more robust ways of doing it, but since the "vote fore three" got thrown out as a specific thing to try, i was thinking of ways to make that work so that it's fair on everyone. not everyone likes rpg's. but if the type of game cycled, then everyone gets a chance. for example.
avatar
Matruchus: I like simulations and strategy games and these really aren't plenty here. And since gog has a tiny catalog in comparison to other sellers what can i do.
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: You get to save your money! :D
Well that true steam does have better offers at least discount offers.
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: C'mon, as a customer, I am not interested in their reports, but maybe you are (and I can't imagine why, honestly).

I just want games, so when I want something which isn't here, I vote on the wishlist. But I think what you and others want is some sort of confirmation that GOG is working on the wishlist.

It would be nice to get that, but I think the reason they don't is because they need to negotiate back and forth with their partners, and it's silly to raise customer's hopes up by telling them "oh we're working on this!" because what if it doesn't pan out. It looks bad on GOG to fail like that publicly.

There's still the desire of forum people wanting to feel like their wishes are being looked at, but there should be a better way to address it other than "vote for three and then report back".
avatar
lostwolfe: it doesn't have to be a full-on "we tried x tactic and it failed, so we tried y tactic." it can be as simple as five or so lines that make up a communication back to the core audience.

"we pursued game x, but didn't manage to secure it this time around, but stay tuned! we'll try again in the future."

this will do a couple of things: it'd let the public here know that the wish list was being looked at and worked through.

it would also allow customers to help steer gog. and this would help them have better metrics for working through their lists. for example. if game x was an adventure that had comic elements and game y was a deeply serious adventure with no sense of humour at all, but most people voted for game x, then that suggests that they need to find more space quests and monkey islands and the like.

and, really, this is just an idea. you're completely right. there may be better and more robust ways of doing it, but since the "vote fore three" got thrown out as a specific thing to try, i was thinking of ways to make that work so that it's fair on everyone. not everyone likes rpg's. but if the type of game cycled, then everyone gets a chance. for example.
Yeah thats a good improvement on the idea.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
tammerwhisk: What is to ever stop the cop-out excuse that it is "out of [our] hands". As much of a juggernaut as Steam is in the market people still use the excuse that pricing and policy is entirely "out of Valve's control". Is anyone ever going to hit a point of growth where they are confident enough to say "No fuck you and your policies." to these publishers cannibalizing the industry?
I dislike bad excuses as much as the next guy, but at the same time it's sort of important to realise when someone literally had no recourse. I believe Stalin liked to execute commanders who couldn't do the impossible but that never did lead to much improvement on the battlefield.

In this case, GOG is a very tiny actor with a very tiny revenue relative to the big players and the option you're talking about is essentially a refusal to grow big enough to matter at this stage. Steam could potentially affect the pricing of anything but the really big titles but GOG is nowhere close to that. That they're even allowed to sell a DRM-free version on release day is arguably quite a breakthrough in itself.

Obviously there might come a time where "it's out of our control" is complete rubbish, but I don't think we're quite there yet. Steam is getting close for the most part, and they really can dictate terms with smaller developers, but if GOG tried to play hardball then the only consequence is that the title doesn't go here. And that doesn't benefit anyone, does it?
avatar
MoP: There haven't been any replies, no. You can view all staff responses with this link (ie. just append ?staff=yes)
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/letter_from_the_md_about_regional_pricing?staff=yes
Very helpful, thanks.
avatar
unknown78: I much more wonder and i'm afraid of how they from now on will handle indies also how transparent the regional pricing will be. For example if you want right now compare on humble store you have put realy into it. And who is willing to do that for a lets say 5$=5€ pricepoint indie game when the difference realy comes down to a few cents? As long as indie games are that cheap probably nobody will care.

But take bigger indie tittles (AA+) eg wasteland 2 / Dreamfall Chapters / Torment / "Star Citizen" / Pillars of Eternity.
with this tittles we talk about the $30 / $40 or even maybe $50 pricepoint where it realy is different and many off them where forced to be on GOG cause of the backers (basically the persons which fought for GOG as they knew it back).

How will GOG ever be able to refuse again regional pricing if it is allowed once?
I'm not too worried yet. The 5 dollar games will probably go into the 5.99 category and get priced as a 4.49 euro game. That's what's been suggested, at least. The more expensive indie titles will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis but how GOG deal with those is indeed going to be very interesting. I don't think they'll do a flat euro to dollar thing but I guess we'll see. If that's what the market does then GOG may not have that much of a choice beyond not getting to sell those games.
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: C'mon, as a customer, I am not interested in their reports, but maybe you are (and I can't imagine why, honestly).

