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
dhundahl: I'm messing a bit with Bloodygoodgame after she went in hard and furious and claimed some form of intellectual superiority based on nothing but fluff. I'd be happy to answer everybody but the truth is that I can't answer as quickly as they can write comments. Finally, no, my focus on age vs language are quite irrelevant.

As for my excessive wisdom and maturity, I really don't think I've made such a claim. Don't think it would be reasonable either. Even so, I'm not suggesting that other people are clueless morons, am I?
My post was equal parts being an ass and being serious. Don't read too much into the comment on wisdom and maturity thing, that was me being an ass.

That said, this should probably be dropped since it has long lost relevancy to the primary topic.
avatar
Selderij: One million euros in one fiscal quarter. They approximately had a revenue of €20 million and net profit of €4 million in 2013, both doubled from 2012. All that with old and indie games so far.
Is a revenue of 20 million euro all that much relative to the industry? A random article from Gartner suggests that the entire PC game market had a 2013 revenue of 17.7 billion dollars. Some basic (and very sleepy) calculations tell me that a ~28 million dollar revenue is ~0.16% of that entire pie. It's pretty nice, absolutely, but do you think it's enough momentum to be sure to keep going if a few plans go bad?

It shouldn't be forgotten that the existing catalog of classic games is fairly well mined. New games age and become classics, but obviously the number of 2005 classics is a bit smaller than the entire collection from before 2000, which means that either they'll have to slow down the rate of adding new games or they'll have to add increasingly less classics games. And didn't Steam come into existence around late 2004? So from around 2006 or so, they'll be running into an increasing number of classics that people already have available on Steam, which is definitely not going to boost sales.

I'm not privvy to remotely enough details to offer any kind of reasonable analysis but I can see a potential justification for being worried a few years down the line.
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.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I'm saying that if GOG could not get the game here following their own well-established principles, then they should have left it alone. I don't believe it is worth it, and now that they've opened the flood gates, I don't believe they have the option of turning back even if it proves to be a massive failure.

May I also say that, while you are of course entitled to your opinion, you might consider the fact that you just joined up, and so haven't spent years cultivating a customer relationship with GOG based on mutual trust and principles which, according to them, were set in stone. You haven't been a part of previous discussions when GOG sometimes did something stupid and had to apologize for it later. Any change of this magnitude cannot be gauged in isolation. You have to take the history leading up to it into account. And you just haven't been here to witness that history.

So consider that while you may not understand how we "old-timers" feel about things right now, we may in fact have good reasons for feeling that way. Showing up out of the blue, and telling everyone who has been here for years that you know more about how this place works than they do, can easily come off as more than a little arrogant.
avatar
CarrionCrow: After all this, I'd say that, even with me getting upset at how some people have chosen to run with it, it definitely sends the strongest message possible aside from people burning effigies outside GOG headquarters. From an absolutely cold logical standpoint, there's nothing to stop them from changing anything they wish to, just like there's nothing at the most basic level stopping any one of us from changing stances on something we hold dear. BUT, if GOG was to abandon the DRM-free stance at any point, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that their business would essentially be at an end. Steam can match them for acquiring any title due to massive amounts of market share and money, and the negativity that would flow from such an action would make all this look virtually nonexistent by comparison. They don't want to destroy their business, they want to see it grow. They want that so much that they're willing to weather all the crap that's come out of this decision in order to go forward with that plan for growth.
Currently yes it would be suicide, but these things are always gradual. I don't think it would happen (I hope not anyway), but compromising on a core value almost never is a good thing there's plenty of business examples (and plenty of government examples though those aren't and shouldn't be comparable) and many people have been "burned" by other places. Hypothetically if they had a large customer-base in the future that didn't care about drm (they just cared about not using a client or some other facet) what is to stop them then from doing basically the same thing?

I don't think that will happen, but people have every right to be paranoid and "grill" GOG over a change like this. After all the other examples in the industry of businesses taking customer apathy or acceptance and running with it. Look at the $60 price tags, Origin, Uplay, Blizzard's progression from being highly respected up until Diablo 3, and etc. those issues were all basically lost due to apathy and acceptance on the customer-base's part.
avatar
tammerwhisk: My post was equal parts being an ass and being serious. Don't read too much into the comment on wisdom and maturity thing, that was me being an ass.

That said, this should probably be dropped since it has long lost relevancy to the primary topic.
It's quite okay. You were being fair about it and you didn't say anything that I didn't deserve to hear. :-)
avatar
mobutu: Do you think that a todays kid who grew in a "lol" age interwebs will not use those slangs on the internets anymore when he'll be aged?
It's not the internet that's the problem. Hell, I write "lol" myself in chat all the time. No, the real problem is that the kids growing up with it don't think about what it actually means, and why it is used in internet chats. They just see it as a word to use in funny situations. The result? My son actually says "lol" when he finds something mildly funny, but not enough to actually laugh out loud, the irony of which completely escapes him. I just shake my head in shame when he does that.

