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”
First of all. If you break your core principle then I as a paying customer demand a detailed explaination why they did it and not only three mediocre games. Are we seeing Call of Duty, Battlefield 4, FIFA 14, Assassins Creed or GTA 4 soon? That are AAA titles and not a kickstarter game. I don't say that these games are not good or very good, but killing of one of your principles for these with somewhat vague arguments is not enough for me. Just my thoughts on this.

And to your question ... a lot of people use the internet and don't know that there are more than one search engine!

@darkangelz: It is mostly option A and sometimes option C.
Post edited March 02, 2014 by john_hatcher
Well,
simple solution.....YOU GoG keep your game and I keep my money.

And im happy when the new european online law is comming along to stop this endless online robbing against especialy western european customers!

Whats the use of this all?

Why is our money, our euro not worth the real amount for games?

Since when is 1 euro = 1 USD ?


Your games have always been expensive, compaired to other (retail) sources here in germany, but i wanted to support you because i want to support the DRM free part! What i won't support is the abuse part you are about to go now!

I want to add an example for regional pricing here in germany! I bought Oblivion yesterday, game of the year edition including shivering isles for 2,99 Euro.......!
Thats what i call regional pricing as a customer, try to beat that offer GoG!
avatar
john_hatcher: First of all. If you break your core principle then I as a paying customer demand a detailed explaination why they did it and not only three mediocre games. Are we seeing Call of Duty, Battlefield 4, FIFA 14, Assassins Creed or GTA 4 soon? That are AAA titles and not a kickstarter game. I don't say that these games are not good or very good, but killing of one of your principles for these with somewhat vague arguments is not enough for me. Just my thoughts on this.
I'm not saying they didn't handle this poorly, because it certainly was. I too am not satisfied with the three games that they are launching their regional pricing model with... even I was expecting something a bit more mind blowing, but I also look at GOG as a business first. DRM-free? Great! Flat Pricing Worldwide? Great! Bonus goodies? Great! Did I ever believe that it would always stay this way? No. If it is good, then someone is always out there to fuck it up, at least that has been my experience. So I will tolerate it until it gets so bad that it isn't worth it anymore. Naturally everyone has their own threshold.

And to your question ... a lot of people use the internet and don't know that there are more than one search engine!
And back in the day people thought AOL was the internet.
avatar
1322: why would a dev/publisher bring their games to a DD store with flat pricing
avatar
1322: why would a dev/publisher give a rats ass about GOG or CDProjekt
Thats obvious, to make more sales and therefore more profits
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: For me it's the same.

They made a promise to their customers, and now they have broken that promise("Good news!").

And no: "We need to sign newer games or else just fire everyone and keep selling the same limited catalog.", is not a believable excuse if your profit/net profit has steadily increased(https://www.cdprojekt.com/Press_Room/Informacje_prasowe,news_id,1905), and you publicly explain how the number of games/publishers you signed on keeps growing(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6P3yOTR2Vc)
avatar
1322: Why would a dev/publisher give a rats ass about GOG's or CDProjekts bottom line? They want to know how GOG is going to improve theirs. Do they care whether GOG goes out of business or not?
GOG.com's bottom line has been improving year after year, which means they sold more games put on GOG.com by the devs/publishers.
.... Sorry, but it's a piece of a <censored> bullshitting LIES.


AGAIN: LIES.

"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. "

Why the F * * K do you do the following then?

Age of Wonders 3:

pre-order RUB599.00

We'll bill the equivalent in USD: $16.99

No f..king way --- it is NOT the equivalent in USD. At least, outside your fantasy world.

When I checked the paypal rate, $16.99 is RUB 639,10.

That's 7% difference right there.
avatar
StormHammer: good points
Good post, sums up pretty much everything wrong and everything that could un-wrong it :P

I still can't understand one thing tho... how did we came to this? How did the publisher/devs came to the fallacy that 1$ could equal 1 euro and stick with this mentality for such a long time. Probably the longest trolling in video game history.

