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
JMich: ... if the price is right for you, and you want the game, buy it. If the price is not, don't buy it. ...
I don't think this is how humans work. It still plays a role what your neighbours have to pay. Most people cannot just forget about this and even if you think the price is kind of okay most people will still feel cheated when they see that others pay even less and might not want to buy at their own price then. It's natural and it even has a function.

Because the core issue is how to determine what price is right. If you take the whole market into account you come to different conclusions than what you presented.

I just want to say that your advice maybe is too simple. It doesn't only concern one person alone. We are all together forming the market and if we base our decisions also on conditions/states of others we might be able to get better deals alltogether in the end. Anyway I cannot switch off jealousy and 40% more is just too much. It means (like in the GOG video of former times where they had the argument against regional prices right) that somebody is ripped off. I don't want to get ripped off.

I consider this always unfair and I don't want to support this and my estimation of a good price will also take into account what others have to pay.

I don't believe your solution, just looking at yourself and ignoring everything else. It is not a realistic solution. It is not what really happens or what should happen or what would be good. But I admit happily that jealousy can have its bad sides too. A compromise might be in order.

For real goods with imports and exports we have a good compromise balancing but not completely levelling regional differences. I wish such a thing would exist too for digital sales. Unfortunately it doesn't yet. Otherwise I feel too much at the mercy of the publisher and the regional pricing as an artificial limitation on competition and quite significant bad discrimination too.

I wish that the regions were bigger and that the prices would fluctuate much less between the regions. Then I would go back to only decide for myself how good a price is.
avatar
Zoidberg: It would be a fair point... if we weren't talking about dematerialized goods. It costs EVERYONE the same price but some are asked more than others.
Dematerialized? Non-physical? So, digital goods, like games?
And yes, all games so far cost the same, yet people were asked to pay more or less (1 beer, 2 beers, 10 beers). But because the price wasn't in workhours, but dollars, people said the prices were the same. Make the games cost 2 beers for everyone, and people start complaining (oversimplification).

avatar
Zoidberg: No, I've been reading arguments from the other side all along this thread and I'm not convinced, quite the opposite.
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to show you what I consider flaws in your argument, and let you decide if they truly are flaws.

avatar
Zoidberg: All I see in the forecoming future is that I will buy way less game and that gog became way less special... I'm not buying games I already bought elsewhere and/or finished (even pirated). More money for to upgrade my PC to play games I guess...
Ah, so it's a case of "Already have this game", "Got it on disk", "Played it back in the day" that we see in most release threads. So again, business as usual.
avatar
Trilarion: I don't think this is how humans work. It still plays a role what your neighbours have to pay.
Doesn't that mean that you base your buying habits on what the rest are doing and not on what is best for you?


avatar
Trilarion: Because the core issue is how to determine what price is right. If you take the whole market into account you come to different conclusions than what you presented.
Yeap. See the Pay What You Want model. Everyone is paying the minimum to get the games. Oh, wait.

avatar
Trilarion: I wish that the regions were bigger and that the prices would fluctuate much less between the regions. Then I would go back to only decide for myself how good a price is.
So again, you don't consider if the price is good for you, you consider if the price is good for me. Even if I wouldn't mind paying 10 times more and still consider it a bargain.
Post edited March 11, 2014 by JMich
avatar
Zoidberg: No, I've been reading arguments from the other side all along this thread and I'm not convinced, quite the opposite.
avatar
JMich: I'm not trying to convince you. I'm trying to show you what I consider flaws in your argument, and let you decide if they truly are flaws.
It has been demonstrated in this thread, time and time again, that regional pricing is NOT aligned on the cost of life in each country. So please please think before posting flawed arguments yourself.
Can't believe GOG hasn't seen fit to address this despite this thread going on for over 5000 posts.

For me the most shocking thing is still the "localised" prices for classic games. The letter even gives the impression that those prices are just what they're hoping publishers will agree to (in other words they might insist on regional prices with more disparity).

