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
Cavalary: Random idea (that I'm sure will may lawyers tie their underwear in knots through sheer mental strain, but anyway):
1. Ask around for the rights of an older game that isn't sold anywhere else. (Because if it is, somebody'll know who has the rights, right?)
2. Nobody seems to have them, or not enough to be able to negotiate them with you.
3. Put out a message that whoever can prove they have the rights will get their part of the revenue, release it for $9.99 and put aside 70% (I believe that was the usual dev's share?) from any revenue from it.
4. Whoever sues you over it and wins, proving they're the rights holder, gets the money, and you know who to negotiate with from then on. Whoever loses, well, loses.
Not a bad idea actually ;)
avatar
TheEnigmaticT:
avatar
blotunga: I guess we have to resign, because the changes will happen whether we want or not. However my main concern still is, why change the regional price for countries which don't use EUR, GBP etc? Why not just leave it in USD for them or use their actual currency?
I don't believe we've decided either way on that. We're going to look into it and see which would be a better solution for the people in those countries.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: tl;dr
avatar
DrJohnZoidberg: Seriosly, i just want to know _WHEN_ you're making the localized curencies. I need to see it than I will know if there good enough for me. Is it really so hard to come up with a straight fact answer?
We don't have a date we're announcing for it yet. So, yes. It's that hard to come up with an answer for you. Sorry. :(
Post edited February 28, 2014 by TheEnigmaticT
avatar
CarrionCrow: Them wanting to expand doesn't give us the right to rip them off. If we don't like it, we don't have to be involved with it. The right to feel upset or betrayed doesn't extend any further. We didn't donate a kidney to them. They don't owe us.
I didn't say we have the right. I didn't even say I would be doing it. I just said that it will happen. Which it will.
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: I think that's many of us, and why GOG will lose so many customers.

.....
GOG built its whole business on two main principles, and then dropped one overnight, It then treated its customers like children or idiots when it decided to tell us. Something each GOG employee still seems to be doing with their condescending attitudes and false apologies.

.....

I have principles and, unlike GOG, I was brought up to stick with them not drop them if something a little easier came along.
avatar
torqual76: It is the second time a core principle was dropped. The first time around was, when good old games died and gog.com was born. We are only for good old games. Oh no suddenly we are for new, old, good old, indie and all the other games too. Not so much disturbing but it was abandoning of a core principle in a way.

Have a nice weekend.
Two differences there:
1. "old games" weren't actually listed as a core principle.
2. Introducing newer games did not mean they no longer sold old games or that they no longer added them, in fact they have added plenty of "old" games (remember that their definition of old was at least 3 years) since. It can actually be said that newer games were simply added on top of the stream of old ones.

That's not the case here. Flat pricing was a core principle, and "local pricing" alters the pricing of all games, old and new, existing and newly added.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: Yeah. It's sad. :(

Life is easy. Then the lawyers get involved. >.>
avatar
CarrionCrow: You can only do what's possible. I'll try to not break out the lit pitchforks next time I get an urge to remind myself how badly I draw Eye of the Beholder maps.
I transferred all of my hand-drawn EOB maps onto CorelDraw. It worked a charm. ;)
avatar
G-Doc: And that's probably the most unfortunate slip of the keyboard (or mind) I saw him make since the infamous "Pharoah" typo that got sent to millions of people receiving our weekly newsletter.
So you say...
:)
avatar
CarrionCrow: Them wanting to expand doesn't give us the right to rip them off. If we don't like it, we don't have to be involved with it. The right to feel upset or betrayed doesn't extend any further. We didn't donate a kidney to them. They don't owe us.
avatar
Wishbone: I didn't say we have the right. I didn't even say I would be doing it. I just said that it will happen. Which it will.
Yeah, it probably will. And each person who does that will have had a hand in being the reason why region locks have to be used, assuming it reaches that point.
avatar
jacobg830: ...so you want to rip us off by charging different prices for different countries - yay thanks gog! I'll be sure to throw all my money at you after this!

I see the point to get new publishers but why don't you leave it a developer decision instead of enforcing it for all games?!
And this is why they shouldn't have unveiled both changes in the same timeframe. At least thus far they appear to be two different things, but the proximity creates associations.
avatar
Cavalary: That's not the case here. Flat pricing was a core principle, and "local pricing" alters the pricing of all games, old and new, existing and newly added.
But the shop started as marketplace of old games. It is not so important but caused a little backlash/shitstorm back then. Why has gog.com approached all the abandonware sites to stop freely distributing and preserving old dos games back then? They were direct competitors.