If the retailer is pushing the price to be equal to the price at digital, that doesn't mean the price should be the same only in numbers... that actually is a contradiction right there, a 30%+ overpriced contradiction for EU gamers in fact , but since this contradiction is benefiting them they act as like it's OK... witch is clear as daylight it is not. But what can the consumer do to protest this except not buy their product? Not much, but that's more than enough :P

That line there is where probably moral principles come into game, and i salute gog they act upfront about the issue, trying to find fair solution and don't act like it's OK to rip people off.
Post edited March 02, 2014 by nadenitza
avatar
StormHammer: good points
avatar
nadenitza: Good post, sums up pretty much everything wrong and everything that could un-wrong it :P

I still can't understand one thing tho... how did we came to this? How did the publisher/devs came to the fallacy that 1$ could equal 1 euro and stick with this mentality for such a long time. Probably the longest trolling in video game history.

If the retailer is pushing the price to be equal to the price at digital, that doesn't mean the price should be the same only in numbers... that actually is a contradiction right there, a 30%+ overpriced contradiction for EU gamers in fact , but since this contradiction is benefiting them they act as like it's OK... witch is clear as daylight it is not. But what can the consumer do to protest this except not buy their product? Not much, but that's more than enough :P
The consumer can pirate. If that's what the fight is about (as the whole tirade went) -- convincing customers to /buy/ games, not /pirate/ them... That's a strike right there.
avatar
CheeseshireCat: .... Sorry, but it's a piece of a <censored> bullshitting LIES.

AGAIN: LIES.

"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. "

Why the F * * K do you do the following then?

Age of Wonders 3:

pre-order RUB599.00

We'll bill the equivalent in USD: $16.99

No f..king way --- it is NOT the equivalent in USD. At least, outside your fantasy world.

When I checked the paypal rate, $16.99 is RUB 639,10.

That's 7% difference right there.
The sentence you quoted only speaks about classic titles. Age of Wonders 3 is not a classic, hence there are significant regional price differences (for pretty much the same reason Witcher 2 had to have them).

Furthermore, they do indeed do some rounding on the currency conversion, because the site is not currently setup to actually charge multiple currencies, and they aren't using live currency rates for the conversion - they pegged it at some rate and did the usual dollar rounding ($X.99). The ruble dipped a bit today which means that technically, $15.99 would be closer to the actual conversion rate right now, but like I said, they're not using live rates, and the rate when they set the $16.99 price would indeed make the "actual" amount closer to $16.99 than $15.99.
Post edited March 02, 2014 by Pidgeot
avatar
nadenitza: Good post, sums up pretty much everything wrong and everything that could un-wrong it :P

I still can't understand one thing tho... how did we came to this? How did the publisher/devs came to the fallacy that 1$ could equal 1 euro and stick with this mentality for such a long time. Probably the longest trolling in video game history.

If the retailer is pushing the price to be equal to the price at digital, that doesn't mean the price should be the same only in numbers... that actually is a contradiction right there, a 30%+ overpriced contradiction for EU gamers in fact , but since this contradiction is benefiting them they act as like it's OK... witch is clear as daylight it is not. But what can the consumer do to protest this except not buy their product? Not much, but that's more than enough :P
avatar
CheeseshireCat: The consumer can pirate. If that's what the fight is about (as the whole tirade went) -- convincing customers to /buy/ games, not /pirate/ them... That's a strike right there.
Yep, they'll have a very hard time convincing europeans not to pirate when they charge us 30%+ on top, just because... Maybe they want us to absolve the sins of pirate bay users with this 30%+ charge, who knows, ahahah :D
Post edited March 02, 2014 by nadenitza
avatar
Pidgeot: snip
I just wanted to say your username made me squee, he is the best of the bird pokemon
avatar
nadenitza: Good post, sums up pretty much everything wrong and everything that could un-wrong it :P

I still can't understand one thing tho... how did we came to this? How did the publisher/devs came to the fallacy that 1$ could equal 1 euro and stick with this mentality for such a long time. Probably the longest trolling in video game history.