I just want games, so when I want something which isn't here, I vote on the wishlist. But I think what you and others want is some sort of confirmation that GOG is working on the wishlist.

It would be nice to get that, but I think the reason they don't is because they need to negotiate back and forth with their partners, and it's silly to raise customer's hopes up by telling them "oh we're working on this!" because what if it doesn't pan out. It looks bad on GOG to fail like that publicly.

There's still the desire of forum people wanting to feel like their wishes are being looked at, but there should be a better way to address it other than "vote for three and then report back".
avatar
lostwolfe: it doesn't have to be a full-on "we tried x tactic and it failed, so we tried y tactic." it can be as simple as five or so lines that make up a communication back to the core audience.

"we pursued game x, but didn't manage to secure it this time around, but stay tuned! we'll try again in the future."

this will do a couple of things: it'd let the public here know that the wish list was being looked at and worked through.

it would also allow customers to help steer gog. and this would help them have better metrics for working through their lists. for example. if game x was an adventure that had comic elements and game y was a deeply serious adventure with no sense of humour at all, but most people voted for game x, then that suggests that they need to find more space quests and monkey islands and the like.

and, really, this is just an idea. you're completely right. there may be better and more robust ways of doing it, but since the "vote fore three" got thrown out as a specific thing to try, i was thinking of ways to make that work so that it's fair on everyone. not everyone likes rpg's. but if the type of game cycled, then everyone gets a chance. for example.
No, sorry, but that doesn't sound appealing at all- no one but the most ardent forum dweller, or other entities which would like to use that information to spread FUD about GOG, would care for such reports.

I get that you want to feel like you're involved, but I think the best thing would be to just vote on the wishlist- to be honest, so many games have come here BECAUSE they were on the wishlist, like BloodNet (and it only had around 30 votes!).

I do get what you mean, though, but honestly I think their recent new releases have been pretty balanced; just off the top of my head I count a strategy (deadlock), fps (full spectrum), platformer (fractured soul) etc.
avatar
dhundahl: And what does the AOW3 list tell us? How GOG wants to price games or how the industry is currently pricing them?
avatar
Matruchus: It tells us that gog agrees with the pricing model. And that is a big problem.
No, it doesn't tell us that at all. It tells us that they're going along with it, which is an entirely different thing. I don't agree with farmers pumping their animals full of antibiotics but I'm still buying their meat, since even though superbugs are a huge problem, I still have to eat. And meat is so tasty, isn't it?
avatar
unknown78: I much more wonder and i'm afraid of how they from now on will handle indies also how transparent the regional pricing will be. For example if you want right now compare on humble store you have put realy into it. And who is willing to do that for a lets say 5$=5€ pricepoint indie game when the difference realy comes down to a few cents? As long as indie games are that cheap probably nobody will care.

But take bigger indie tittles (AA+) eg wasteland 2 / Dreamfall Chapters / Torment / "Star Citizen" / Pillars of Eternity.
with this tittles we talk about the $30 / $40 or even maybe $50 pricepoint where it realy is different and many off them where forced to be on GOG cause of the backers (basically the persons which fought for GOG as they knew it back).

How will GOG ever be able to refuse again regional pricing if it is allowed once?
avatar
dhundahl: I'm not too worried yet. The 5 dollar games will probably go into the 5.99 category and get priced as a 4.49 euro game. That's what's been suggested, at least. The more expensive indie titles will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis but how GOG deal with those is indeed going to be very interesting. I don't think they'll do a flat euro to dollar thing but I guess we'll see. If that's what the market does then GOG may not have that much of a choice beyond not getting to sell those games.
The problem here is that gog is already bulshitting us with fair priced regional locked classic games, but current real currency conversion is 5.99$ = 4.37€ and yes cents do matter as not everybody is rich.
avatar
Matruchus: It tells us that gog agrees with the pricing model. And that is a big problem.
avatar
dhundahl: No, it doesn't tell us that at all. It tells us that they're going along with it, which is an entirely different thing. I don't agree with farmers pumping their animals full of antibiotics but I'm still buying their meat, since even though superbugs are a huge problem, I still have to eat. And meat is so tasty, isn't it?
It tells they are folding, they should just leave regional priced games and forget about them, cause now they want to regionaly price everything which is not fair.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: You get to save your money! :D
avatar
Matruchus: Well that true steam does have better offers at least discount offers.
...
I agree, I recently got three copies of Warlock Master of Arcane; two to gift to friends. I do agree GOG should expand it's catalogue, but I would like to see newer games, hopefully big or AAA titles, and only the best/most interesting classics, like Sword of the Samurai.