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”
I thought it was a great explanation. There are business realities here. They are not trying to price gouge.
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: No, sorry. Time is money and, while I might have time to dash off a few lines on an internet forum while I'm downloading the rest of my games from GOG, I don't have time to give GOG a free marketing and PR lessons. They make enough money. They can pay for it.

But.....I will say this.

From the fiascos they have already been involved in previously and that severely damaged their company and their reputation, they should have either hired someone who obviously had PR and Marketing skills or Guillaume Rambourg should have taken classes himself.

The first rule of thumb in PR if you know it's going to be bad news, is to treat your customers like intelligent individuals and not like clueless 12 year olds that will swallow bad news couched as "Yay, good news". We might be gamers, but wer're not idiots.

Second rule of thumb in PR - when your customers see through your lies, you then mea culpa as much as you possibly can. You don't come up with a whole slew of other lies ('we had to accept regional pricing') and you certainly don't play the victim role. "People will be fired", as your customers will say, as they have rightfully done here either "Bullshit" or "I don't care".

Finally, the internet is a marvelous tool (as I'm beginning to think Guillaume Rambourg is!), as it's quite easy to quickly look up GOG and CDProjekt Red's financials and see they are so far from firing anyone or not making large profits. Guillaume Rambourg should have thought of that before he intimated half of GOG was going to be let go.

Finally here is where they went wrong:

Give me the truth with reasonable reasons as to why you FELT you had to do what you did, and I may very well be angry but I will probably still give you my custom. Give me lies and treat me like an idiot. I will never buy from you again.
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: With all the money from those "fair locally priced" AAA blockbuster that will come out here on GOG.com, maybe they can hire you as PR personal. ;)
Good lord, NO :)

I did that for years. I own my own internet company now. Can't imagine going back to the horrors of working for someone else.
avatar
monkeydelarge: I can't believe you are putting someone down for using "LOL".
avatar
dhundahl: I wouldn't do it if we were talking about a youth. Or someone who was a youth a some point during the last decade. But a 25 year veteran with a solid education? Call me sensitive, but that just totally freaks me out. It's like when your grandparents start using youthful slang to try and sound like they're not senior citizens. Some things just shouldn't be said by old people. "LOL" is one of them. :-)
Yeah but she is a 25 year veteran with a solid education who spends a large amount of time on the internet. Sooner of later, words like "LOL" will rub off on you if you spend enough time here, I think. No matter if you are 21, 31, 41, 51, 61 or 71. :)
low rated
avatar
Randalator: Oooh, they're aiming for a fair conversion on their existing catalogue. Whoop-de-fucking-doo! Until of course the first publisher comes along and changes the pricing (because they can). GOG doesn't set the prices, it's the publishers.
Wait.. are you saying that the people who create a product are also getting to decide how much they will charge people who want to buy it? This is a horrible outrage! How dare someone decide what price they should receive for a product they've spent thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars to research and develop spread over many months/years!

Companies that do this should be put in jail! The price we pay for things shouldn't be the price a company thinks is fair, or a price that a company thinks meets the profit margin they find acceptable to bother producing the product in the first place! No, that's all wrong and ridiculous!

Realistically, the way everything - and not just games - should be priced is how some of the game bundle sites do it. The "pay what you want" method. That way people who want to buy a game - any game - for $0.01 can do it and people who want to pay $1000 can do it and everyone is happy! Everyone would be happy and buy their games, their pineapples, their cars etc. and pay what they want. Nobody would pirate anything and companies would become fabulously rich for sure.

