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
scampywiak: They have to deal with publishers ( console sales) selling Witcher 3 who are tied to retail distributors. It's not the same with older games here.
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: Have you noticed what Notch and Minecraft does?

Minecraft was only available from Mojang's website and Notch has controlled distribution of all of it. Yet he's managed to negotiate deals with every console company so that it will also be available on console. And yes,it has sold tens of millions of copies.

He has also turned down the idea of even thinking about putting Minecraft on Steam as it's completely against his principles, principles he has stuck to no matter what.

I'm happy every day that I bought Minecraft a few months ago (besides that it's the best game I've ever played), as I love to support someone who has ethics, morals and sticks to them. Unlike GOG, who bend with the wind.

The interesting thing too, BECAUSE Minecraft was only available at one place, it became a game that developed a huge following as not having it slapped on every digital download service made it seem more exclusive, and more important and thus caused everybody and their brother to want to buy it.

CDProjekt Red could have done that, particularly as the game is obviously going to be received so well. Instead, they chose to go down the AAA distribution-kiss up the publishers route to the detriment of the customers instead.

Because of that, and because of this idiocy on GOG, I'll never buy another game they produce.
Agreed never bought a witcher game before and probably never will.
avatar
silentbob1138: Why should they accept a global price? That largely depends on us.
Many of us won't buy the regional rip-off games. For each of us who doesn't buy Age of Wonders 3 they lose $40 to $55 in sales. They are counting on enough people to buy at the $55 rip-off price to not only compensate for the lost sales but to make them even more money than they would with more people buying at a global price of $40. It remains to be seen if their strategy works. If it doesn't work than that is their reason to accept global prices.
avatar
Matruchus: They wont change this. This works with every other game on steam so its not going to change. Steam announces a release with rip-off price and sales skyrocket.

avatar
CarrionCrow: Problem is, you push that too far and you get things like Ubisoft servers or Battle.net requirements for single-player. You can win the battle in a sense, but you'll lose the war for everyone.
avatar
Matruchus: Well those can be also removed. Its not that big a problem for pirates.
That's the approach that has to be overcome, though. The companies have to stop fucking over the potential customers, and the potential customers have to stop feeling like they can rob the companies any time they feel like it.
avatar
Matruchus: They wont change this. This works with every other game on steam so its not going to change. Steam announces a release with rip-off price and sales skyrocket.
That is true, but while there is some overlap a large part of Gog's customer base is not using Steam. A lot of us are here because Gog is or rather was very different. I have no idea how many. Maybe the silent majority is perfectly okay with regional rip-offs. Or maybe a large part thinks exactly like all of us here in the comments who are not okay with it. Time and sales will tell.
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: Have you noticed what Notch and Minecraft does?

Minecraft was only available from Mojang's website and Notch has controlled distribution of all of it. Yet he's managed to negotiate deals with every console company so that it will also be available on console. And yes,it has sold tens of millions of copies.

He has also turned down the idea of even thinking about putting Minecraft on Steam as it's completely against his principles, principles he has stuck to no matter what.

I'm happy every day that I bought Minecraft a few months ago (besides that it's the best game I've ever played), as I love to support someone who has ethics, morals and sticks to them. Unlike GOG, who bend with the wind.

The interesting thing too, BECAUSE Minecraft was only available at one place, it became a game that developed a huge following as not having it slapped on every digital download service made it seem more exclusive, and more important and thus caused everybody and their brother to want to buy it.

CDProjekt Red could have done that, particularly as the game is obviously going to be received so well. Instead, they chose to go down the AAA distribution-kiss up the publishers route to the detriment of the customers instead.

Because of that, and because of this idiocy on GOG, I'll never buy another game they produce.
avatar
Matruchus: Agreed never bought a witcher game before and probably never will.
I own Witcher and had Witcher 2 on my wishlist to grab. Regret buying the first one now, but am at least happy I didn't buy the second one.
low rated
avatar
scampywiak: They have to deal with publishers ( console sales) selling Witcher 3 who are tied to retail distributors. It's not the same with older games here.
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: Have you noticed what Notch and Minecraft does?

Minecraft was only available from Mojang's website and Notch has controlled distribution of all of it. Yet he's managed to negotiate deals with every console company so that it will also be available on console. And yes,it has sold tens of millions of copies.

He has also turned down the idea of even thinking about putting Minecraft on Steam as it's completely against his principles, principles he has stuck to no matter what.