What would you think of a organic vegetarian market that suddenly sells industrial mass produced meat. It is more then irritating.
avatar
CarrionCrow: You can only do what's possible. I'll try to not break out the lit pitchforks next time I get an urge to remind myself how badly I draw Eye of the Beholder maps.
avatar
StormHammer: I transferred all of my hand-drawn EOB maps onto CorelDraw. It worked a charm. ;)
Well, in that case it's apparent that you have something I do not - some modicum of artistic ability. I had a frigging tablet of graph paper and still managed to screw it up every time.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: For example, I believe that the current price for AoW3 is actually pretty comparable in EUR to what you'd be paying for the game in the shops here, yes?
Does that matter? It's a digital product which is in noway different from the guy in US get's for less...
avatar
jacobg830: ...so you want to rip us off by charging different prices for different countries - yay thanks gog! I'll be sure to throw all my money at you after this!

I see the point to get new publishers but why don't you leave it a developer decision instead of enforcing it for all games?!
So far it seems that they are trying to even out the local prices in a way that it won't be a disadvantage. I think I just sit back and wait. I still will buy the games that I feel worth the price. As for the others, time will tell.
Thus I'll suspend my protest for the time being.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: No, it is actually higher value from us. We include a free game for those who are being charged more, which you do not get from Steam. You're free to express your displeasure and buy from them because you are angry with us; doing so does mean you are receiving less for your money than you do here.

Then we're not reporting true pricing in our adverts, which is patently against a number of advertising laws throughout the EU and beyond.
avatar
synfresh: You may have already answered this, but instead of a game couldn't you just do a credit instead (even if it was for 5-10 dollars). It would give the buyer more flexibility to pick what they wanted. I could see situations where the buyer isn't really gaining anything because the game choices being offered isn't anything that they want.
Technically, we don't have that capacity. It would require essentially a "GOG wallet" to hold currency, and the financial headaches that holding various currencies for an indeterminate time to be spent in unmentionable ways is something that we don't have the staff, development overhead, or time to develop at this juncture. It is possible that this will be what we do in the future, if we ever end up figuring out how "GOG wallets", "royalty reporting," and "EU regulations" all fit in the same company.

I'm fully aware that there's already an EU-based company that explicitly does offer you credit to a wallet which you may redeem later (that would be GamersGate). It's not that the accounting practices, development, & reporting needs are not solvable, just that at the moment we have not created a solution for them.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: No, it is actually higher value from us. We include a free game for those who are being charged more, which you do not get from Steam. You're free to express your displeasure and buy from them because you are angry with us; doing so does mean you are receiving less for your money than you do here.
Then we're not reporting true pricing in our adverts, which is patently against a number of advertising laws throughout the EU and beyond.
avatar
blotunga: Then you're still breaking the law in my country which is a EU member but doesn't uses euros...
Is there a law that websites in your country must price things in...whatever currency you're actually from?
Post edited February 28, 2014 by TheEnigmaticT
avatar
Ekaros: Does that matter? It's a digital product which is in noway different from the guy in US get's for less...
They let the publisher set the price. The only way we get rid of regional prices I think is when we get rid of physical games. I for myself won't cry after them.
high rated
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: We certainly understand why many of you feel like we're making a decision that's not good for you. Part of that is because "regional pricing" has traditionally meant "unfair pricing".
Well, we feel that way because you did make a decision that is not good for the vast majority of us.
And regional pricing has not only meant unfair pricing in the past. It still means unfair pricing. That is very much evident from the list with prices in different countries for Age of Wonders 3. Actually I think merely calling it unfair might be true for some affected countries. For the African, South American and Eastern European countries that have to pay 37,5% more it is not just unfair! it is downright immoral.

avatar
TheEnigmaticT: Firstly, because it's a requirement for us to release games like these three (and more) on GOG.com without DRM.
How exactly were you unable to get a Kickstarter game that was promised to the backers to be on GoG DRM-free while regional pricing was not allowed? They needed to get the game on GoG at all costs or break a promise to their backers.

avatar
TheEnigmaticT: I'm sorry if it beggars disbelief that these games needed to have regional pricing to be on GOG.com; much of what happens in business is nonsensical simply because lawyers got involved. I would note that Witcher 2 explicitly needed regional pricing. Indeed, CDP RED got sued in order to make sure that they enforced it on GOG.com. Given that they were compelled by the force of law to use regional pricing on GOG.com once, how is it remotely unbelievable that they may be compelled to do so a second time?
Call me crazy, but if I lost in court over a deal I made, I wouldn't make the same deal again.

avatar
TheEnigmaticT: That's problematic as I've mentioned in other posts. This would mean that the price for every game in the catalog would change every day. Also, we would be unable to advertise anywhere, send emails on the weekend to tell you what's on sale, or even post prices in sales to social media. It also means that anyone who comes to GOG.com will be unsure what price he or she will be asked to pay today, and in general results in a bad experience for the end users. For the majority of people who use any website, complicating the checkout process is a surefire way to make them not want to buy.
You made those arguments earlier today. They still don't make more sense. I explained why in an earlier post. Let me just add that judging by many posts here what you are doing is also a surefire way to make people not want to buy.