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
CheeseshireCat: So essentially, it means that any kind of "fair" regional pricing is impossible without DRM. Otherwise, a lot of people will simply buy where the regional prices are cheaper.
No, it means that any kind of "fair" regional pricing that involves (significantly) lower prices than the default (USD in this case) needs to have people not be douchebags and ruin it for the people those lower prices are intended for. Which is exactly what TheEnigmaticT stated earlier in this thread.

And I'd also like to remind you that GeoIP isn't always an accurate techonology, and GOG might not still detect your Russian computer as being in Russia. I haven't seen anyone else report the removal of the Russian price, so there's not enough information to say that it *has* been removed.
Post edited March 04, 2014 by Pidgeot
avatar
Redfern: Considering Steam-mania all other world...doubt it. But cannot be 100% sure of that.
For example, yesterday there was giveaway for codes of one game recently featured in Groupees bundle - owners taken Steam keys for themselves, but just given away Desura ones. Its little hard to believe that market value of GOG keys is very bigger then Desura ones.
avatar
SirPrimalform: GOG might not be Steam but I'd bet it's 10x more popular than Desura. I get the impression that Desura is propped up by the Indie Royale bundles. I do quite like Desura, but very rarely do I buy anything directly from them. I have over 700 games on Desura (I'm not kidding).
Well, i quite not sure about 1:10 scale....I feel you kind of underestimate Desura. While, true, overall average quality of GOG games is bigger then Desura's due to stricter store policy, Desura have lauched some good titles too, like 30X9 series, Towns and other stuff too.
avatar
CheeseshireCat: So essentially, it means that any kind of "fair" regional pricing is impossible without DRM. Otherwise, a lot of people will simply buy where the regional prices are cheaper.
avatar
Pidgeot: No, it means that any kind of "fair" regional pricing that involves lower prices than the default (USD in this case) needs to have people not be douchebags and ruin it for the people those lower prices are intended for. Which is exactly what TheEnigmaticT stated earlier in this thread.

And I'd also like to remind you that GeoIP isn't always an accurate techonology, and GOG might not still detect your Russian computer as being in Russia. I haven't seen anyone else report the removal of the Russian price, so there's not enough information to say that it *has* been removed.
Dont forget, GOG always can verify user's card to be issued in certain country and Paypal now demand to be Country field filled correctly, otherwise it can cause ban.
Post edited March 04, 2014 by Redfern
avatar
nadenitza: ... Convincing pubs to drop steamworks, uplay, origin, rockstar club... i would like to see how gog handles that, haha :P

Majority of the new AAA's are tied to some sort of pretty bad DRM system that will actually cost the pubs money to remove... tough call
But then not removing also costs the pubs money. I heard all the arguments there so often I can probably recite them in the middle of the night. Yes it is an uphill battle but still we can afford to wait and see how it plays out. Not that we could do anything else either.
avatar
spindown: Or, even better, announce that all USD prices will increase by 35% effective next month and see if Americans will remain calm and continue to tell everybody to chill the fuck out because regional pricing is no big deal.
avatar
skeletonbow: I'm not American, but while I might not be negatively impacted by the regional pricing (no idea really), if the price offered to me was 50% higher I personally would not be angry about it. Not in the least. Not because I can afford to pay more, but rather because GOG.com doesn't owe me anything personally. I'm not entitled to any particular pricetag on anything I buy at GOG or anywhere else. Stores charge prices on things and I simply look at those prices and decide whether or not I need the product bad enough, or desire to have it bad enough that the price I'm being offered on it is a fair exchange of value for money at the time. If it is, and the budget permits - I'll buy it. If not, or budget doesn't permit, I wont. I sure hope I don't have to pay more now but if I do, I wont bat an eye. So it just means if I were charged 50% more, I'd buy 33% less games if I choose to spend the same maximum amount of money, and that my purchases would become much more decisive and less whimsical as they have in the past.