Oh well, could be worse. Could be "ROFL" :-D
I support you GoG. Regardless of any negative posts you might receive here I understand that a growing business, at some stage, will require change to their business scope like a crab requires a new shell. I will continue to support GoG for as long as the games remain DRM Free. Real gamers concern themselves with the morality of their purchases rather than the price.
avatar
Wishbone: Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. I'm saying that if GOG could not get the game here following their own well-established principles, then they should have left it alone. I don't believe it is worth it, and now that they've opened the flood gates, I don't believe they have the option of turning back even if it proves to be a massive failure.

May I also say that, while you are of course entitled to your opinion, you might consider the fact that you just joined up, and so haven't spent years cultivating a customer relationship with GOG based on mutual trust and principles which, according to them, were set in stone. You haven't been a part of previous discussions when GOG sometimes did something stupid and had to apologize for it later. Any change of this magnitude cannot be gauged in isolation. You have to take the history leading up to it into account. And you just haven't been here to witness that history.

So consider that while you may not understand how we "old-timers" feel about things right now, we may in fact have good reasons for feeling that way. Showing up out of the blue, and telling everyone who has been here for years that you know more about how this place works than they do, can easily come off as more than a little arrogant.
I've never been a fan of shutting up just because I'm inexperienced. It takes too long to learn anything that way. I offer my reasoning and if there's a mistake in it then i hope someone will be kind enough to show it to me. It may come off as arrogant but it's really just my way of showing that I care.

Regarding AOW3, I do see your point, but if GOG isn't willing to compromise then how do you propose they try to get the ball rolling for DRM-free AAA titles? And what should they have done with Witcher 3? They probably can't sell it at a completely flat price if they want to get the physical stores onboard and if they don't get the stores onboard then they're losing a ton of revenue, aren't they?
avatar
mrkgnao: Yes. You could call the book "Good Old Greed".
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: You know, even now, I still don't think that they are motivated by greed.

I think they genuinly believe it's a good idea to abandon one of their core values to get these games onboard.

I obviously don't agree with them, since "We will stick with our core values!" is...sorry, was such a big part of their identity.
I believe they indeed believe that they are not motivated by greed. Few people would admit it to themselves. It's called rationalisation.
It's not politically correct to be greedy. Except in the US, where it seems to me that "making money" can serve as the moral justification for practically anything. That is why there appears to be a higher propensity among Americans to "understand" GOG, more so than because they are less affected by the regional pricing, or so I believe.
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: You know, even now, I still don't think that they are motivated by greed.

I think they genuinly believe it's a good idea to abandon one of their core values to get these games onboard.

I obviously don't agree with them, since "We will stick with our core values!" is...sorry, was such a big part of their identity.
avatar
mrkgnao: I believe they indeed believe that they are not motivated by greed. Few people would admit it to themselves. It's called rationalisation.
It's not politically correct to be greedy. Except in the US, where it seems to me that "making money" can serve as the moral justification for practically anything. That is why there appears to be a higher propensity among Americans to "understand" GOG, more so than because they are less affected by the regional pricing, or so I believe.
I believe this post is off the charts, Mary Lou Retton levels of mental gymnastics.

10/10
avatar
dhundahl: sorry to disappoint your narrow-minded views
Aren't you being narrow-minded for speaking out against regional pricing? Don't be such a square, man.
avatar
CarrionCrow: After all this, I'd say that, even with me getting upset at how some people have chosen to run with it, it definitely sends the strongest message possible aside from people burning effigies outside GOG headquarters. From an absolutely cold logical standpoint, there's nothing to stop them from changing anything they wish to, just like there's nothing at the most basic level stopping any one of us from changing stances on something we hold dear. BUT, if GOG was to abandon the DRM-free stance at any point, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that their business would essentially be at an end. Steam can match them for acquiring any title due to massive amounts of market share and money, and the negativity that would flow from such an action would make all this look virtually nonexistent by comparison. They don't want to destroy their business, they want to see it grow. They want that so much that they're willing to weather all the crap that's come out of this decision in order to go forward with that plan for growth.
avatar
tammerwhisk: Currently yes it would be suicide, but these things are always gradual. I don't think it would happen (I hope not anyway), but compromising on a core value almost never is a good thing there's plenty of business examples (and plenty of government examples though those aren't and shouldn't be comparable) and many people have been "burned" by other places. Hypothetically if they had a large customer-base in the future that didn't care about drm (they just cared about not using a client or some other facet) what is to stop them then from doing basically the same thing?

