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
TheEnigmaticT: Is there a law that websites in your country must price things in...whatever currency you're actually from?
In theory all transactions in my country should be conducted in lei, in practice prices are many times shown in other currencies.. I was referring to this sentence though: "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
hedwards: Emphasis mine.

Do you still not understand that a huge part of what's pissing people off here isn't the change, but the arrogant attitude that you guys are displaying? It was going to be messy anyways, but insulting us isn't going to improve things.
avatar
G-Doc: I'd just like to offer that at this point TET facepalmed so hard that I swear I saw little bits of brain shooting out of his good ear and splattering all over the wall.

"aren't"

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.
Slip? Seriously, it was clearly intentional... and completely unnecessary.
avatar
blotunga: Then you're still breaking the law in my country which is a EU member but doesn't uses euros...
What? Russian Federation joined EU? :))
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: Regional pricing only works if the pricing difference is enough that you can be arsed to bother. For, I would hazard to guess, 99% of users, getting a VPN configured is not worth it for a few pennies.
avatar
graspee: Again you're talking as if your regional pricing is just your back catalog. The difference on prices for Age of Wonders III is ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE.
It's pretty steep, yes. Particularly when you factor in RUS pricing. In that case, there's definitely more incentive, and more reason for people to cheat.

I would personally suspect that anyone who's technologically comfortable enough to set up a VPN to save money on a game would probably just grab it off of our favorite nautical harbor for the pillaging-inclined instead. Now, there's certainly people in RUS who make a living selling Steam codes to the rest of the world for cheap, but I think that doing that for GOG.com would require that we have a much larger user base than we currently do.

Regardless, it is something that we know about, and we're monitoring it. Our current prediction is that it's nothing that we will need to worry too much about. Time will tell, I suppose.
avatar
Ekaros: Does that matter? It's a digital product which is in noway different from the guy in US get's for less...
avatar
blotunga: 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.
Need better net infrastructure before we can ditch them. Noone wants to try downloading multi-gig games on a crappy capped connection.
avatar
Novotnus: What? Russian Federation joined EU? :))
Neah, i just temporarily "moved" to Russia.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT:
I think that one or two people cheating wouldn't even be an issue. However trading those gifts for many would definitively piss me off.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by blotunga
avatar
Hatch: It's very frustrating reading the arguments in favor of regional pricing, because without exception all of them could be used to justify DRM as well. I'm not suggesting that GOG's decision is a slippery slope that will lead to DRM on GOG; I'm suggesting that when your argument could also be used to support GOG introducing DRM, you need to seriously consider what you're saying.

Take a look:

"Regional pricing is an industry standard and mandated by the publishers. GOG has no control over it. If they don't use regional pricing in these cases, they simply wouldn't be able to offer these games.

"DRM is an industry standard and mandated by the publishers. GOG has no control over it. If they don't allow DRM in these cases, they simply wouldn't be able to offer these games.

The point here is that GOG's entire business model has been pushing against the "industry standards" and "publisher mandates". If a publisher will only sell a game if it includes DRM, GOG will simply decline to carry that game. The same was once said for regional pricing, as it was also one of the core principles that GOG was operating under. So when they turn their backs on that, you can't just blame the publishers. It means that GOG has rolled over and compromised what they stand for.
Except for the fact that DRM-free and regional pricing are at mutual odds with each other in terms of having an end goal of trying to have a world where all games are DRM-free, and that compromise was necessary on the pricing in order to achieve the greater goal of DRM-free.

The same logic that was behind the current decision to compromise slightly on one principle for the greater good of the more important core principle does not apply to the idea of compromising the core principle itself.

In other words, they can't further speed up the goal of DRM-free gaming everywhere, which is the core mission - happen faster by compromising DRM-free and allowing DRM.

It's fine to be angry and throw comments out there like that out of emotion, but they're irrational when one looks at the facts of what the goals are and the problems that prevent the goals from being realized and accepts the fact that sometimes you do need to compromise some things in order to achieve what you really want. This is as true in every day life as it is for a game company trying to bring DRM-free gaming to the world.

The fact so many people steadfastly refuse to compromise strongly held thoughts/beliefs/principles they have itself is one of the reasons there is so much turmoil and hate in the world. The world is full of examples where many people/nations etc. have a common goal ultimately or common value, but have individually differing values about other things, and instead of working together where they share a common value, or being open to compromise on some values for the greater good, they steadfastly hold onto their beliefs/views/values/whatever with an iron fist in such a way that the core fundamental goal that they all hold in the highest regards becomes unachievable because of their inability to compromise and inability to work together.

Also, when something like this happens people get upset - rightfully so perhaps - but they immediately look for the negative. They look for someone to blame, to criticize, to insult, to fight, to paint as the enemy, to take anything they say and twist the words and put spin on it and use it against them, to make demands until they get their own way, or to wage a war.

