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
CarrionCrow: Was just about to say that. U.S. based and that's the price showing here.
avatar
P1na: It must have had one hell of a promo then, since I own it.
I own it as well, and luckily I keep a database of all my games (and how much I pay). According to my records, I paid around £2.95 at the time (based on the exchange rates) or approximately $5. So yes, that must have been a huge promo. I'm glad I picked it up when I did. :P
sorry for quoting myself, but more examples of interesting pricing practices here:

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/release_tower_of_guns/post34
avatar
Maighstir: Thank you. However, as stated, GeoIP has already been used after that news post - namely in the case regarding The Witcher 2 - which effectively makes it void. The news post was apparently posted in May 2011, and The Witcher 2 was released almost a year later, in April 2012.
Well, "no longer" kinda stands out. If they actually do it again... I didn't see any announcement -- nor does googling find it quick -- stating or explaining that they did reverse it, nor why.

Also, I am gonna test it -- I have PCs physically located in US and UK. Not gonna try to switch the setting for the account, too lazy.
avatar
CheeseshireCat: I don't believe A being required is true.
If it wasn't required, then it wouldn't have been done for AoW3 - it would have been done when the site update was ready and GOG could actually bill in those currencies.

See also the pre-orders for The Witcher 2 back in the day.

avatar
CheeseshireCat: I don't see how C is necessary. Working with payment systems (Visa, MC, AmEx) all the time as part of my job and with PayPal on personal and personal business, I know that it is pretty easy to actually charge in the currency of the buyer.
C is necessary for stable prices, and without it, at least one of the other points cannot be met. (If you see a way to meet all of them, tell me how.)

avatar
CheeseshireCat: Also, xe isn't really any kind of an authoritative resource on market rates. Especially at the time when the exchange rate for a particular currency (RUB) goes ping-pong with -- during last month -- 7% variance.
Whether or not XE is authoritative isn't relevant - my point was to show that the rate was 100% accurate at a very recent date. Your original complaint was that the rate at a specific moment in time made the price deviate by 7%, and what I'm trying to say is that all of the factors I mentioned means some variation is unavoidable, especially when the currency you are referring to just lost a fair amount of its value. (If you're claiming that dip didn't happen, show a better source that proves you right.)
Post edited March 04, 2014 by Pidgeot
avatar
CheeseshireCat: I don't believe A being required is true.
avatar
Pidgeot: If it wasn't required, then it wouldn't have been introduced for AoW3 - it would have been introduced when the site update was ready and GOG could actually bill in those currencies.

See also the pre-orders for The Witcher 2 back in the day.
Doesn't prove anything. Moreover, simply not true because there are other vendors who don't have A. uPlay allows you to choose which currency to be charged in, for example.

avatar
CheeseshireCat: I don't see how C is necessary. Working with payment systems (Visa, MC, AmEx) all the time as part of my job and with PayPal on personal and personal business, I know that it is pretty easy to actually charge in the currency of the buyer.
avatar
Pidgeot: C is necessary for stable prices, and without it, at least one of the other points cannot be met. (If you see a way to meet all of them, tell me how.)
I don't believe C is necessary for stable regional prices. In fact, I believe it is necessary to NOT be true for stable regional currency prices.

avatar
CheeseshireCat: Also, xe isn't really any kind of an authoritative resource on market rates. Especially at the time when the exchange rate for a particular currency (RUB) goes ping-pong with -- during last month -- 7% variance.
avatar
Pidgeot: Whether or not XE is authoritative isn't relevant - my point was to show that the rate was 100% accurate at a very recent date. Your original complaint was that the rate at a specific moment in time made the price deviate by 7%, and what I'm trying to say is that all of the factors I mentioned means some variation is unavoidable, especially when the currency you are referring to just lost a fair amount of its value. (If you're claiming that dip didn't happen, show a better source that proves you right.)
I totally am not gonna do that because it makes not a hint of sense to me -- I state that charging a /fixed/ price in another currency while claiming to do so in regional is a lie. And rate changes make it even more so.