I don't think that will happen, but people have every right to be paranoid and "grill" GOG over a change like this. After all the other examples in the industry of businesses taking customer apathy or acceptance and running with it. Look at the $60 price tags, Origin, Uplay, Blizzard's progression from being highly respected up until Diablo 3, and etc. those issues were all basically lost due to apathy and acceptance on the customer-base's part.
Always possible years down the line. No crystal balls here, just have to run with trusting that GOG's got a central goal. If anything, their dedication to DRM-free seems increased to me. I know that might sound nonsensical, but I'll explain - They have one price, they have DRM-free. They feel they have to sacrifice one to strengthen the other. They picked DRM-free. The regional pricing will die on its own, even with how much of a bastard it is now. Still remembering how the bookstore chain Borders liked to ream people on prices. And where are they now? Dead. Amazon killed them. Once online takes over and makes physical retail stores the minority, things on that side will begin to stabilize (hopefully - and yes, I know the word "hope" is about as loaded as the word "should"). But DRM? It's going further and further. Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard, and of course Steam trying to essentially monopolize the whole thing by being far and away the biggest and most powerful. But GOG's still trying to fight the battle.

(Also, a digression - stopped respecting Blizzard once they decided that they couldn't produce a "single-player" title in under a decade since they were too busy milking the MMO cow til it died, then grinding its bones into paste. Using quotations on the word "single-player" since they don't even have single-player games anymore. They make online games. That's it. They make online games with unnecessary DRM and single-player modes you feel like an idiot for using since their DRM is so blatantly "you're gonna rob us, you piece of shit, so we're locking this whole thing down even though you spent money on it".)
avatar
dhundahl: I've never been a fan of shutting up just because I'm inexperienced. It takes too long to learn anything that way. I offer my reasoning and if there's a mistake in it then i hope someone will be kind enough to show it to me. It may come off as arrogant but it's really just my way of showing that I care.

Regarding AOW3, I do see your point, but if GOG isn't willing to compromise then how do you propose they try to get the ball rolling for DRM-free AAA titles? And what should they have done with Witcher 3? They probably can't sell it at a completely flat price if they want to get the physical stores onboard and if they don't get the stores onboard then they're losing a ton of revenue, aren't they?
Are they really going to lose a ton of revenue if they piss off retailers? Is retail really relevant in the digital age? Perhaps I'm not a materialistic person, but I haven't bought any physical software in ages! If I were a developer, I'd snort derisively at the prospect of dealing with the gymnastics, red tape, and cost of publishing the waste that is a physical copy. You'd actually save loads more from NOT selling physical copies, and avoid the pitfalls of the retail world!

As for GOG compromising for AAA titles, I'm not even sure if the three titles they tried this stunt with could even count as such. Perhaps my standards are wildly different.
avatar
dhundahl: I've never been a fan of shutting up just because I'm inexperienced. It takes too long to learn anything that way. I offer my reasoning and if there's a mistake in it then i hope someone will be kind enough to show it to me. It may come off as arrogant but it's really just my way of showing that I care.

Regarding AOW3, I do see your point, but if GOG isn't willing to compromise then how do you propose they try to get the ball rolling for DRM-free AAA titles? And what should they have done with Witcher 3? They probably can't sell it at a completely flat price if they want to get the physical stores onboard and if they don't get the stores onboard then they're losing a ton of revenue, aren't they?
avatar
Darvond: Are they really going to lose a ton of revenue if they piss off retailers? Is retail really relevant in the digital age? Perhaps I'm not a materialistic person, but I haven't bought any physical software in ages! If I were a developer, I'd snort derisively at the prospect of dealing with the gymnastics, red tape, and cost of publishing the waste that is a physical copy. You'd actually save loads more from NOT selling physical copies, and avoid the pitfalls of the retail world!

As for GOG compromising for AAA titles, I'm not even sure if the three titles they tried this stunt with could even count as such. Perhaps my standards are wildly different.
Walmart comes to mind. Steam makes hundreds of millions, but they make billions. Every single year. All over the planet. And stores keep popping up like mushrooms. They have an online component, but it's gonna be a long time before they ever get to a strictly online presence.
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: You know, even now, I still don't think that they are motivated by greed.

I think they genuinly believe it's a good idea to abandon one of their core values to get these games onboard.

I obviously don't agree with them, since "We will stick with our core values!" is...sorry, was such a big part of their identity.
avatar
mrkgnao: I believe they indeed believe that they are not motivated by greed. Few people would admit it to themselves. It's called rationalisation.
It's not politically correct to be greedy. Except in the US, where it seems to me that "making money" can serve as the moral justification for practically anything. That is why there appears to be a higher propensity among Americans to "understand" GOG, more so than because they are less affected by the regional pricing, or so I believe.
This post contains distilled wisdom :)