If the retailer is pushing the price to be equal to the price at digital, that doesn't mean the price should be the same only in numbers... that actually is a contradiction right there, a 30%+ overpriced contradiction for EU gamers in fact , but since this contradiction is benefiting them they act as like it's OK... witch is clear as daylight it is not. But what can the consumer do to protest this except not buy their product? Not much, but that's more than enough :P
avatar
CheeseshireCat: The consumer can pirate. If that's what the fight is about (as the whole tirade went) -- convincing customers to /buy/ games, not /pirate/ them... That's a strike right there.
They are still trying to convince "customers to /buy/ games". ;)
avatar
1322: why would a dev/publisher give a rats ass about GOG or CDProjekt CDProjekts bottom line?
avatar
mobutu: Thats obvious, to make more sales and therefore more profits
Fixed one of those quotes for you :)

The profit a dev/pub would make on an individual game may not be enough for them to justify the risk or could be negligible, which could be why Steam is first choice being it offers the greater exposure. It is a case by case basis. GOG's total income does not give a game-by-game breakdown, though I am sure they show them to publishers they want GOG to give them consideration. If the publisher is not impressed, then I would assume no dice. If they want to sell a game with regional prices, no dice. If we are lucky we get the game later, which is not guaranteed.

I don't pretend I understand all of this, but I think there is other things going on with GOG that they aren't willing to drop the "good news" pretense and just come clean as to the real reason they went to regional pricing. Did they get scared of something? I don't know. Is it really just about expanding the catalog to offer new games? Was their something that they saw they are not telling us?
avatar
mobutu: Thats obvious, to make more sales and therefore more profits
avatar
1322: Fixed one of those quotes for you :)

The profit a dev/pub would make on an individual game may not be enough for them to justify the risk or could be negligible, which could be why Steam is first choice being it offers the greater exposure. It is a case by case basis. GOG's total income does not give a game-by-game breakdown, though I am sure they show them to publishers they want GOG to give them consideration. If the publisher is not impressed, then I would assume no dice. If they want to sell a game with regional prices, no dice. If we are lucky we get the game later, which is not guaranteed.

I don't pretend I understand all of this, but I think there is other things going on with GOG that they aren't willing to drop the "good news" pretense and just come clean as to the real reason they went to regional pricing. Did they get scared of something? I don't know. Is it really just about expanding the catalog to offer new games? Was their something that they saw they are not telling us?
The problem I have is with the immense disconnect of what they are saying now, in contrast of what they said not too long ago.

Up until a few days ago:

Always more sales, always more profit, always more games, always more customers, always more devs/publishers, always more media exposure.

Now:

"We need to sign newer games or else just fire everyone and keep selling the same limited catalog."
Post edited March 02, 2014 by Ichwillnichtmehr
avatar
1322: Fixed one of those quotes for you :)

The profit a dev/pub would make on an individual game may not be enough for them to justify the risk or could be negligible, which could be why Steam is first choice being it offers the greater exposure. It is a case by case basis. GOG's total income does not give a game-by-game breakdown, though I am sure they show them to publishers they want GOG to give them consideration. If the publisher is not impressed, then I would assume no dice. If they want to sell a game with regional prices, no dice. If we are lucky we get the game later, which is not guaranteed.

I don't pretend I understand all of this, but I think there is other things going on with GOG that they aren't willing to drop the "good news" pretense and just come clean as to the real reason they went to regional pricing. Did they get scared of something? I don't know. Is it really just about expanding the catalog to offer new games? Was their something that they saw they are not telling us?
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: The problem I have is with the immense disconnect of what they are saying now, in contrast of what they said not too long ago.

Up until a few days ago:

Always more sales, always more profit, always more games, always more customers, always more devs/publishers, always more media exposure.

Now:

"We need to sign newer games or else just fire everyone and keep selling the same limited catalog."
I agree. Things don't add up, and they need to come clean with plain language and not PR crap. Which what they should have done in the first place, and let the chips fall where they may.
Post edited March 02, 2014 by 1322