That's just how it is for me, and I'm not suggesting in the slightest way that it is how it is for everyone, nor that it should be. This whole thing is a very individual thing really with no right or wrong per se. just how it is for the individual.
This argument is reductive (you're essentially arguing that communicating with any business is wrong and that businesses should be allowed carte blanche with their pricing structure, which is economically dangerous for a huge number of reasons - in the end it's only good for the businesses themselves), and also quite sociocentric. Sociocentric is a word I made up, right now, and it is quite similar to ethnocentric however it indicates a scewed viewpoint based on socio-economic status rather than ethnicity. It is not possible for you to relate to or understand the economic necessities of those with less economic agency than you, because you do not have less economic agency than you do.
avatar
skeletonbow: ... if the price offered to me was 50% higher I personally would not be angry about it. ... That's just how it is for me, and I'm not suggesting in the slightest way that it is how it is for everyone, nor that it should be. This whole thing is a very individual thing really with no right or wrong per se. just how it is for the individual.
I'm convinced that for most of the other customers the price indeed matters quite a lot. For example only a few people are willing to pay more than what is strictly necessary. Also I want to mention again that the regional pricing is not a voluntary thing that only applies to those who like it.

It's not like being generous but more like being forced to pay more.
high rated
I buy a game when I think that the game is worth more to me than I'm paying for it. So there are games that I would be comfortable at buying for 5 bucks or 10 bucks because the game is worth more to me. But when I buy a game at 10 bucks and I see that at the same time someone is able to buy it at 5, then I'm not comfortable with that, because I feel screwed. So it doesn't matter how deep the discount is, I'll always feel screwed if someone will be able to get the game cheaper at that time. Because prices do have an absolute and a relative component to them. And to create a satisfying purchase both components must be okay.
avatar
StormHammer: In my view, therefore, the regional pricing model is simply being implemented to make more money, and for no other reason. There is nothing inherently wrong with a business wanting to make more money, and more profit, but trying to dress it up in marketing spin that these poor publishers are 'earning less' because of VAT is a bit disingenuous to your customers, and takes us for fools.
^ This. What I find most offensive about this entire issue is the disingenuous marketing spin that has been applied to the process by the GOG team. They had bad news for us, they should have told us it was bad news and worn it, not presented it like it was some kind of exciting new development in their service. I've seen this PR-speak far too much from GOG in the last year, and frankly it just comes off as sleazy. GOG should be better than this, that used to be the point.
avatar
CheeseshireCat: So essentially, it means that any kind of "fair" regional pricing is impossible without DRM. Otherwise, a lot of people will simply buy where the regional prices are cheaper.

Therefore, for GOG, there are three options. Either to have regional pricing that only includes HIGHER regional prices (while other players have also lower prices for some regions); stay at flat pricing and not carry the titles with regional pricing; or adopt DRM. Lose-lose-lose.
That is not lose-lose-lose, it is lose-win-lose. I, and many others, do not think that every game needs to be sold here. The only games that need to be sold here are ones released by developers who are willing to eschew market trends by avoiding exploitative practices such as DRM and regional pricing. End. The only way in which it can be perceived as lose-lose-lose is if you believe that GOG is meant to carry ALL THE GAMES. But it isn't, it never has been, and I hope it never will be.
Post edited March 04, 2014 by ForgetDeny
avatar
Redfern: Dont forget, GOG always can verify user's card to be issued in certain country and Paypal now demand to be Country field filled correctly, otherwise it can cause ban.
That's possible but not a 100% accurate indicator either since it will mis-categorise people working or travelling overseas who still keep their home country cards.

And GOG allows PaySafeCard payments which don't, AFAIK, provide country details.

As for IP address geo-location, GOG are definitely using it as this list of prices (taken while logged in using different Tor exit nodes) should illustrate:
Attachments:
avatar
StormHammer: tl;dr No company likes to pay taxes and make less money, so they'll shunt those costs off onto the end consumer to make up for it.

Guillaume Rambourg said this:

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.
avatar
StormHammer: My understanding is that GOG.com is a company registered in Europe, with an annual revenue above the tax threshold, which requires you to register for VAT, and charge (and expend) VAT within Europe. This is normal business practice. In the setting of your 'flat' prices (inclusive of VAT), you must therefore have allowed for at least the 19% VAT rate of Cyprus where you are apparently registered. The prices, as stated on the site, are inclusive of VAT.