(Just in case it isn't obvious as this thread is somewhat heated at times, I am trying to be humourous above and nothing more. Hopefully it puts a smile on people's faces regardless of viewpoint, much like the Hitler video cracked me up even though I disagree with the message. Arguably the Hitler video was funnier though, but that one is hard to top. ;oP )
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: We might be gamers, but wer're not idiots.
Speak for yourself...
avatar
Randalator: Oooh, they're aiming for a fair conversion on their existing catalogue. Whoop-de-fucking-doo! Until of course the first publisher comes along and changes the pricing (because they can). GOG doesn't set the prices, it's the publishers.
avatar
skeletonbow: Wait.. are you saying that the people who create a product are also getting to decide how much they will charge people who want to buy it? This is a horrible outrage! How dare someone decide what price they should receive for a product they've spent thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars to research and develop spread over many months/years!

Companies that do this should be put in jail! The price we pay for things shouldn't be the price a company thinks is fair, or a price that a company thinks meets the profit margin they find acceptable to bother producing the product in the first place! No, that's all wrong and ridiculous!

Realistically, the way everything - and not just games - should be priced is how some of the game bundle sites do it. The "pay what you want" method. That way people who want to buy a game - any game - for $0.01 can do it and people who want to pay $1000 can do it and everyone is happy! Everyone would be happy and buy their games, their pineapples, their cars etc. and pay what they want. Nobody would pirate anything and companies would become fabulously rich for sure.

(Just in case it isn't obvious as this thread is somewhat heated at times, I am trying to be humourous above and nothing more. Hopefully it puts a smile on people's faces regardless of viewpoint, much like the Hitler video cracked me up even though I disagree with the message. Arguably the Hitler video was funnier though, but that one is hard to top. ;oP )
"whine, blarg, accusation, threats, etc."

You know the drill ;)

And while I very much agree with the Hitler video, it would still be funny even if I didn't.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Ichwillnichtmehr
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: LOL, I've been in the PR and Marketing field for 25 years.
avatar
dhundahl: Well, if you're claiming to have worked PR for 25 years then I'm sure you have. Why would you lie about it? But it does give me pause that you're inclined to write "LOL", which is not something I've seen from 40+ year old veterans in the communication business, and you're also displaying a very odd use of the ellipsis.
Apologies, but i'm lmao over this. i would think that properly applied social trends, such as internet slang, could be useful for at least internet marketing. And perhaps even in PR, when situations call for light heartedness and such. Being serious and dry is a detriment sometimes.
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: With all the money from those "fair locally priced" AAA blockbuster that will come out here on GOG.com, maybe they can hire you as PR personal. ;)
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: Good lord, NO :)

I did that for years. I own my own internet company now. Can't imagine going back to the horrors of working for someone else.
Oh well, can't win 'em all.

But if you ever write a book about PR, and include this whole business, be sure to let us know. :)
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Ichwillnichtmehr
avatar
Matruchus: Well if it is abandonware then its no problem for gog to get it here. Afterall gog has some other abandonware games here.
Abandonware is a nonsense concept really. Either a game has been legally licensed into the public domain by the rights owners by way of a written license agreement granting all necessary rights or it has not and nobody has any legal right to use it. A copyright owner might choose to not enforce their copyright but they certainly have the right to do so at any time regardless of what anyone else might think about it being "abandoned" and even regardless of what they might throw out in an email or whatnot.

I am not a lawyer, but if you talk to an intellectual property lawyer they will tell you that the only legally binding license you have to use a copyrighted work with is one written explicitly granting you the individual rights (most likely worded in some legal mumbo jumbo form). And that if there is no such document, you can not infer any rights from it. Gentlemen's handshakes, random emails or things said on phonecalls or inferred are not legally binding either. So someone might say "yeah, use my code I don't care" for example in an email - not legally binding - and then you use it and later piss them off and they turn around and sue you for copyright infringement. In such a case you think and feel you've been given the legal right to use the code, but from a pure legal viewpoint what you've been given is not legally binding and invalid.

I must however not only encourage but insist that if anyone disagrees with what I've said, it is in your own best interest to consult an IP attourney directly and have them tell it to you themselves in their own professional words which will most likely be more detailed and accurate than my layman's passing along of things I've been told directly from an IP attourney myself.