It may be common human behaviour but it doesn't help people collectively achieve common goals by making individual compromises and sacrifices for the greater good.
avatar
CarrionCrow: Need better net infrastructure before we can ditch them. Noone wants to try downloading multi-gig games on a crappy capped connection.
Well, at least there is something where we are ahead of you guys :D. By we I mean Romania...
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: Is there a law that websites in your country must price things in...whatever currency you're actually from?
avatar
blotunga: In theory all transactions in my country should be conducted in lei, in practice prices are many times shown in other currencies.. I was referring to this sentence though: "Then we're not reporting true pricing in our adverts, which is patently against a number of advertising laws throughout the EU and beyond."
I just went looking for that myself in response to the same sentence. Here it is:
avatar
blotunga: This is still viable imho. Just advertise in USD and checkout in local currency.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: Then we're not reporting true pricing in our adverts, which is patently against a number of advertising laws throughout the EU and beyond.
EDIT: Not that I think it is particularly relevant, now that I think of it. In the quote, TET isn't talking about the website, but local adverts. Not that I've ever seen an advert for GOG.com in Denmark. My guess is we're too small a country to bother with, advertising-wise.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by Wishbone
high rated
avatar
graspee: Again you're talking as if your regional pricing is just your back catalog. The difference on prices for Age of Wonders III is ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: It's pretty steep, yes. Particularly when you factor in RUS pricing. In that case, there's definitely more incentive, and more reason for people to cheat.

I would personally suspect that anyone who's technologically comfortable enough to set up a VPN to save money on a game would probably just grab it off of our favorite nautical harbor for the pillaging-inclined instead. Now, there's certainly people in RUS who make a living selling Steam codes to the rest of the world for cheap, but I think that doing that for GOG.com would require that we have a much larger user base than we currently do.

Regardless, it is something that we know about, and we're monitoring it. Our current prediction is that it's nothing that we will need to worry too much about. Time will tell, I suppose.
Thank you for FINALLY acknowledging explicitly that the difference in price for AoW3 is steep. We knew it and you knew it, but the fact that you never stated it was disturbing me. (Still waiting for any comment on the old youtube video though).

And people will use VPNs to grab the game in a grey manner from you because there are still a lot of users who don't want to break the law, who don't want to risk getting trojans or viruses, who don't want to be helping other people obtain the game for free by sharing it as they download. In short there are lots of people who want to pay you for the game, but they don't want to pay more than other regions.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by graspee
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.
avatar
Cavalary: Two differences there:
1. "old games" weren't actually listed as a core principle.
Well, going down any further on this issue, we would end up arguing semantics.

The bottom line is, that "O" in GOG used to stand for something, which was old, however you refine it. Also, few years went by during which the newest game in the catalogue was about five years old or so?

So while it was never listed as a core principle, it used to be "Raison d'être" for the entire service.

That's also how and why many of us old users got here. We never looked for new games. We wanted old. The older, the better. There is, and always has been, other sources for newer games.


avatar
Cavalary: 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.
True.
That was what we expected to happen, and that's why I, too, voted for "Yes" when they asked about newer games. I thought it meant wider income sources for GOG, and thereby benefitting the chances of bringing back old games as well.


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.
Yeah.
It wouldn't be as bad if they simply kept the old pricing intact for older games. Many GOG users wanted to have a different store for new games, and GOG for older games, back in the day. Now that's a bit inconvenient, but different pricing is still possible. And as both pricing models have been programmed into GOG platform, making it happen is relatively easy too.

There really is no other pragmatic reason than greed for a publisher, who has been here for years with flat pricing, now to require "fair local pricing". If they don't require it, why change something which hasn't been broken for the last five years?
avatar
ydobemos: P. S. I shall also post this letter as a new forum thread.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: Replying to this in depth apparently exceed the character limit of our forums. :( Let me paste my counter-essay below.

Thanks for the well-written query. I know you addressed it to Guillaume, but for my sins I'm the guy who gets to answer these. :)

[snip]
Thanks for this reply TET, I think many shared ydobemos' sentiments in that post and I'm glad you chose to reply to his letter.

A couple things I want to point out and which I'd like to hear from you if you can spare the time:

avatar
TheEnigmaticT: You mentioned that many users were unhappy with the local prices because they were slightly higher than (or lower than) USD on Tuesday. I'd say on a given day the exchange rate between our currencies may go one way or another. Sometimes the exchange rate will favor us a tiny bit, and sometimes it will favor you guys. In any case, it's a matter of a very few pennies on the dollar (pound, Euro, etc.). A user later on in the forums notes that the Euro prices we proposed, for him, were actually a slight savings over USD prices.
While I appreciate the user's effort with the data (though there's really no specifics as to PayPal exchange rate/his bank exchange rate, exchange rate fluctuations etc), I want to point out that users weren't just flat out lying to you in rage mode, when they said that with the new Euro prices they would pay more.

Using my last purchase as an example:

I bought during the Valentine sale UT2004 (2.49 $ at 75 % off) + Trine (0.99 $ at 90 % off), for a total price of $ 3.48. Paid with PayPal, but didn't use their abysmal exchange rate. My bank history says I paid 2.54 € for those 2 titles.

