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
nadenitza: And? What will be the purpose of this? Public naming and shaming couse he decided to share his game on piratebay?
avatar
Matruchus: No this could be used to close the account of the person pirating if gog decides so.
Sorry if I don't understand this correctly, but... Not to have the game shared is regarded as a "digital right" of GoG, publisher, whatever. And using the file would be "managing" these rights, right? So, isn't that "digital rights management" (DRM) right there?
avatar
Khajiin: Well guess I will have to buy the few classics im still interessted in soon.

WIth regional pricing incoming gog.com will lose much of its attractivity for me.

I see no reason why I should pay more just because we have €.

Anyway you did a good job in the past years so good luck for the future.
I try not to encourage GoG in this. Buying the games now would give them more money. I think the best course of action would be to deny them money until they reconsider. So I haven't bought any game since the announcement.
Post edited March 06, 2014 by binarek
avatar
Matruchus: No this could be used to close the account of the person pirating if gog decides so.
avatar
binarek: Sorry if I don't understand this correctly, but... Not to have the game shared is regarded as a "digital right" of GoG, publisher, whatever. And using the file would be "managing" these rights, right? So, isn't that "digital rights management" (DRM) right there?
avatar
Khajiin: Well guess I will have to buy the few classics im still interessted in soon.

WIth regional pricing incoming gog.com will lose much of its attractivity for me.

I see no reason why I should pay more just because we have €.

Anyway you did a good job in the past years so good luck for the future.
avatar
binarek: I try not to encourage GoG in this. Buying the games now would give them more money. I think the best course of action would be to deny them money until they reconsider. So I haven't bought any game since the announcement.
No unfornately drm is something totaly different. It means activation limits, persistent online authentification and such.
Look for more explanation on wikipedia drm site. What we were talking about is just the basic license for any game on gog or elsewhere. No license allows you to share the game around. You buy only the license for yourself by buying the game. This is what most people don't understand and drm has nothing to do with licenses its really just a way to unsure that license conditions are upheald. You can call it pre-prevention from the side of publisher in such a form that is really bad for buyer.
Post edited March 06, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
binarek: Sorry if I don't understand this correctly, but... Not to have the game shared is regarded as a "digital right" of GoG, publisher, whatever. And using the file would be "managing" these rights, right? So, isn't that "digital rights management" (DRM) right there?

I try not to encourage GoG in this. Buying the games now would give them more money. I think the best course of action would be to deny them money until they reconsider. So I haven't bought any game since the announcement.
avatar
Matruchus: No unfornately drm is something totaly different. It means activation limits, persistent online authentification and such.
Look for more explanation on wikipedia drm site. What we were talking about is just the basic license for any game on gog or elsewhere. No license allows you to share the game around. You buy only the license for yourself.
I know that and I know GOG relies on trust rather than DRM software.
Furthermore the first line of the Wikipedia page you are referring me to states:
"Digital Rights Management (DRM) is a class of technologies that are used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders, and individuals with the intent to control the use of digital content and devices after sale"
I think that such a file identifying the original buyer of the item in question would fall under that definition.
The important thing here is the purpose. And such a file would have no other purpose than to manage digital rights.
avatar
Matruchus: No unfornately drm is something totaly different. It means activation limits, persistent online authentification and such.
Look for more explanation on wikipedia drm site. What we were talking about is just the basic license for any game on gog or elsewhere. No license allows you to share the game around. You buy only the license for yourself.
avatar
binarek: I know that and I know GOG relies on trust rather than DRM software.
Furthermore the first line of the Wikipedia page you are referring me to states:
"Digital Rights Management (DRM) is a class of technologies that are used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders, and individuals with the intent to control the use of digital content and devices after sale"
I think that such a file identifying the original buyer of the item in question would fall under that definition.
The important thing here is the purpose. And such a file would have no other purpose than to manage digital rights.
Well you need to go a bit further down where all forms of drm are explained and gog does not use any of that at the moment since it does not restrict you usage of any game on gog. And as said if you had drm you would not be able to use your game on any other computer than the "authenthicated" one (similar to steam).

Well we will se what happens.

As long as gog does not restrict your usage of the game in any other way for yourself as buyer you dont have drm.
Post edited March 06, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
Matruchus: You buy only the license for yourself by buying the game. This is what most people don't understand and drm has nothing to do with licenses its really just a way to unsure that license conditions are upheald. You can call it pre-prevention from the side of publisher in such a form that is really bad for buyer.
It's the reason DRM exists, if it's the father of DRM, calling it that way won't be far away from the truth. DRM are his children.
avatar
Matruchus: You buy only the license for yourself by buying the game. This is what most people don't understand and drm has nothing to do with licenses its really just a way to unsure that license conditions are upheald. You can call it pre-prevention from the side of publisher in such a form that is really bad for buyer.
avatar
nadenitza: It's the reason DRM exists, if it's the father of DRM, calling it that way won't be far away from the truth. DRM are his children.
Of course it is because of the license protection that drm exist since there are to many people pirating the games. Thats the only reason for drm and why its getting more and more draconic.
Post edited March 06, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
binarek: I know that and I know GOG relies on trust rather than DRM software.
Furthermore the first line of the Wikipedia page you are referring me to states:
"Digital Rights Management (DRM) is a class of technologies that are used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders, and individuals with the intent to control the use of digital content and devices after sale"
I think that such a file identifying the original buyer of the item in question would fall under that definition.
The important thing here is the purpose. And such a file would have no other purpose than to manage digital rights.
avatar
Matruchus: Well you need to go a bit further down where all forms of drm are explained and gog does not use any of that at the moment since it does not restrict you usage of any game on gog. And as said if you had drm you would not be able to use your game on any other computer than the "authenthicated" one (similar to steam).