Abandonware is a fabricated concept used to justify copyright violation - even if the true owner of the copyright claims to not have a problem with it informally.
avatar
Matruchus: Well if it is abandonware then its no problem for gog to get it here. Afterall gog has some other abandonware games here.
Far as i know, GOG has made contracts with the IP holders of what you call abandonware, which is really just a term which makes people feel better about not paying for it, i think. The money GOG pays out to the IP holders may not go to those who created it, but it does to those who for one reason or another, own the rights of ownership to it.
avatar
Randalator: Oooh, they're aiming for a fair conversion on their existing catalogue. Whoop-de-fucking-doo! Until of course the first publisher comes along and changes the pricing (because they can). GOG doesn't set the prices, it's the publishers.
avatar
skeletonbow: Wait.. are you saying that the people who create a product are also getting to decide how much they will charge people who want to buy it? This is a horrible outrage! How dare someone decide what price they should receive for a product they've spent thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars to research and develop spread over many months/years!

Companies that do this should be put in jail! The price we pay for things shouldn't be the price a company thinks is fair, or a price that a company thinks meets the profit margin they find acceptable to bother producing the product in the first place! No, that's all wrong and ridiculous!
You have to admit that a publisher being in total control over retail prices is not how things should work in a healthy market because it creates a situation similar to retailers cooperating to go for the same price (which is called a cartel by the way). In normal business, the supplier of a product gets a certain amount of money for the goods it delivers and the retailers take over from there, offering the goods at a price that they deem strikes an acceptable balance between competitive (people want to buy from you) and lucrative (you get a reasonable sales margin). In the digital distribution business, the norm is that everywhere you go, the price is the same, and as a consumer your option really boils down to whether you find that one price acceptable and if yes, which store you want to give your business to. It's a consumer-hostile situation to be sure.
avatar
HypersomniacLive: If the game is multiplayer, it exists on a server so the concept of DRM doesn’t exist and I’m fine with that.
Source
MCV India - INTERVIEW: Marcin Iwinski, co-founder, CD Projekt
avatar
ThreeSon: Iwinski was talking about MMO games with that statement. Regardless, he's wrong either way. The multiplayer for Battle Worlds, Planetary Annihilation, and Age of Wonders 3 do not "exist on a server," they exist on the users' computers. The publishers implement the required account system as an anti-piracy measure, to prevent those who pirated the game from being able to play. That is DRM. And GOG is now selling those games.
That's one way to spin it of course. The fact is that every video game with online multiplayer is practically guaranteed to have a billion selfish people show up playing with cheats to ruin the game for everyone else and that it is very rampant. Game companies have tried to prevent this via various anti-cheat measures but in order for such techniques to generally be effective the game company needs to have some way to uniquely identify the gamer so they can ban them or whatnot and the only really viable way to do that is to require a unique login ID of some sort bound to the customer which once revoked for cheating insures the person can't come back and do it again unless they go out and buy the game again. Being banned for cheating is IMHO a completely reasonable form of punishment. Being able to laugh and say "oh yeah" and change your IP address or whatever and come right back and do it again like trolls on IRC ban evading is not only not cool, it means that banning is completely ineffective and cheating prevails and destroys the game for the customer and simultaneously causes people to stop playing it and less people to have an incentive to buy it in the first place.

I don't see any other way to implement anti-cheat software that is doable without such unique keys, and I believe that any game that doesn't do this is going to have tonnes of cheaters destroy the game if it is popular thus making it unpopular. If they're selling you the game and licensing it to be ran on one computer at a time and you're obeying the license then having a single key to use the software allows you to use it and does not affect your ability to make copies of it. They might include actual DRM that tries to prevent you from copying the softawre, but requiring a license key to play online multiplayer isn't copy protection on its own. One can choose to see it that way if they want to, but anti-cheat is a perfectly reasonable reason to do this on online multiplayer.

