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

×
Community
General discussion (archive)<b>Letter from the M.D.</b>: About Regional Pricing(5517 posts) (5517 posts) 
(5517 posts) 
Pages:
1
75
150
225
300
352
353
354
355
356
368
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 25, 2014
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”
Posted March 09, 2014
My apologies for the late reply, but I had already spent a lot of time in this thread, there was a lot to reply to and work was murder (no, not literally :P).

avatar
goglier: Except that I do not care whether the company is registered in Poland or Cyprus, since it makes no difference to me whatsoever.
It's more of a political opinion thing. I'm more of a center-left kind of person idealogically and I hate when businesses do stuff to skim on taxes.

I find they have too much leverage (mostly in terms of mobility) in our current society.

My personal opinion is "You live in country Y, then your business is in country Y. You want to leave country Y? Fine, but don't count of taking 100% of your assets with you."

Either way, I'm not Polish so I can live with it, but if it was a Canadian company pulling that crap, you can be sure I wouldn't be buying from them in a million years.

avatar
goglier: While the Introduction of regional pricing changes nothing in that regard, it has two effects I can see:
a) the amount of games that can be offered (DRM-free!) on GOG grows, and I assume some fantastic titles are going to show up here because of this
b) for some games, I may have to wait a little longer before purchasing for the price to fall into the "willing and able to pay" category
And I can be very, very patient.
That and for me, regional prices have the potential to more closely reflect world-wide economic realities.

It is abusable? Sure, but without it, you won't be able to bring most of emerging economies like China into the legitimate software market for the foreable future.

avatar
PixelBoy: That's not fair either.
There are billionaires in Russia, and people begging on streets in the USA.

Averages can get price right statistically speaking, but until you adjust prices per individual customer based on one's wealth and income, prices are never going to be fair. Even if you did that, you would have to rely on 6-12 months old statistical information, and if somebody lost his job or won a lottery, the price range would not be adjusted real-time.

One price for all is not perfect, but it is fair in the sense that the STORE doesn't differentiate customers by any criteria. Wanna buy stuff? That's the price. Period. No exceptions.
The income variations within a given region is at least somewhat fairer than the income variation across regions (someone can work more hours, be a more dedicated worker, have spent more time in school, etc).

To a large extent though, I agree that the extreme variation in disposable income found in Western society is unfair, but you can't expect pricing policies to fix all of society's woes.

It would address partly the problem of regional income variation, especially for a product that costs pennies to distribute.

avatar
goglier: No, it was fair. Everyone was treated equally.
Of course we can always find places that get unfair prices, no matter which system we are talking about. Even if we would sell the entire catalogue for $ 0.01 to poorest Africans, that would be too much, because they don't even have electricity.
Actually, if you look at countries like China or Russia, they have access to computers priced locally, but software products are often prohibititively expensive.

Again, you can't judge fair on a flat price.

If they charged what you make in a week for a game here, you wouldn't call it fair and yet with flat price, this is exactly what happens in certain countries.

Essentially, you are telling everyone, but the top 5% in that country that gaming is too expensive a hobby for them.

avatar
goglier: As has been said many times already, even when a promo happens, Europeans are going to pay 30% more. The only exception to this will be a 100% discount, which is a very rare thing.
I got a game at 1.79$ on promo on Friday. If the game had been 2.5$, I would still have gotten it and I wouldn't have lost sleep over the fact that they are paying cheap south of the border, because this is already happening.

The main point for me is that it's affordable. Ideally, it would be adjusted by income so that we all pay the same relatively, but once it's affordable for everyone, we shouldn't lose sleep over it.

avatar
goglier: Well, no one does anymore. That much is certain.
However it does make everything seem rather cynical, doesn't it?
And the worst thing is this: piracy wins. They have the kind of price range that no store can beat. Also, everything they offer has been made DRM-free. And, they have never made promises they couldn't keep.