I'm happy every day that I bought Minecraft a few months ago (besides that it's the best game I've ever played), as I love to support someone who has ethics, morals and sticks to them. Unlike GOG, who bend with the wind.

The interesting thing too, BECAUSE Minecraft was only available at one place, it became a game that developed a huge following as not having it slapped on every digital download service made it seem more exclusive, and more important and thus caused everybody and their brother to want to buy it.

CDProjekt Red could have done that, particularly as the game is obviously going to be received so well. Instead, they chose to go down the AAA distribution-kiss up to the publishers route to the detriment of the customers instead.

Because of that, and because of this idiocy on GOG, I'll never buy another game they produce.
You're comparing that douche bag Notch and his lego sim to CDPR and The Witcher....ok.
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.
I don't believe I ever told you to shut up. I told you to consider that we may have good reasons for feeling like we do. Reasons you cannot emotionally understand simply because you haven't had time to develop any strong attachments to the company and their principles.

For you, this may seem like a prudent course of action with the market looking like it does. But for someone who has been a customer here for more than 5 years, supporting the company because they adhered to certain principles that they said they would never abandon, this feels like a kick in the teeth, quite frankly.

You also have to ask yourself: If doing this means alienating large parts of your existing user base, the people who got you to where you are today, is it really worth it? Will this change bring in more new customers than it drives away?
avatar
dhundahl: 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?
Dunno. Probably. I don't believe I've ever seen a copy of any Witcher game in a store, though.

I always assumed they would do with Witcher 3 like they did with Witcher 2, which did indeed involve both regional pricing and regional censorship. However, the difference is that the Witcher series is made by their own sister company, which means that they didn't allow other publishers to do the same thing here. Personally, I'd rather not have had those games here under those circumstances either, but many people were fine with it, given its special status. It didn't mean opening the flood gates to customer abuse from other publishers, and GOG did compensate the economically affected users in a much better way than they are doing with AOW3. As I recall, European users paid about as much more for TW2 than American users as is the case with AOW3, but rather than give them the choice of one of a pitiful small list of similar games, they gave them two codes, a 10$ code and a 6$ code, with which they could get any $10 or $6 game in the catalog. As such, European users who bought TW2 were forced to buy 3 games rather than 1, but the other two they could pick and choose for themselves, one from each pricing tier.
avatar
CarrionCrow: T mentioned earlier that he was staying late trying to get some of the info needed to put the next statement together, so people's questions could be answered more fully. Figuring it'll be up sometime later in the day.
avatar
Matruchus: Well hope that it really happens since he is the guy calling games from moby catalog (at least adventure games) rubish.
My dear, now hold your breath a bit. I'm with you if you dislike gogs newest stunt and I understand your anger. But please stop this "they are eeeeeeevil, they are deeeeeeevil" behavior. As I proved many posts ago and as he clarified himself: you are only twisting his words and the meaning of what he said. It was about the mobygames catalog isn't a valid source for the sum of all titles gog could offer as many of those game are awful and have a very very small audience. Yes he called it rubbish, but right so. Not every old game is a good game. So please stop this childish behavior. You have a point with some of the things you say and you have the right to voice your opinion. But please keep it somehow polite and sop twisting the words of others if you ask the some for yourself (as you did).
avatar
scampywiak: They have to deal with publishers ( console sales) selling Witcher 3 who are tied to retail distributors. It's not the same with older games here.
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: Have you noticed what Notch and Minecraft does?

Minecraft was only available from Mojang's website and Notch has controlled distribution of all of it. Yet he's managed to negotiate deals with every console company so that it will also be available on console. And yes,it has sold tens of millions of copies.

He has also turned down the idea of even thinking about putting Minecraft on Steam as it's completely against his principles, principles he has stuck to no matter what.

I'm happy every day that I bought Minecraft a few months ago (besides that it's the best game I've ever played), as I love to support someone who has ethics, morals and sticks to them. Unlike GOG, who bend with the wind.

The interesting thing too, BECAUSE Minecraft was only available at one place, it became a game that developed a huge following as not having it slapped on every digital download service made it seem more exclusive, and more important and thus caused everybody and their brother to want to buy it.

CDProjekt Red could have done that, particularly as the game is obviously going to be received so well. Instead, they chose to go down the AAA distribution-kiss up to the publishers route to the detriment of the customers instead.