If a game is an online-only game like World of Warcraft or similar MMOs, then the very nature of the game is that you need to be online and the license key merely authenticates that you have bought the game. How would Blizzard ensure that for example one person bought the game and when they play it, they are the only person who are playing that legally bought copy and that 500 people didn't just get copies off it from ThePirateBay? Not only that, how could they stop those 500 pirates from coming on the servers and destroying the game for everyone else? They need to have something there to prevent this and there aren't really a lot of feasible options even if they wanted to make a game like that DRM free and as open as possible.

Someone could write an open source MMORPG like WoW theoretically and all the source code is out there, there are no license keys etc. The game would IMHO be totally useless even if it was current generation, feature rich, bug free and complete because the servers would be inundated with idiots cheating and screwing up the game for everyone else /because they can and there's nothing whatsoever anyone can do about it/ Not on an open public server open to any random Joe anyway.

So, while World of Warcraft's very nature may be considered as DRM by some, you can't really make a game like that and not do it the way they've done it and have any expectation of security against cheating. Regardless of whether one still chooses to call that DRM or not, it is one of the only few cases where I'd consider the technology in place to be a reasonable requirement of the software whether it is viewed as DRM, or anti-cheat.

From the interview with Iwinski, I believe his statements were basically saying what I just said in less words and not a pro-DRM stance. WoW and similar games simply cease to exist if you remove that, whether they're owned by some evil greedy company or they're open source owned by the tooth fairy.
avatar
monkeydelarge: I can't believe you are putting someone down for using "LOL".
avatar
dhundahl: I wouldn't do it if we were talking about a youth. Or someone who was a youth a some point during the last decade. But a 25 year veteran with a solid education? Call me sensitive, but that just totally freaks me out. It's like when your grandparents start using youthful slang to try and sound like they're not senior citizens. Some things just shouldn't be said by old people. "LOL" is one of them. :-)
The thing that makes me laugh about your comment the most is this one "Some things just shouldn't be said by old people. "LOL" is one of them"

Come oooooooonnnn -- do we HAVE to put all people over the age of 30 into the 'old box' and relegate them to only being allowed to be one way? I guarantee you, you won't want that to be happening when YOU are my age :)

You might be surprised. Many 'old people' aren't exactly what you think we are.

This is me (and no, I'm not hiding my walking frame :) -- sorry to disappoint your narrow-minded views - LOL

http://beingbritishisawesome.co.uk/about-me-and-british-is-being-awesome/
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Bloodygoodgames
avatar
lostwolfe: uh oh.

i just went to the main page.

the releases sidebar is no longer showing the "letter from the md." ;)

i have a feeling this didn't turn out quite the way they expected.
Just loaded the page and it shows up perfectly fine for me. It's the button on the top right, clear as day. Clicking on the link brings up the discussion page also so the link is validated as well.
avatar
skeletonbow: Wait.. are you saying that the people who create a product are also getting to decide how much they will charge people who want to buy it? This is a horrible outrage! How dare someone decide what price they should receive for a product they've spent thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars to research and develop spread over many months/years!

Companies that do this should be put in jail! The price we pay for things shouldn't be the price a company thinks is fair, or a price that a company thinks meets the profit margin they find acceptable to bother producing the product in the first place! No, that's all wrong and ridiculous!
avatar
Selderij: You have to admit that a publisher being in total control over retail prices is not how things should work in a healthy market because it creates a situation similar to retailers cooperating to go for the same price (which is called a cartel by the way). In normal business, the supplier of a product gets a certain amount of money for the goods it delivers and the retailers take over from there, offering the goods at a price that they deem strikes an acceptable balance between competitive (people want to buy from you) and lucrative (you get a reasonable sales margin). In the digital distribution business, the norm is that everywhere you go, the price is the same, and as a consumer your option really boils down to whether you find that one price acceptable and if yes, which store you want to give your business to. It's a consumer-hostile situation to be sure.
Should is a word guaranteed to bring disappointment. The system should be better, and customers should be able to purchase goods at an equal price regardless of location. But that isn't how things are.