The only thing that can keep people paying for games is the principle of doing the right thing vs. doing the wrong thing. And if principles in the game business are worth nothing... well... why should people stick to them? Piracy is not even illegal in some countries.
It's not cynical, it's a realistic assessment of the reality we live in.

I wouldn't call corporations evil in the sense that I don't expect them to go out of their way to harm people, but I do expect the vast majority of them to screw people over in order to make a buck, as long as they feel they can get away with it.

It's not corporations as much as the mandate they operate under in the "maximize profit" kind of society we live in.

However, piracy simply doesn't work as a model. If most of gamers go that way, the gaming industry will revert back to what it was decades ago: something some hobbyists create in their spare time.

If we want a steady flow of games, we need to flow money toward those that make games and those who distribute them in a way we find palatable. Those people need to earn a living like anyone else.

avatar
goglier: Well, simply buy only DRM-free games from Steam. Download once, keep forever. It takes a little research, but there are plenty of sources to list DRM-free Steam games, including GOG forums.
The difference to regionally priced GOG is only more convenient and faster download and much bigger catalogue.

I have never spent a single cent on Steam because they are unethical.
But now that GOG has become unethical too (although not as bad as Steam... yet), I might actually consider buying from Steam. The thing with Steam is, they have never made a promise, that they later chose not to keep.
I don't have a negative feeling toward regional pricing the way some other gamers do. I think fair regionally adjusted prices is the way to go for intellectual property and anything else that has negligible distribution costs.

Also, I do have an agenda: I want intellectual property (books, music, movies, games and others) to be DRM-free.

GOG pushes strongly for that agenda. Steam, not as much.

While I'm disillusioned about GOG's principles (though I do think many of it's employees believe in DRM-free gaming to various degrees), they are currently pushing for that agenda so they have my financial support as long as they do.

avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: You could also call "DRM-free" a marketing gimmick.

And the "certain select western countries" seem to be all over the place: http://www.gog.com/forum/age_of_wonders_series/post_your_regional_price_for_aow3/page1
It's not, there is a clear demonstrable benefit for customers.

As for current regional prices, I agree that they are probably not fair for now, but I strongly suspect that over time, they will adjust well to what people in countries with a strong degree of computer literacy are willing to pay.
Post edited March 09, 2014 by Magnitus
Posted March 09, 2014
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: You could also call "DRM-free" a marketing gimmick.

And the "certain select western countries" seem to be all over the place: http://www.gog.com/forum/age_of_wonders_series/post_your_regional_price_for_aow3/page1
avatar
Magnitus: It's not, there is a clear demonstrable benefit for customers.

As for current regional prices, I agree that they are probably not fair for now, but I strongly suspect that over time, they will adjust well to what people in countries with a strong degree of computer literacy are willing to pay.
"One world, fair price" is a clear demonstrable benefit for customers, just like "DRM-free" is a clear demonstrable benefit for customers.

If one benefit is more important to you personally, that is a different matter.

GOG.com proved, that you can be a successful store without regional pricing, but they have now removed that core value from their list of core values, and are now participating in the industry standard of "ripping off" their customers.

Since a lot of people in this thread have said that they have no problem with this rip-off, what reason would there be for publishers to offer a fairer price?
Posted March 09, 2014
avatar
Magnitus: Actually, if you look at countries like China or Russia, they have access to computers priced locally, but software products are often prohibititively expensive.

Again, you can't judge fair on a flat price.

If they charged what you make in a week for a game here, you wouldn't call it fair and yet with flat price, this is exactly what happens in certain countries.

Essentially, you are telling everyone, but the top 5% in that country that gaming is too expensive a hobby for them.
I certainly found that to be the case when I was in China. There were cheap electronics that were a fraction of the price you'd find in the US, but the quality was such that those products were overpriced even at a steep discount. For things that you'd actually want to own, they'd be the same price or more than you'd find in the US.