If you want ME to twist outta my hide to prove YOUR points which I disagree with... SORRY. Not gonna happen. That dip happening proves MY point even more.
Post edited March 04, 2014 by CheeseshireCat
avatar
StormHammer: I own it as well, and luckily I keep a database of all my games (and how much I pay). According to my records, I paid around £2.95 at the time (based on the exchange rates) or approximately $5. So yes, that must have been a huge promo. I'm glad I picked it up when I did. :P
Yeah, that sounds more like I would have paid. 35$... there was no way I would have paid that, even at 60%
avatar
Pheace: The proposed prices for classics would actually be equal to US price + Vat + some extra money, so they'd make more on those.
avatar
Pidgeot: There are some rules that say European companies with sufficiently high sales must pay VAT to the country the buyer is from, but for simplicity, let's say GOG doesn't sell enough for that.

GOG is legally registered as a company in Cyprus, where the VAT rate is 19%. This means $5.99 titles currently result in approximately €0.69 of VAT, while $9.99 titles are about €1.15. That's how much is being lost right now when comparing the profit of a US sale to a EU sale.
I'm not sure how sales taxes work across different regions, so maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

If GOG.com sets a price of $9.99 for a game, and that price includes the 19% VAT rate they have to pay in Cyprus, then surely that also applies to US customers? They clearly state on their receipts that all prices are inclusive of VAT - so that 19% VAT rate must already be included regardless of where the purchase is made, including the US - or the US customers would be paying less than $9.99.

Therefore the only differentiation would be between the Cyprus VAT rate of 19%, and the potentially higher (or lower) VAT rate of the region in which the game is purchased?

Or am I mistaken?
Post edited March 04, 2014 by StormHammer
avatar
CheeseshireCat: Wrong. At least, so far. GOG stated they are not -- and will not be -- using IP geolocation, and instead, you set your location in your profile.

Too lazy to find that post.
avatar
Maighstir: Please do find it. They started using GeoIP to enforce regional pricing for The Witcher 2 (because they got in legal trouble with the retail publisher when the user-selected country set the price). Of course, that game has since entered global pricing.
They probably wont use GeoIP to enforce regional pricing unless it is required by the publisher outright, or people abuse the system by having a high percentage of games bought in Russia or similar being redeemed worldwide, or a high number of people arbitrarily changing their country to Russia to get beneficial pricing. If either of these things happen IMHO GOG.com would be justifiable to use GeoIP services to help stem the problem although it wouldn't prevent it as there are many ways around that too of course. I have more faith in GOG than in people not trying to game the system around the world though so I'd be surprised if either angry people and/or opportunists don't take advantage of the lenient system and create a situation that ends up having additional measures put in place to mitigate the problems. Hopefully that wont be the case though.
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: I hope you will continue to post here, especially because I disagree with you.
And that's important too. I've had people thank me for posting and state they don't agree with me but appreciate my perspective as well. :) Likewise though, I appreciate hearing what others feel whom I disagree with also and in particular knowing the details of how such changes do affect them. The posts where people have taken time to try to break things down by region with pricing etc. in an unbiased manner even though their opinion tilts one way or the other. It helps to put things in perspective and also to see some problems that do actually exist which we might not otherwise be aware of, which in turn helps to form an opinion on a wider base of information. Civil debate can be a useful thing.
Post edited March 04, 2014 by skeletonbow
avatar
Maighstir: Thank you. However, as stated, GeoIP has already been used after that news post - namely in the case regarding The Witcher 2 - which effectively makes it void. The news post was apparently posted in May 2011, and The Witcher 2 was released almost a year later, in April 2012.
... Actually, trying to test it failed for one simple reason.

Specifically, the RUB price that was showing previously is just no longer there even when I log in from a Russian PC with Russia as my regional settings -- I have only the $39.99 anymore.
avatar
Pidgeot: There are some rules that say European companies with sufficiently high sales must pay VAT to the country the buyer is from, but for simplicity, let's say GOG doesn't sell enough for that.