Because of that, and because of this idiocy on GOG, I'll never buy another game they produce.
Just gonna live this here. He probably doesn't have a say in distribution though, or does he ??? :D
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-13-how-notch-funding-age-of-wonders-3-came-about
avatar
silentbob1138: That is true, but while there is some overlap a large part of Gog's customer base is not using Steam. A lot of us are here because Gog is or rather was very different. I have no idea how many. Maybe the silent majority is perfectly okay with regional rip-offs. Or maybe a large part thinks exactly like all of us here in the comments who are not okay with it. Time and sales will tell.
If you watch closely, you can see it's already having a negative effect on GOG's sales.

Age of Reasons 3 would normally have had decent pre-release sales as every game that has had pre-release options on GOG has done well before release. If you look at GOG's charts though, updated several times a day with latest sales, Age of Reasons 3 is still at or close to the bottom of the pile (there are two versions of the game to look at).

Same thing with The Guild release. With it being on sale and two game packages for a relatively low price, one of the games should have hit the main page for 'Top Sellers' within a few hours for a game of that caliber.

It hasn't, and is still low down on the charts. Which says to me a large percentage of GOG's customers are not buying.

Even if you just look at me, while I wouldn't have pre-ordered Age of Reason, as I think pre-ordering any game is the dumbest thing a gamer can do on digital, I would have bought both The Guilds as I already own them on GamersGate (where I bought them cheaper, I might add) but would have loved a copy on GOG.

Now GOG has changed their principles and ethics, they lost those two sales from me and hundreds more over the next couple of years.

I'm only one person. Times that by the couple of hundred who have said they're not buying on GOG anymore, plus the 'silent majority', and it's going to be a big hit in sales for GOG, IMO.

Of course, they won't admit it. But when you start seeing a lot of funky sales and sense an air of desperation, you'll know it's official - they screwed up.
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: Have you noticed what Notch and Minecraft does?

Minecraft was only available from Mojang's website and Notch has controlled distribution of all of it. Yet he's managed to negotiate deals with every console company so that it will also be available on console. And yes,it has sold tens of millions of copies.

He has also turned down the idea of even thinking about putting Minecraft on Steam as it's completely against his principles, principles he has stuck to no matter what.

I'm happy every day that I bought Minecraft a few months ago (besides that it's the best game I've ever played), as I love to support someone who has ethics, morals and sticks to them. Unlike GOG, who bend with the wind.

The interesting thing too, BECAUSE Minecraft was only available at one place, it became a game that developed a huge following as not having it slapped on every digital download service made it seem more exclusive, and more important and thus caused everybody and their brother to want to buy it.

CDProjekt Red could have done that, particularly as the game is obviously going to be received so well. Instead, they chose to go down the AAA distribution-kiss up to the publishers route to the detriment of the customers instead.

Because of that, and because of this idiocy on GOG, I'll never buy another game they produce.
avatar
JediEagle: Just gonna live this here. He probably doesn't have a say in distribution though, or does he ??? :D
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-13-how-notch-funding-age-of-wonders-3-came-about
No, he has no say in distribution or prices chosen I would guess as he has said right from the start that he's 'hands off' and just funding the game because he loved the first few versions.

He's talked about funding other games in the future and always said it was just 'funding' and no interference in what the developer wanted to do.

I doubt he'd do the same if he had involved himself more, as he's a savvy business man and knows how to satisfy his customers.

I was thrilled when I heard he had funded Age of Wonders, so was outraged when I saw the prices that are being charged for it.

And on the subject, this is what Notch and Mojang do with Minecraft.

Prices:

$26.95 USD (€19.95/£17.95)

Do you see any price gouging there, as I don't?
Post edited February 28, 2014 by Bloodygoodgames
And this is why I buy all my games on GOG.com (or try to). Its so much easier then Steam with its clunky, horrible interface and doesn't even replace worse ones like Uplay and Origin.

I know changing standing business models is a glacial process, but I rather liked the idea that games would go on sale before they were released, as in pre-orders are cheaper then when the games hit the shelves. I never liked waiting months for a game that I don't have to, but where's my reward for being a loyal customer and buying something on their marketing alone? It'd be as unlikely to get this to happen with the big publishers as it will be to get them to go DRM-free, but maybe newer developers would be up for this?
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: Man, that stick must be incredibly uncomfortable :)

And btw, I do have to report, you failed again (I am yanking your chain, by the way) :) No....I've never been in PR and marketing to 'support greed'. I worked for 25 years as a PR/Marketing execuive/development director for non-profits, so did all the PR and marketing for a variety of children's, homeless and AIDS organizations.