I think the problem here isn't so much the regional price differences as it is the way that they're calculated. You have folks in the EU that are in much poorer areas that aren't even using the Euro being charged in Euros with a massive increase over what we're paying in the US.

And then you have Russia where they're trying to fight with pirates by providing deep discounts. Just crossing the border you don't necessarily have massive changes in income, but you do have massive changes in the price that GOG's charging.

And yes, in many countries you do have to adjust for what the top earners are making because in countries like the US those top income earners are hugely distorting things like the mean income.
Posted March 09, 2014
avatar
Magnitus: snip

Again, you can't judge fair on a flat price.

If they charged what you make in a week for a game here, you wouldn't call it fair and yet with flat price, this is exactly what happens in certain countries.

Essentially, you are telling everyone, but the top 5% in that country that gaming is too expensive a hobby for them.

snip
And it's still the case for the same countries, if not more, with the regional pricing model as well.


avatar
Magnitus: snip

As for current regional prices, I agree that they are probably not fair for now, but I strongly suspect that over time, they will adjust well to what people in countries with a strong degree of computer literacy are willing to pay.
If I'm not mistaken, the regional pricing model has been unaltered since its inception and for a good number of years now.
So, could you please elaborate on the bold part of your post?
Post edited March 09, 2014 by HypersomniacLive
Posted March 09, 2014
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: "One world, fair price" is a clear demonstrable benefit for customers, just like "DRM-free" is a clear demonstrable benefit for customers.
"One world, one price" (let's call it what it is) has a clear demonstrable benefit in a world where everyone earns a similar income (relative to their profession and the work they put in).

Here's a classic case where it doesn't benefit customers: Some Indie company with a handful of employees operates in the US. They spend 3 years making a game.

If they sell the game for 1$ world-wide (against a possible world-wide audience of 100 000 gamers), they won't recup their costs.

If they sell the game for 12$ world-wide, they will make a comfortable profit margin, but suddenly, there are 4900 out of 5000 gamers in China that can't afford the game any longer. If they want the game, they'll have to resort to pirating it.

How do you reconcile the principle of bringing the game to as large an audience as possible against the need to remain profitable in a flat pricing model?

avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: GOG.com proved, that you can be a successful store without regional pricing, but they have now removed that core value from their list of core values, and are now participating in the industry standard of "ripping off" their customers.
They operated in the green, but were they providing a good service to as much of the audience as they possibly could? Probably not.

avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: Since a lot of people in this thread have said that they have no problem with this rip-off, what reason would there be for publishers to offer a fairer price?
If they don't make more money, because more people wait for discounts.

Ex: The game is 13$. Europeans wait until there is a discount big enough to bring the game under 10$, because they are used to paying 10$ at most for most games here.

Even if they end up making the same amount of money, they'll have to wait longer to make that income.
Post edited March 09, 2014 by Magnitus
Posted March 09, 2014
avatar
amok: ... it depends. part of the market is now 100% digital, most famously Paradox stating a few years ago that they stopped with physical as 95% of their sales came from digital. Indies are almost solely digital now.
But how much of the total market does that make? Obviously for the more popular games retail still plays a big role.
Posted March 09, 2014
avatar
amok: ... it depends. part of the market is now 100% digital, most famously Paradox stating a few years ago that they stopped with physical as 95% of their sales came from digital. Indies are almost solely digital now.
avatar
Trilarion: But how much of the total market does that make? Obviously for the more popular games retail still plays a big role.
not sure, noone really know right now as there are so many hidden numbers when we talk about digital. Charts and sale numbers tends to be gathered from physical retail, and there is really no unified way to gather any reliable data from digital sales (except begging every single publishers to publish exact figures, which many are reluctant to do).

However, I just read an article in Games (tm) where they had an infographics on physical vs digital sales on consoles - where it was 80%-20% in 2007, and it increased gradually to 46%-54% in 2013. DIgital sales have increased rapidly the last years.
Posted March 09, 2014
avatar
Magnitus: ...If they sell the game for 12$ world-wide, they will make a comfortable profit margin, but suddenly, there are 4900 out of 5000 gamers in China that can't afford the game any longer. If they want the game, they'll have to resort to pirating it.