Now if I apply those same discounts to the new € price, UT2004 would cost me 1.87 €, while Trine would cost me 0.75. The total for both is 2.62 €, which is 0.08 more. So yeah, that's a higher price. On a full priced title, that's the about the 0,20-0,25 € added cost people were talking about earlier in the thread.

Don't get me wrong, this doesn't change things (to me at least) in the slightest, as:

1) The amount is completely negligible, even for someone like me who's usually forced to wait for sales
2) You have already stated that exchange rates will be monitored, and that there will be mechanisms to adapt prices in case the (yet to be set in stone) 5 % threshold is crossed
3) I actually do believe in GOG's words that you guys aren't just trying to squeeze more money out of people - it honestly would make very little sense to infuriate your userbase over small change

However, someone else might just look at it and say "heh, I'm paying more here with the new policy, doesn't look any fairer than before", and they wouldn't just be lying about it because they hate the new regional pricing policy.

I sadly don't have a solution for this (other than recommending people to uncheck the filthy PayPal exchange rate option on checkout), just wanted to point out that while the new regional prices might work for some people, they don't for others.

avatar
TheEnigmaticT: You asked why it is we can't offer the exact same value in store credit for all new games on GOG.com like we did for The Witcher 2. We have a special relationship with the devs at CDP RED. They work, literally, just down the hall. Other developers aren't able or willing to let us make offers like we did with The Witcher 2. Further, the cost for us to offer game codes is effectively higher for many newer games than it used to be for the classics; offering packs for the same value as the price difference would result in us actually losing money on the sales of games. We do want to do everything we can to treat our customers better than anyone else in the industry, but bankrupting ourselves is not a good solution. These new games with regional pricing are the same as they are in any other store in the world. The game that we offer you guys is at our own costs to help defray that.
I think pretty much everyone understands that GOG's doing something which other stores aren't (making up for the regional shafting), but I think it's safe to say that the issue people have here is that they actually don't have any saying in what they're getting. What if those titles you offer to make up for the higher prices don't interest me? What if I already have the majority of them?

Thus my question (suggestion?):

You ruled out in the above post that GOG can offer the 'exact same value in store credit for all new games on GOG.com like we did for The Witcher 2', so how about a (much) lower amount?

Or better, how about giving users (and I want to stress, they are easily your best customers, as they would actually be buying full-priced games, where your cut is higher) the choice to pick between one of the games you chose and a set, much lower (compared to the game's full price) amount of store credit?

Like with Age of Wonders 3, I could pick King's Bounty: The Legend, which is worth 9.99 $, or I could just opt to receive 3.33 $ (you can figure out the numbers, I'm just throwing them out there) in store credit. Sure, I couldn't instantly buy any title on GOG with 3.33 $, but that will easily net me a game I actually do like in the inevitable sale. I don't know about others, but to me that (1/3 of the game's value in store credit) would be infinitely better than receiving a game I have zero interest in.

An alternative to store credits would be to offer a certain discount coupon on a variety of titles, but I don't believe this would be of much help as it would again restrict users' choice and would also take quite a bit of effort on GOG's part to determine each time which games can actually be discount and which ones cannot.

How does this sound? Would this be impossible for GOG to do because of publishers' contracts, or would it make very little financial sense for you because doing so you'll inevitably lose some sales?

Still, thank you for your time answering our questions!
Post edited February 28, 2014 by dr4gz0r
avatar
Novotnus: What? Russian Federation joined EU? :))
No, it joined USA, or at least a part of RF did. Because AOW3 page still shows me the $39.99 price. And as I understand it must show me price in rubles (599RUB).
Doesn't bother me (not planning to buy here anymore), but it is funny.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by wbrk
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.
Ok, let's call this for what it is.

It's not about principles, it's about the fact that certain regions in the world (Europe, Australia and probably some I forgot) are worried they'll pay more.

avatar
silentbob1138: 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.
Flat pricing is definitely unfair to some. Regional pricing has the potential of being unfair for others.

If you cared deeply about fairness, you'd argue for fair regional pricing.

As it is, it's about who has to byte the bullet and pay more.

Either, I don't feel their decision is bad for GOGers. Most of their catalog will remain flat priced and the games that are regionaly priced wouldn't have been on GOG otherwise.

The main thing they included is choice.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by Magnitus
avatar
graspee: Thank you for FINALLY acknowledging explicitly that the difference in price for AoW3 is steep. We knew it and you knew it, but the fact that you never stated it was disturbing me. (Still waiting for any comment on the old youtube video though).

And people will use VPNs to grab the game in a grey manner from you because there are still a lot of users who don't want to break the law, who don't want to risk getting trojans or viruses, who don't want to be helping other people obtain the game for free by sharing it as they download. In short there are lots of people who want to buy you for the game, but they don't want to pay more than other regions.
Do what I will do. Wait for a moment where the price is convenient.