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”
high rated
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: <snip>
You are mistaken to believe that I even THINK that I am the only person who uses GOG.com. However, ALL the arguments for Regional Pricing aren't actually for Regional Pricing. They are compromises for being DRM-Free, for getting New Games, and so forth.

There are plenty of things that are not fair in this world - but 1 World, 1 Price is fair, simply because EVERYBODY is paying the same price. You pay $9.99, I pay $9.99, everybody pays $9.99. This creates a worldwide price that is outside of worldwide economics.

Sure, worldwide economics isn't fair - but that isn't something that GOG.com can change. That is something for respective governments to deal with. Likewise with tax laws. It shouldn't be up to GOG.com to have to compensate for them. After all, will members of GOG.com take the time and effort to gather statistics and change the prices so that they accurately reflect everybody's personal circumstances, regardless of where they are in the world? I don't think so - because that is a lot of work.

Regional Pricing isn't fair - either one isn't fair. This is a swap for one unfair practice to another. Which one is fairer depends largely upon where you are in the world. But, in terms of fairness, these both even out.

However, GOG.com made the mistake of deciding that Worldwide Pricing would be one of their principles. They made a choice, and people (including myself) supported them because of that choice. Now, they have gone back on that choice. For someone who has supported them from just after they started out, this is a massive betrayal - especially since I have purchased much of their catalogue simply to support GOG.com and their principles.

If GOG.com can't stick to their principles, then why should someone who supports their principles stick with GOG.com? A lot of people don't come here just to buy cheap games. There are plenty of other places where they are cheaper - and if you know where to look, you can get them for free as well. You can't get cheaper than free. It should be quite clear from this that people who supported Worldwide Pricing are not simply here for cheap games - that would be naive.

For some gamers, GOG.com represented somebody who was willing to stand up for the rights of the gamer, and to show the industry that things can be done in a different way. For some gamers, every purchase was an investment in this vision, in these principles. The ease with which GOG.com has apparently sold these principles is alarming.

I don't just speak for myself - If I did, I wouldn't be imploring GOG.com to abandon such a dangerous policy that undermines their key principles. It demonstrates to others that GOG.com is weak and willing to capitulate to the demands of publishers, for little or no gain. A big part of this is because, as it stands, there is no real visible gain from such a trade.

What was a simple warning over a policy change applying to new games, is now a visible cry of alarm. As GOG.com makes arguments as to why they sold their principles, they seem to be undermining them as they go along.

Take the Witcher 2, which had regional pricing, and was intended to be an experiment. Many people did simply not buy it, until much later when it reverted to Worldwide Pricing. This was a concern, but it was one game. Now we have three more. That is fair enough, if the argument is that this change will bring in new games, because the same thing would happen. People who disagreed with the policy wouldn't buy the new games featuring Regional Pricing, until it reverted to Worldwide Pricing. The could at least argue that they are providing choice, but even then, the lure of new games at the cost of GOG.com's principles was a bit worrying.

Then we got this letter, where the M.D. finally admits that they are looking to introduce Regional Pricing accross their ENTIRE catalogue. The argument for new games goes out of the window. Those, including myself, who called this change were correct. it was an inevitability - but it does deny choice. After all, unlike with the Witcher 2, there won't be any possibility of waiting for a game to revert to Worldwide Pricing to pick it up, because Worldwide Pricing won't exist any more.

The current argument that Regional Pricing is to counter conversion fee costs from Worldwide Pricing. However, the majority of these fees stem from the conversion of USD to EUR (the currency I assume that GOG.com actually operates in, being in the Eurozone). These are the fees that GOG.com should actually pay (I think that they may also be charged for card transactions). It is understandable that GOG.com would want to pass these costs on to the consumer, but Regional Pricing is not the way to do it.

If GOG.com are having issues with currency costs from USD to EUR, then they should stop using USD and switch to EUR. It is STILL Worldwide Pricing, regardless of what currency they use. If GOG.com also have a flat charge for card transactions, then simply adding this to the customer's bill is the best option.

Ultimately, it should be up to the individual purchaser to deal with the issues of card transaction fees and conversion rates, not GOG.com. Many people will already have worked out ways to get what they consider a reasonable rate, or decided that the effort is not worth it for their country. Services like Paypal and others already deal with conversion rates.

I, along with many others who agree with me, do not want GOG.com to introduce Regional Pricing so that they can claim to be dealing with conversion rates and other things.

The policy of Worldwide Pricing goes far beyond the Videogames Industry. It is a fight for a globalised world, where nations don't hamper trade and commerce by punitive taxation. Many nations simply don't want to admit that global e-commerce is outside of their control.

Regional Pricing within the Videogames Industry is a knock on effect of this. Many larger developers and publishers actually deal with governments, getting concessions for themselves by helping to enforce government control over commerce. Most of these concessions are, in fact, tax breaks. So rather than a video games industry that should be fighting for Worldwide Pricing, to help enable open global e-commerce, we get a video games industry that supports Regional Pricing, so that they can get tax breaks and other concessions, while passing on the bulk of their costs to the consumer.