How do you reconcile the principle of bringing the game to as large an audience as possible against the need to remain profitable in a flat pricing model? ...
Btw. average incomes in China have soared in the last years and $12 is probably quite okay for them, not for others though. Nevertheless it is an often made mistake of thinking of China as the poorest in the world. They are on average decent middle class already and gaining track further.

How I would reconcile these things you mentioned? By selling a game expensive upon release and cheap lateron. That way everyone can have it as long as everyone can wait.

This would be in my eyes the best reconciliation of not dicriminating people because of their origin and giving everyone a fair chance of playing computer games and still giving a decent profit.

But I agree that the advantages of worldwide equal pricing aren't as simple and straightforward than those of DRM free.

On the other hand even DRM free can be debatable. The multiplayer mode of AoW3 of whom not exactly a lot is known could as well be overly strict and require logins to servers of the publisher although from a strict gaming point of view you wouldn't really need them and could do well without. Now is this still DRM free or not? Difficult question in my eyes.
Post edited March 09, 2014 by Trilarion
Posted March 09, 2014
avatar
Magnitus: ...Actually, if you look at countries like China or Russia, they have access to computers priced locally, but software products are often prohibititively expensive.

Again, you can't judge fair on a flat price.

If they charged what you make in a week for a game here, you wouldn't call it fair and yet with flat price, this is exactly what happens in certain countries.

Essentially, you are telling everyone, but the top 5% in that country that gaming is too expensive a hobby for them.

....

As for current regional prices, I agree that they are probably not fair for now, but I strongly suspect that over time, they will adjust well to what people in countries with a strong degree of computer literacy are willing to pay.
Instead of China and Russia (part of the famous BRIC states) one could maybe have a look at the even poorer nations in africa or south east asia or central america. Often there the price in this regional pricing models is one of the highest. I wonder why?

On the other hand I wouldn't say that only the top 5% in these countries can afford to buy video games. Once you wait two or three years after release an AAA game is gone down from $50 to $10 very often. And then compared to the cost of the hardware to play these games, does it really matter? Almost everyone in China or Russia can buy them then, if he/she can also afford a computer.

The question is a bit what fair really means. Probably it means something different for everyone. It could mean no discrimination of origin. It could mean that everyone can buy exactly the same amount of things independently of the income, or something in the middle. But then anyway we would need personal pricing instead of regional pricing.

But I don't trust companies to get that right. Not only because they failed so far in the past (regional pricing wasn't very fair so far) and also not because it isn't in their interest. They just want to maximize the profit, so someone has to pay more to pay for this maximized profit. Who will it be?

What you say is that the bottom 30% in the high priced regions don't matter at all because they could afford worldwide equal prices but not the special high prices in their new regions. With regional prices poverty is relative now. You can now live in a righ country and still be too poor to buy video games.

The last two things (not trusting the companies to do it right and not neglecting the losers in the high priced regions) give me strong indications that there will never be fair regional prices. It will never happen. I would bet on it.
Post edited March 09, 2014 by Trilarion
Posted March 09, 2014
Ahhh, information overload! Too much to reply to, too little time :P.

avatar
hedwards: I certainly found that to be the case when I was in China. There were cheap electronics that were a fraction of the price you'd find in the US, but the quality was such that those products were overpriced even at a steep discount. For things that you'd actually want to own, they'd be the same price or more than you'd find in the US.
Well, they can still get their hands on the hardware to play some games. I mean, I could get a clunker at 200$ and still manage to play most games in here.

But without the software to run, the hardware they get is a space heater.

You can get functional software for a lot of uses for free with open-source, but not too many open source games...

avatar
hedwards: I think the problem here isn't so much the regional price differences as it is the way that they're calculated. You have folks in the EU that are in much poorer areas that aren't even using the Euro being charged in Euros with a massive increase over what we're paying in the US.
Scary. I was under the impression all members of the EU used the Euro.