In the negotiation and setting of your (flat) prices, you should have accounted for the variety of different VAT rates within Europe to ensure you would not make losses on sales. Not to do so would probably be a poor business decision on your part. Therefore, you are not absorbing VAT costs unless they are above the 19% VAT rate in Cyprus. You are simply conducting business as usual as a VAT-registered company within Europe. As some countries in Europe have a lower VAT rate than Cyprus, by charging a flat 19% rate for each sale in those countries you are improving your profit margin on those sales, not absorbing losses. I see that you carefully omitted this from your letter.

If publishers decided on the $5.99 and $9.99 you are currently charging for classic titles, then they would have done so knowing that as a VAT-registered company you would have to pay VAT, and they would therefore receive a percentage of a reduced net value on each sale in regions outside of the US. This is business as usual, and if they had wanted to improve their profit margin, they would have negotiated for higher prices at the time. Of course, this does not really apply to more recent titles on the storefront from indie developers, where the prices already vary greatly to reflect any additional costs they may incur. I must therefore assume that during negotiation with GOG.com, those indie developers accounted for any 'perceived' losses due to the inclusion of VAT costs - and those within Europe would not even be affected, as they can reclaim VAT if necessary.

What you are basically saying here is that a publisher based in the US is earning less due to the fact that you are required to charge VAT on sales in Europe, which is normal business practice, and now you want to charge more so that these publishers (and you) make more profit on each sale. You cannot really argue that raising prices by 35% (on average) in Europe for new games in your catalogue is to make up for some perceived profit loss due to charging for VAT - because that percentage bears no relation to the actual VAT rate (19%) you are already charging on each sale. It is nearly double, and European companies are getting a freebie because they are not affected by this VAT problem (as I will show below).

Any rise in price is exactly that - a price rise, only for the sake of making more money. If you were simply adjusting for VAT rate disparities between countries, you would be charging the difference between the VAT rate of Cyprus (19%), and the VAT rate of each individual country. So a country with a VAT rate of 27% (the highest in Europe) would have to pay 8% more. However, this is not the case, as indicated by your new regional pricing model.

In addition, publishers/developers within Europe also have to operate their business in accordance with VAT laws in their countries (if they qualify for VAT registration). So how can publishers/developers within Europe be 'earning less', if they are already subject to the same VAT laws (albeit with some VAT rate variation between countries), and can make claims on any VAT deficits they incur?

By implementation of a regional price in Europe, those European companies are now seeing a dramatic rise in income from sales (for new games) compared to their US counterparts, because you already charged VAT as a matter of course. GOG.com and it's European partners will see all of that ~ 35% increase in price, because you have already been charging VAT at 19% rate (or above). There will still be a disparity between what European and US companies will earn on European sales. Raising the price for a specific region does nothing to alter that disparity, while negatively impacting the end consumer.

You may try to convince us that GOG.com is in a poor position financially by absorbing VAT costs, but as a VAT-registered company that is what every business has to deal with. Publishers outside of Europe may indeed be losing some profit margin on sales in Europe, but they were fully aware of our VAT laws when you negotiated with them to sell their games for a flat price on your store. If they didn't understand that, they shouldn't be in business.

In my view, therefore, the regional pricing model is simply being implemented to make more money, and for no other reason. There is nothing inherently wrong with a business wanting to make more money, and more profit, but trying to dress it up in marketing spin that these poor publishers are 'earning less' because of VAT is a bit disingenuous to your customers, and takes us for fools.
This is something what should be quoted many times... I concur with everything StormHammer said...

GOG guys - you can maybe fool normal masses, but not GOG users... You have to start count with the situation, that many of us are really aware of the ways how the taxes are paid in Europe.... I thought, thats what you wanted and its what Ure getting - more educated community which are aware also about another "real life" things but "games"...

Try not to fool us with VAT excuses...