Whether you do PR for a company or a non-profit,though, it is exactly the same principle. In fact, in non-profits you have to be even more careful about how you sell the organization you're working for as, if you use even just one wrong word, that can cause a corporation you're asking 10 million dollars from to suddenly decide they're not giving it to you. So it's the exact same principle as GOG should use when trying to keep its customers.

Oh and I don't 'talk like the youngsters' to avoid feeling old. I use the vocabulary I do as I like it. It's descriptive and useful. I even use the word 'Dude' sometimes, when I'm trying to get someone's attention :)

I'm just not the type of person who is ever going to be told by anyone what vocabulary I should or shouldn't use. There are no laws as to who gets to use certain vocabulary, that's just all in your rigid head. Thankfully, it's not in mine.

And as for the photo - it's a couple of years old. Other than a few more grey hairs though, I look pretty much the same. People usually think I'm in my mid to late 30s. Not my doing, I assure you as I'm too busy playing games to worry about how I look. :) My mother and grandmother are/were exactly the same -- good genes I guess.

EDIT; Sorry to hijack the topic - didn't want it to be all about me, but he keeps going on and on. I'll stop now. :)
*lol* Madame, you got a groupie by now. Stay as you are. :)
low rated
avatar
Wishbone: I don't believe I ever told you to shut up. I told you to consider that we may have good reasons for feeling like we do. Reasons you cannot emotionally understand simply because you haven't had time to develop any strong attachments to the company and their principles.

For you, this may seem like a prudent course of action with the market looking like it does. But for someone who has been a customer here for more than 5 years, supporting the company because they adhered to certain principles that they said they would never abandon, this feels like a kick in the teeth, quite frankly.

You also have to ask yourself: If doing this means alienating large parts of your existing user base, the people who got you to where you are today, is it really worth it? Will this change bring in more new customers than it drives away?
You do realise that "one price for every one" is not only unfair (because of different country taxations ) but it's also out of GOG's hands, right?

If my country impose an aditional tax of 50% for every game sold to a customer in Romania, tax that is payed by the buyer what should GOG do? Pay it from his own pocket, not only gaining anything from a sale, but in fact losing money?

Or pehaps they should increase the price for my country and for the whole world to stick to their principle? One price for all, right?

Not that I'm ok with 1$=1 euro, but one flat price is unfair for both GOG and the developers.

So I would like you all guys to stop this "stick to your principles" nonsense, as GOG can't control each country legislation. In fact I wonder how did they keep this for, how many, a few years now, right?
avatar
scampywiak: If you visit any game site, Witcher 3 is cited as one of the most anticipated titles for 2014. It won like 55 awards at E3, more than any other game. Trust me, It's a privilege to get it DRM free on GOG.
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: How the hell is it a privilege to get it, when the developer that made the game OWNS GOG.

Seriously. The logic skills are baffling here.
Sadly he is in a way right he even does realize: while wither is made by CDPR and GOG is related to CDPR sadly CDPR has chosen a publisher which made a lot of problems with witcher 2 already. At least I read about Namco again being the publisher for witcher 3 and depending on the contract they could have sold them nearly any rights on the witcher series. I wouldn't talk of a privilege here but it isn't as easy as it first sounds.
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: If you watch closely, you can see it's already having a negative effect on GOG's sales.
I'm not buying because I'm not too much into strategy. Give me some old obscure point and click with low metascore and no brand recognition and I'll happily reach into my wallet :)
(this post by TET seriously disturbs me more than the pricing experiment...)
Post edited February 28, 2014 by Novotnus
avatar
GabiMoro: You do realise that "one price for every one" is not only unfair (because of different country taxations ) but it's also out of GOG's hands, right?

If my country impose an aditional tax of 50% for every game sold to a customer in Romania, tax that is payed by the buyer what should GOG do? Pay it from his own pocket, not only gaining anything from a sale, but in fact losing money?

Or pehaps they should increase the price for my country and for the whole world to stick to their principle? One price for all, right?

Not that I'm ok with 1$=1 euro, but one flat price is unfair for both GOG and the developers.

So I would like you all guys to stop this "stick to your principles" nonsense, as GOG can't control each country legislation. In fact I wonder how did they keep this for, how many, a few years now, right?
They have been paying the tax from their profit. But looking it from an economic perspective it makes sense. Demand for elastic goods is smaller if the price is higher. Thus keeping the price low for everyone, they made more sales. If they would've charged extra VAT for example (like Bundlestars does), they might not have sold as many games.