It is a touchier subject for physical goods, because when you pay a significant amount for the production of each unit at a local price, you can't really give too much of a bargain abroad.

avatar
hedwards: And then you have Russia where they're trying to fight with pirates by providing deep discounts. Just crossing the border you don't necessarily have massive changes in income, but you do have massive changes in the price that GOG's charging.
But are they as computer literate across the border?

I'd wager the piracy problem in China and Russia stems from 2 factors:

1) They have ready access to computers (maybe they are cheaper clunkers, but still running computers and the increase in hardware speed has slowed down during the past decade).

2) The price of software is still (or was until recently) prohibitively expensive for what they are making.

So in essence, the will is strong to get software, but it's not that acessible under regular channels, hence they turn toward piracy.

avatar
hedwards: And yes, in many countries you do have to adjust for what the top earners are making because in countries like the US those top income earners are hugely distorting things like the mean income.
I think it's more complicated then that (the mean income that is).

It's not like 5% makes crazy high, 95% makes crazy low and all companies charge services at average price.

That wouldn't be profitable as 95% wouldn't buy it and the remaining 5% would get it at a crazy discount for what they make.

What happens, instead, is that 2 separate markets develop: one that caters to the 5% and on that caters to the remaining 95%.

As the concentration of wealth becomes disproportionately large for the top 5%, the market that caters to the top 5% becomes larger in relation to the market that caters to the rest and more of the skilled human labor is spent catering to the whims of the top 5% making utter decadent rubbish otherwise focusing on whatever the top 5% "thinks" is important.

This is more theoretical however (I don't think we fully there yet, though certainly on our way). As it is, I think that the bulk of resources spent catering to middle class and upper middle class is wasted as well.

Example: I worked at a grocery store for some time as a student and it's appalling to see the ratio of junk food to healthy food in there or just how much they throw away, especially in departments with a lot of perishables like the meat department. I'd say at least 15% of what went in that department went in the garbage.
Post edited March 09, 2014 by Magnitus
Posted March 09, 2014
avatar
Matruchus: Well the german said translated quot: I heir the message but I lack the trust in it.
avatar
kpz: or to use the original translation:
"Your messages I hear, but faith has not been given"
Thanks, appreciate it.

avatar
john_hatcher: Is there something big coming this week (which lasts only one more day) or did I miss the "big surprise"???
Were there any classic releases this past week?
Posted March 09, 2014
avatar
Gydion: Were there any classic releases this past week?
Harvester and Sword of the Samurai.
Posted March 09, 2014
Regional Pricing: For new games I understand this. for classics...why? Why can't you set flat prices in USD and everyone else pays a conversion amount...its a digital transaction so its not like you are stuck coutning odd amounts of change. As the world currencies fluctuate, then each country pays a little more or less. stick with your 9.99/5.99 etc. US until inflation or deflation forces you to change that. And so forth. I don't get why classics need regional pricing.

Classic Games: There is still heaps and heaps of these out there that you guys don't have. Heaps. If you want to make more money with the people you already have as loyal customers, then give them what they came here for and what they want...CLASSIC games.

new games I have nothing against, and if it makes you guys more money awesome. If and when I buy new games, if they are on GOG that is where I will buy them guaranteed. So its a good move...but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you give up on increasing classic game options now...that is bad news.

PLEASE PUT AS MUCH ENERGY INTO ACQUIRING NEW CLASSICS AS YOU DO NEW GAMES. You should have every RPG ever created, ever. Especially indies, which you have actually very few of. Just as an example. pinball, sports games etc. etc. You have several areas and genres you've hardly cracked as far as getting classics.