I have aprox 60 games on GOG... But I think this is exactly the way how Ill not have any more... Ever... Really disappointed... Not bcs that you want to make more money... But Ure making excuses about things which are simply not truth...
Post edited March 04, 2014 by slahounek
avatar
StormHammer: tl;dr No company likes to pay taxes and make less money, so they'll shunt those costs off onto the end consumer to make up for it.

Guillaume Rambourg said this: My understanding is that GOG.com is a company registered in Europe, with an annual revenue above the tax threshold, which requires you to register for VAT, and charge (and expend) VAT within Europe. This is normal business practice. In the setting of your 'flat' prices (inclusive of VAT), you must therefore have allowed for at least the 19% VAT rate of Cyprus where you are apparently registered. The prices, as stated on the site, are inclusive of VAT.

Neat lay out of VAT charged & expended!

In my view, therefore, the regional pricing model is simply being implemented to make more money, and for no other reason. There is nothing inherently wrong with a business wanting to make more money, and more profit, but trying to dress it up in marketing spin that these poor publishers are 'earning less' because of VAT is a bit disingenuous to your customers, and takes us for fools.
Thanks for posting this, with all this back and forth about how VAT is applied and how GOG takes a hit by absorbing it, I wanted to post something similar, but you did a much better job than I would have done.

And I completely agree with your closing paragraph.

Cheers!
avatar
CheeseshireCat: So essentially, it means that any kind of "fair" regional pricing is impossible without DRM. Otherwise, a lot of people will simply buy where the regional prices are cheaper.

Therefore, for GOG, there are three options. Either to have regional pricing that only includes HIGHER regional prices (while other players have also lower prices for some regions); stay at flat pricing and not carry the titles with regional pricing; or adopt DRM. Lose-lose-lose.
avatar
ForgetDeny: That is not lose-lose-lose, it is lose-win-lose. I, and many others, do not think that every game needs to be sold here. The only games that need to be sold here are ones released by developers who are willing to eschew market trends by avoiding exploitative practices such as DRM and regional pricing. End. The only way in which it can be perceived as lose-lose-lose is if you believe that GOG is meant to carry ALL THE GAMES. But it isn't, it never has been, and I hope it never will be.
Well, it is a lose-lose-lose for the mission GOG stated in their announcement, not necessarily for the users.
avatar
CheeseshireCat: So essentially, it means that any kind of "fair" regional pricing is impossible without DRM. Otherwise, a lot of people will simply buy where the regional prices are cheaper.
avatar
Pidgeot: No, it means that any kind of "fair" regional pricing that involves (significantly) lower prices than the default (USD in this case) needs to have people not be douchebags and ruin it for the people those lower prices are intended for. Which is exactly what TheEnigmaticT stated earlier in this thread.

And I'd also like to remind you that GeoIP isn't always an accurate techonology, and GOG might not still detect your Russian computer as being in Russia. I haven't seen anyone else report the removal of the Russian price, so there's not enough information to say that it *has* been removed.
Well, I checked it from my work PC, from home PC and from my phone. Three different ISPs, three different IP pools.

Don't see anyone report Russian price being still active either, but I would really laugh my arse off if GOG made a special exception just for me.
Post edited March 04, 2014 by CheeseshireCat
I'm adding a light touch. Blogger jefequeso posted a utube re GOG's regional pricing.

This is hilarious: youtu.be/dvjzg7yiOOQ

Hmmm...Noticed it isn't clickable. Don't know why. Sorry, try a cut 'n' paste.
Post edited March 04, 2014 by mari29
avatar
pds41: Guillaume - I appreciate the honesty of your email and agree that I'd like to see new DRM free games here, so can accept regional pricing on those to start with.

However, I struggle to see why you would want to move to regional pricing for the classics unless you're being forced to. At the moment, pricing is inherently fair to the purchaser - everyone pays the same amount of USD. I'm a Brit and I don't mind paying in USD; indeed I would rather continue paying in USD than having a GBP price based an exchange rate at a fixed point in time.