As for the issue of greed - you seem to misunderstand exactly what kind of globalised society that we are in. The majority of the world isn't capitalist - it is consumerist. In Capitalism, it is the power of the producer, backed by their capital, that dictates what happens. Capitalists decide what goods the customer can buy, and that is the only choice that the customer has. In Consumerism, it is the consumer, not the producer, that dictates what happens. We, the consumer, have the money that businesses need - and it is in the best interests of the business to keep the consumer happy, in order to keep them spending.

Sure, it could be seen as greedy to "demand" to pay a "fair" price, but as the consumer in a consumerist society, I have that power. We all do. The fact that the primary argument for Regional Pricing is that it is "Industry Standard" is simply jargon disguising the fact that GOG.com, like other gaming companies, are simply trying to take that power back for themselves. They are no longer giving that power to the gamer, but are rather joining the corporate block that is determined to dictate to the gamer what they can buy.

There are many people who might be okay with Regional Pricing. There are many people who are okay with giving up their own power. But there are also those that are not. The ones that are not happy giving up their own power are often the most vocal, simply because they understand the nature of their own power, and it's value. They understand the true costs of choice and freedom - that you have to go along with the bad as well as the good.

I, like many who value my own power, have to make a decision regarding GOG.com's new Regional Pricing policy. It is a tough decision to give up and walk away from a company that I have supported for so long, in terms of time, effort, and money. I know that I am not alone in this.

The only saving grace here is that Regional Pricing is not fully implemented yet. I can continue to voice my opposition to it, and voice alternatives that I can accept. I can wait and see if this experiment pays off for GOG.com. I may be skeptical, but time will tell. But whatever the case, the community, including myself, will need a lot of convincing that this is actually the right thing for GOG.com. It is a very dangerous gambit. Maybe if we see the likes of real AAA+ publishers on GOG.com - such as EA, Blizzard, Bethesda, and so forth - bringing their current AAA+ games to GOG.com, I might be convinced. Bear in mind that "classics" from EA doesn't count - many companies will be willing to offload their dormant games here while keeping the juiciest titles for themselves. Much like someone throwing food scraps to their pets.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by Davane
avatar
Matruchus: Yeah i understand what you mean which does not exclude our local laws and no its not a separate tax here. The resoning behind it is that since reselling or gifting a product gives it an added value you have to pay tax.
avatar
blotunga: And how do you calculate the "added value" when gifting it? Besides VAT makes only sense if you can claim back your VAT. For example I buy raw materials for $100 + VAT (total 124 in my case). I do something with them, create some product and sell the product for 180+VAT. Total received 223.2. So 43.2 VAT. From this I can deduct my VAT paid for my materials. Thus my total VAT payable is 19.2
I know its just crazy what they expect from us.
avatar
blotunga: Do you even understand the concept of VAT? VAT is paid by only to some companies which are VAT registered. You can have a small company (I think around 50000 euros/year gross income in my country) and not even have to register for VAT. When buying something from a VAT registered company you pay the VAT to that company. I won't go into the details how companies deduct VAT etc. The main idea is that between private entities there is no VAT. There can be some sort of income tax for cash gifts in some countries though.
avatar
Matruchus: Yeah i understand what you mean which does not exclude our local laws and no its not a separate tax here. The resoning behind it is that since reselling or gifting a product gives it an added value you have to pay tax.
Sounds like slovenien government misuse the VAT instead of setting a new tax. In germany we have this gifting
tax I wrote earlier, it is applicable for goods (including money) of a certain value and this limit is higher for married people but even they have to pay a tax for very expensive gifts. It is used to stop circumventing the death duty. Saying if you make someone a gift adds monetary value to something is a bit cynical but I'm in no position to question your government.
low rated
avatar
blotunga: snip
Yes, that's why some countries (like Russia) have lesser prices, because people outhere wouldn't have buy the games at 49,99 euros anyway. Which is unfair if you ask me.

Goverment could also relax the taxation so the "black economy" become legit, but they are not doing it, so why should a developer follow this logic?
Perhaps some developers have some principles, like "I'm not selling a game for a lesser income than 3$/game".
3$ + GOG cut + VAT becomes larger than 5,99$. What??? Fck it, I'm not selling at all, let the americans and the western europeans buy my game, what would I get from lesser countries is negligible.

Have you seen that GOG post when on of the blues said that games sold at 1,49 - 2 $ (if I remember corectly) cause them to lose money?
avatar
GabiMoro: Just answer the question, what should they do? Yes 50% is an exageration
I dont have to, because that will never happen. The bigger the vat, the bigger fiscal evasion you have.

avatar
GabiMoro: so what. Romania has 24% VAT, Hungary 27%.
It doesnt matter, for now. GOG payed a 18% vat rate (Cyprus) for selling to any eu customer. From 13 january 2014 that 18% became 19%. Because thats the eu law right now, seller has to pay the vat rate of the country of residence.
From January 2015 gog will no longer pay the vat rate of the country of residence (19%-Cyprus) but will have to pay a variable vat rate depending of where the eu customer is.
However, there is still a big difference between 27%-Hungary and 40%-parity_eur/usd. Not to mention of the rest of eu countries that pay a medium of 20% vat.