Sometimes classics may become unprofitable time vs. revenue. Especially since the only way to add some games to your catalogue may be to offer them for free. Why not? It's free advertising. If someone's buddy tells them they'll get 10 or 20 free awesome classic games just for signing up to GOG.com...they will sign up. Next thing you know they are buying new games from you that they would have bought at Kmart, just because they were already signed up. Next thing you know they are checking out classics for 2.99 and 5.99...a couple years later you've got a customer spending a money with you every other month or so and building up their library. FREE CLASSICS=FREE ADVERTISING!!!

jerkoffs like Steam would kill to have the free game offerings you guys could set up.

EMULATORS= There are a LOT of emulation sites out there. Many of them are complete crap. Many are illegal. Some are worse than DRM interms of what gets packaged with them. Why don't you guys work out some liscence deals etc. with Nintendo, Sega etc. etc. Why not get the best and raddest emulators in the world all within GOG.com????? Some might end up being free, especailly the basic emulators themself...but the game catalogues could be packaged and sold. I really think there is a big opportunity to massively expand your customer base by offering emulations of classic consoles. Lots of people may not be PC game fans, and really only understand console. After playing some consoles emulations on your site though, they might take a look at the rest of your catalogue (starting with free games) and again, suddenly you have a new customer for new and classic games.

Some of this new games and region pricing seems like you guys are selling out and going mainstream. I like that what you are actually trying to do is change the mainstream and get rid of DRM. I would like to see you guys also continue to break new ground and expand into emulators, more indies, more classics and more free offerings.
Posted March 09, 2014
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: "One world, fair price" is a clear demonstrable benefit for customers, just like "DRM-free" is a clear demonstrable benefit for customers.
avatar
Magnitus: "One world, one price" (let's call it what it is) has a clear demonstrable benefit in a world where everyone earns a similar income (relative to their profession and the work they put in).

Here's a classic case where it doesn't benefit customers: Some Indie company with a handful of employees operates in the US. They spend 3 years making a game.

If they sell the game for 1$ world-wide (against a possible world-wide audience of 100 000 gamers), they won't recup their costs.

If they sell the game for 12$ world-wide, they will make a comfortable profit margin, but suddenly, there are 4900 out of 5000 gamers in China that can't afford the game any longer. If they want the game, they'll have to resort to pirating it.

How do you reconcile the principle of bringing the game to as large an audience as possible against the need to remain profitable in a flat pricing model?
Simple.

Make a flat price that people with a lower income can afford, and don't put 37,5% on the price for people from countries with a lower average income than the USA for example.

If companies price their product to high(wether flat or regional), then people will not buy it, period.

If you set the regional price higher for countires with a lower income, then for contries with a higher income, you will lose even more customers.

avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: GOG.com proved, that you can be a successful store without regional pricing, but they have now removed that core value from their list of core values, and are now participating in the industry standard of "ripping off" their customers.
avatar
Magnitus: They operated in the green, but were they providing a good service to as much of the audience as they possibly could? Probably not.
And if they get rid of "DRM-free" they can provide even better service with more available games to an even larger audience.

avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: Since a lot of people in this thread have said that they have no problem with this rip-off, what reason would there be for publishers to offer a fairer price?
avatar
Magnitus: If they don't make more money, because more people wait for discounts.

Ex: The game is 13$. Europeans wait until there is a discount big enough to bring the game under 10$, because they are used to paying 10$ at most for most games here.

Even if they end up making the same amount of money, they'll have to wait longer to make that income.
And we will still be ripped of and pay 37,5% more then other people, even those that are in EU countries that have a very low income.
Post edited March 09, 2014 by Ichwillnichtmehr
Posted March 10, 2014
Since it looks like we can't get around differential priced new games please do it in a way the "old" GOG would have done it:

http://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/full_disclosure_more_transparency
Post edited March 10, 2014 by Fakum12
Pages:
1
75
150
225
300
352
353
354
355
356
368
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)<b>Letter from the M.D.</b>: About Regional Pricing(5517 posts) (5517 posts) 
(5517 posts)