GOG is legally registered as a company in Cyprus, where the VAT rate is 19%. This means $5.99 titles currently result in approximately €0.69 of VAT, while $9.99 titles are about €1.15. That's how much is being lost right now when comparing the profit of a US sale to a EU sale.
avatar
StormHammer: I'm not sure how sales taxes work across different regions, so maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

If GOG.com sets a price of $9.99 for a game, and that price includes the 19% VAT rate they have to pay in Cyprus, then surely that also applies to US customers? They clearly state on their receipts that all prices are inclusive of VAT - so that 19% VAT rate must already be included regardless of where the purchase is made, including the US - or the US customers would be paying less than $9.99.

Therefore the only differentiation would be between the Cyprus VAT rate of 19%, and the potentially higher (or lower) VAT rate of the region in which the game is purchased?

Or am I mistaken?
Exports are exempted from VAT to avoid double taxation when dealing with countries that use sales tax. For the EU, "export" means to somewhere outside the EU VAT area.

Instead, the buyer is responsible for paying VAT/sales tax in their country (which they normally have to self-report, and even then, there is normally some threshold below which no reporting is necessary).

There are probably more details than that in the exact implementation (I'm not a tax lawyer), but that's the basics of how it works.
avatar
CheeseshireCat: I don't believe A being required is true.
avatar
Pidgeot: If it wasn't required, then it wouldn't have been done for AoW3 - it would have been done when the site update was ready and GOG could actually bill in those currencies.

See also the pre-orders for The Witcher 2 back in the day.
... Actually, GOG just proved my point. See screenshot.

Case closed.
Attachments:
aowgog.png (335 Kb)
avatar
skeletonbow: Civil debate can be a useful thing.
Unless you want to see an internet forum going up in flames. ;)
avatar
CheeseshireCat: Wrong. At least, so far. GOG stated they are not -- and will not be -- using IP geolocation, and instead, you set your location in your profile.

Too lazy to find that post.
avatar
Maighstir: Please do find it. They started using GeoIP to enforce regional pricing for The Witcher 2 (because they got in legal trouble with the retail publisher when the user-selected country set the price). Of course, that game has since entered global pricing.
Age of Wonders 3 uses geoIP also. Try unlogging from you account and you will get the same price as if you are logged in. That tells you everything. How do you think regional pricing works. Try going on gog on some other computer without logging in and you will get the same price as if you logg in - that is geoip working its magic.
Post edited March 04, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
Maighstir: Please do find it. They started using GeoIP to enforce regional pricing for The Witcher 2 (because they got in legal trouble with the retail publisher when the user-selected country set the price). Of course, that game has since entered global pricing.
avatar
Matruchus: Age of Wonders 3 uses geoIP also. Try unlogging from you account and you will get the same price as if you are logged in. That tells you everything. How do you think regional pricing works. Try going on gog on some other computer without logging in and you will get the same price as if you logg in - that is geoip working its magic.
Actually, AoW 3 JUST doesn't use different prices for me anymore. See the message above.

And I checked from 2 PCs, one in Russia, one in US, both logged in and logged out.

I only see the USD price.
avatar
Pidgeot: Exports are exempted from VAT to avoid double taxation when dealing with countries that use sales tax. For the EU, "export" means to somewhere outside the EU VAT area.

Instead, the buyer is responsible for paying VAT/sales tax in their country (which they normally have to self-report, and even then, there is normally some threshold below which no reporting is necessary).

There are probably more details than that in the exact implementation (I'm not a tax lawyer), but that's the basics of how it works.
Thanks for the clarification.

Okay, I'm still trying to get my head around this. if GOG.com is based in Cyprus, then when they set their prices (regardless of currency), they must have included the Cyprus VAT rate of 19% that they have to pay in that country. If that is the case, then what should actually happen is that the US customers (and others outside of Europe) should be paying $9.99 less the 19% VAT, and add <insert their local tax rate here>.

Is that right?

So when I pay $9.99 ( ~ £5.99 ) for a game in the UK, inclusive of VAT, then I am actually paying the 19% Cyprus VAT rate as part of that price, not my local 20% VAT rate? Is that correct?
Post edited March 04, 2014 by StormHammer