I don't see how this new pricing scheme for classic games benefits me.
avatar
TheFrenchMonk: Hi pds41,

Regional pricing means that your bank will not charge you extra fees to convert your purchase from USD to GBP i.e. we can guarantee that what you see is what you pay. That's good for you guys in my humble opinion.

On top of that, well, there are lots of European/British/Australian gamers out there who are worried to buy anything in USD on the internet, because their bank account is in a different currency. By having local currencies, we will be able to make them feel safer about GOG and have more retrogaming fans on GOG. Even among my circle of French friends, there are people who constantly tell me "5.99 EUR for a classic game, really?" and I am like "no, it's 5.99 USD, which is 4.something EUR". These are exactly the kind of people we also need to make feel more comfortable about GOG.com.
Im still wondering about this... Im probably living in some weird country (BTW, just few miles south of you :) But there are NONE special conversion rate fees, when Ure paying by a credit/debit card online in any currency but your domestic one... the conversion rate of your bank at that moment applies, no more surplus... And thats same for every bank in Czech Rep... Money transfers or cash is of course something different, but were talking about paying online with credit/debit cards....

Maybe were the only one in the world and in Poland its something completely else:)

I absolutely dont get this regional pricing for "old" games... Theres absolutely no point other than hide something...
avatar
TheFrenchMonk: Hi pds41,

Regional pricing means that your bank will not charge you extra fees to convert your purchase from USD to GBP i.e. we can guarantee that what you see is what you pay. That's good for you guys in my humble opinion.

On top of that, well, there are lots of European/British/Australian gamers out there who are worried to buy anything in USD on the internet, because their bank account is in a different currency. By having local currencies, we will be able to make them feel safer about GOG and have more retrogaming fans on GOG. Even among my circle of French friends, there are people who constantly tell me "5.99 EUR for a classic game, really?" and I am like "no, it's 5.99 USD, which is 4.something EUR". These are exactly the kind of people we also need to make feel more comfortable about GOG.com.
It sounds like it could be beneficial to some, but why not make it optional for the classics? If the various prices are supposed to be equivalent, why not let the user choose their preferred currency (with a setting in the account, the default is maybe determined by IP address)?

In fact, why not keep currency and regional pricing as two separate things?

That is, let users choose what currency they wish to be billed in separate from whether or not a game is regionally priced. Using the current system as an example, you list AoW3 as £35 for me currently but still bill in USD. After you start supporting GBP, why not retain the ability to pay in the USD equivalent?

And for the classic games which are 'fair local priced' or whatever you want to call it, the user can freely choose to pay the same in any of the supported currencies.
avatar
ForgetDeny: That is not lose-lose-lose, it is lose-win-lose. I, and many others, do not think that every game needs to be sold here. The only games that need to be sold here are ones released by developers who are willing to eschew market trends by avoiding exploitative practices such as DRM and regional pricing. End. The only way in which it can be perceived as lose-lose-lose is if you believe that GOG is meant to carry ALL THE GAMES. But it isn't, it never has been, and I hope it never will be.
avatar
CheeseshireCat: Well, it is a lose-lose-lose for the mission GOG stated in their announcement, not necessarily for the users.
However, it is in line with GOG's pre-standing policy (existing prior to the announcement). GOG is a boutique store with a specialised customer base. When boutique stores attempt to expand into the mass market two things nearly always happen: 1) Their pre-existing customer base [rightly] feel betrayed at the compromise of principles necessary to enter mass-market trade and therefore leave the store; 2) The company dies because they discover that the mass market they are attempting to tap into is already fully catered to by pre-existing services (steam, origin, greenmangames, gamersgate, uplay, desura, etc, etc).

GOG would be far better served to continue playing the long game rather than focusing on quarterly profits (which are what the majority of business decisions appear to made on). GOG should not be adapting itself to the mass-market but instead continuing in the vein that they have already found success in of proving through practice that it is possible to force the mass-market to adapt to them through measurable financial success without ethical compromise. GOG has already proven that this approach can succeed. If this were not a successful route then GOG would have failed years ago rather than expanded to the point that they're now at.

I believe that what we are witnessing is GOG "jumping the shark".