Well we will se what happens.
Those items that are listed under the "DRM and computer games" header are just examples. It is in no way a complete list.
However, I have found this bit that is relevant to our conversation about the identification file. Indeed, it is not an exact match but I think the file idea fits that.
avatar
nadenitza: It's the reason DRM exists, if it's the father of DRM, calling it that way won't be far away from the truth. DRM are his children.
avatar
Matruchus: Of course it is because of the license protection that drm exist since there are to many people pirating the games. Thats the only reason for drm and why its getting more and more draconic.
Well if they are pirating that must tell you something, means that licensing rule doesn't work and won't work. It's as good as not existing couse it doesn't make sense IRL - you can't force someone not to share what he got, simple as that. Enforcing it with DRM won't drive people away from the practice because people like to share, for good or worse. Of course the ones who don't make money because of it will be pissed, but instead they should try make it work in their favour. You will ask "how will you make money for giving something for free", this is a very long debate and will derail the thread so i'll skip it.
Post edited March 06, 2014 by nadenitza
avatar
binarek: However, I have found this bit that is relevant to our conversation about the identification file. Indeed, it is not an exact match but I think the file idea fits that.
Relevant quote of that part of the article
As an example, metadata is used in media purchased from Apple's iTunes Store for DRM-free as well as DRM-restricted versions of their music or videos. This information is included as MPEG standard metadata.
Emphasis mine.
Fingerprinting is not DRM.
avatar
binarek: However, I have found this bit that is relevant to our conversation about the identification file. Indeed, it is not an exact match but I think the file idea fits that.
avatar
JMich: Relevant quote of that part of the article

As an example, metadata is used in media purchased from Apple's iTunes Store for DRM-free as well as DRM-restricted versions of their music or videos. This information is included as MPEG standard metadata.
avatar
JMich: Emphasis mine.
Fingerprinting is not DRM.
A quote from the next section of the page on watermarking (which is, I think, essentially the same thing):

Watermarks are not complete DRM mechanisms in their own right, but are used as part of a system for copyright enforcement, such as helping provide prosecution evidence for purely legal avenues of rights management, rather than direct technological restriction.

In my opinion they are a form of DRM, albeit not restrictive in the technological sense. The question seems to be the definition of "DRM-free" in the statement about the Apple iTunes Store. As I think it does not mean the complete absence of DRM.

Edit: My bad. The Wikipedia article states clearly that metadata is entirely separate from the content itself. So I would have to be able to simply delete the file in order to make that statement work.
Post edited March 06, 2014 by binarek
avatar
JMich: Relevant quote of that part of the article

Emphasis mine.
Fingerprinting is not DRM.
avatar
binarek: A quote from the next section of the page on watermarking (which is, I think, essentially the same thing):

Watermarks are not complete DRM mechanisms in their own right, but are used as part of a system for copyright enforcement, such as helping provide prosecution evidence for purely legal avenues of rights management, rather than direct technological restriction.

In my opinion they are a form of DRM, albeit not restrictive in the technological sense. The question seems to be the definition of "DRM-free" in the statement about the Apple iTunes Store. As I think it does not mean the complete absence of DRM.
DRM where M would stand for "Monitoring" essentially, haha
avatar
binarek: A quote from the next section of the page on watermarking (which is, I think, essentially the same thing):

Watermarks are not complete DRM mechanisms in their own right, but are used as part of a system for copyright enforcement, such as helping provide prosecution evidence for purely legal avenues of rights management, rather than direct technological restriction.

In my opinion they are a form of DRM, albeit not restrictive in the technological sense. The question seems to be the definition of "DRM-free" in the statement about the Apple iTunes Store. As I think it does not mean the complete absence of DRM.
avatar
nadenitza: DRM where M would stand for "Monitoring" essentially, haha
Monitoring is a form of management :)
avatar
nadenitza: DRM where M would stand for "Monitoring" essentially, haha
avatar
binarek: Monitoring is a form of management :)
touché :D
avatar
binarek: A quote from the next section of the page on watermarking (which is, I think, essentially the same thing):
Watermarking means that the image you share has a huge "Preview image" written over it. Fingerprinting means that the EXIF metadata of said image says the image was created by binarek. Metadata can be modified much easier than watermarking, especially if you convert from one format to another without preserving them.

So no, Watermarking and metadata fingerprinting are not the same thing, even if both can be used for the same reasons.
avatar
binarek: A quote from the next section of the page on watermarking (which is, I think, essentially the same thing):
avatar
JMich: Watermarking means that the image you share has a huge "Preview image" written over it. Fingerprinting means that the EXIF metadata of said image says the image was created by binarek. Metadata can be modified much easier than watermarking, especially if you convert from one format to another without preserving them.

So no, Watermarking and metadata fingerprinting are not the same thing, even if both can be used for the same reasons.
Digital watermarking is a technique of embedding (typically hidden) information into some sort of carrier data.
Watermark as an image effect (your "Preview image") is a little different.
It all boils down to whether the added information can be easily separated from the original data or not.
I assumed that the identification file would not be easily separable from the installer GOG provides. Otherwise, the "pirate" would just delete it.