avatar
GabiMoro: So do you agree with me that, although the new "1$=1euro" price is unfair, the "flat price" is also unfair
What i'm saying is yes, flat prices are not the perfect ideal solution. Utopia aside, is the best solution for digital goods in a internet without frontiers, for sure better than the current implementation of regional pricing.

avatar
GabiMoro: and GOG not sticking to this shouldn't deserved the shit they got?
Taking into consideration the emphasys they put on making a rightful mockery of regional pricing, yes they deserve what is happening now.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by mobutu
avatar
enigma07: Regarding the pricing of classics, if you e.g. sell $5.99 titles for €4.49, it means a ratio of 1:1.33. The actual ratio right now is 1:1.38, however, and more importantly, it can be as low as 1:1 and as high as 1:1.6. How are you going to handle that? Regional pricing brings with it a whole lot of problems, and I really do believe you'd do best to show the gross (USD-) price everywhere and only afterwards add taxes and conversion rates, which could be current on top of that, so you'd avoid re-pricing the games every time the conversion rate fluctuates.
I have to agree with this. This was my first concern raised when the discussion about converting the whole catalogue was brought up. Today there are so many FX providers (or for what I care they can use their bank's exchange rate) and show the price something like: $5.99, in your currency 19.65 lei, please select currency of payment (USD, EUR, RON whatever).
avatar
GabiMoro: Goverment could also relax the taxation so the "black economy" become legit, but they are not doing it, so why should a developer follow this logic?
Because government enforce that decision, paying taxes is not optionally.
gog however cannot do that.
avatar
Davane:
I couldn't have said it better myself.
avatar
Matruchus: Yeah i understand what you mean which does not exclude our local laws and no its not a separate tax here. The resoning behind it is that since reselling or gifting a product gives it an added value you have to pay tax.
avatar
wintermute.: Sounds like slovenien government misuse the VAT instead of setting a new tax. In germany we have this gifting
tax I wrote earlier, it is applicable for goods (including money) of a certain value and this limit is higher for married people but even they have to pay a tax for very expensive gifts. It is used to stop circumventing the death duty. Saying if you make someone a gift adds monetary value to something is a bit cynical but I'm in no position to question your government.
The gifting tax exist also and is applicable additionaly to vat for higher valued gifts. Do mind that the old name for vat was tax on sales/moving of the goods.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
Matruchus: I know its just crazy what they expect from us.
But by gifting you get no added value. You loose value. Same when selling an old car.. anyway the greed of the state is insatiable so reason has no chance :/
avatar
Matruchus: I know its just crazy what they expect from us.
avatar
blotunga: But by gifting you get no added value. You loose value. Same when selling an old car.. anyway the greed of the state is insatiable so reason has no chance :/
Yeah it must be cause Slovenia together with Cyprus is the only EU country in deep recession. They are just trying to skin us off at the moment and Troika is also on their way so will se what happens. And if you add regional pricing on GOG then its too much.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
GabiMoro: Yes, that's why some countries (like Russia) have lesser prices, because people outhere wouldn't have buy the games at 49,99 euros anyway. Which is unfair if you ask me.
Have you seen that GOG post when on of the blues said that games sold at 1,49 - 2 $ (if I remember corectly) cause them to lose money?
Yes it's not fair. This is why the flat price is actually fair. Because as others have said it: everyone pays the same price for the same product. Russians don't get half the game of others. Nor do Romanians get a 38% better game than the swiss. The world itself is not fair.. I have to admit that.
I think I've missed the post with the $1.49 loss. I always thought that promos have publisher sanctions behind them and they both get less (GOG and publisher)
avatar
Davane: snip
GOG said that only these new games will be regionally priced, while the old catalogue will remain at the same price, but in different currencies (almost fairly converted). The europeans are a little bit screwed but it's negligeable.

The world price will still remain and after a while the new games (that wouldn't be available at GOG otherwise regionally priced) will switch to the flat price.
avatar
Davane: snip
avatar
GabiMoro: GOG said that only these new games will be regionally priced, while the old catalogue will remain at the same price, but in different currencies (almost fairly converted). The europeans are a little bit screwed but it's negligeable.

The world price will still remain and after a while the new games (that wouldn't be available at GOG otherwise regionally priced) will switch to the flat price.
There is not going to be a world price only "regional fair price" whatewer that is. And when it comes to a price nothing is negligble. You're from Romania you should now that.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
tammerwhisk: The only thing I can think of at this point is either GOG needs to work on how it defines AAA games. Or they pushed these out thinking it was a good idea in response to the flack from the first announcement and they have some other deals going on in the background involving NDAs. I hope for their sake they have something a lot more impressive nearly finalized to support their decision rather than just these 3 titles people assumed would be on GOG anyway.
The term AAA games was only used as a marketing spin. Noone with a clear mind would consider AOW3 or Divinity (a Kickstarter project!) an AAA game.

It was just an attempt to put a sugar coating on a turd called regional pricing. "Maybe if we tell them those are AAA games they will shut the hell up! What do you think, Mister Director?"