GOG needs to put its foot down and say "No, the price points for the classic games are $5.99 and $9.99".
avatar
Zoidberg: It has been demonstrated in this thread, time and time again, that regional pricing is NOT aligned on the cost of life in each country. So please please think before posting flawed arguments yourself.
And it has been demonstrated before that paying the same amount of dollars does not constitute paying the same. Consider what you earn in 1 hour now, what you earned in 1 hour as a student, what your parents earn in 1 hour. Yet if the monetary amount is the same, you didn't care if it cost others more (or less) to buy it. You only care that you now have to pay more money than others.

I never said current regional pricing reflect cost of living, I said that saying there wasn't regional pricing before is flawed.
avatar
SirPrimalform: GOG needs to put its foot down and say "No, the price points for the classic games are $5.99 and $9.99".
If the $5.99 was €4.49, I would have paid a couple of hundreds less. So it is a good thing for me.
If the price was €5.99 instead of €4.49 though, it would have cost me quite a lot more.
Post edited March 11, 2014 by JMich
avatar
SirPrimalform: Can't believe GOG hasn't seen fit to address this despite this thread going on for over 5000 posts.

For me the most shocking thing is still the "localised" prices for classic games. The letter even gives the impression that those prices are just what they're hoping publishers will agree to (in other words they might insist on regional prices with more disparity).

GOG needs to put its foot down and say "No, the price points for the classic games are $5.99 and $9.99".
Im surprised this thread is still going. I thought everyone was already talked out and exhausted every possible circular discussions on this subject...
Yeah thing is wait til contracts for classics come around. what will publishers ask if regional stuff goes through?
I think it's a good thing that this thread goes on. Honestly, I think from the customers all that could possibly be said has alread been said, however GOG has fallen silent on the topic, so it's a good thing that they are reminded that this still bothers people.
avatar
SirPrimalform: GOG needs to put its foot down and say "No, the price points for the classic games are $5.99 and $9.99".
avatar
JMich: If the $5.99 was €4.49, I would have paid a couple of hundreds less. So it is a good thing for me.
If the price was €5.99 instead of €4.49 though, it would have cost me quite a lot more.
I feel you're missing my point. It seems like GOG will be allowing regional pricing for classics and just pushing for their localised prices. Not that I'm a fan of the localised prices... At least I'm not a fan if they're enforced by region, despite the fact that the proposed UK price is lower than the US price. If it's enforced by region it's still regional pricing. Regional pricing for new new games was something I was willing to compromise on, but across the whole catalogue? Nope.

Or rather, at the original announcement I decided that I would accept the regionally priced new games but I wouldn't be buying any GOGs that are regionally priced.... So if GOG goes ahead with the plan outlined in this letter then my GOG buying days are over.
avatar
kroetenschemel: I think it's a good thing that this thread goes on. Honestly, I think from the customers all that could possibly be said has alread been said, however GOG has fallen silent on the topic, so it's a good thing that they are reminded that this still bothers people.
I agree, there's not really anything left to say, but it's a symbol that there's still opposition.
Post edited March 11, 2014 by SirPrimalform
avatar
SirPrimalform: I feel you're missing my point. It seems like GOG will be allowing regional pricing for classics and just pushing for their localised prices. Not that I'm a fan of the localised prices... At least I'm not a fan if they're enforced by region, despite the fact that the proposed UK price is lower than the US price. If it's enforced by region it's still regional pricing. Regional pricing for new new games was something I was willing to compromise on, but across the whole catalogue? Nope.
As I said before, I do use 2 descriptions. Regional Pricing to mean the $1=€1 (see The Witcher 2, Age of Wonders 3 etc) and Fair Pricing to describe the $5.99=€4.49. If your objection is that the $5.99 will become €5.99, then it is the same as the complaints that "No more old games will be released" circa 2011 and/or the "No more complete editions will be released" circa Feb 2013. Last I checked, both those fears remained untrue, so I am willing to wait and see which games will be priced regionally and which will be priced "Fairly".

It is your prerogative to leave or stay, but being charged in local currency is not regional pricing. See this page for example.
avatar
JMich: ...Doesn't that mean that you base your buying habits on what the rest are doing and not on what is best for you? ...
Yes and no. Indeed, if the best for me is paying 40% more then I think the best is not good enough. However if I can make me and the rest paying all together less then it is surely good for me too (in the long run).

So yes, if I get a worse deal and if I feel ripped off I feel offended and turn away. Sounds to me like a very natural reaction. What did you expect? People being happy that they have to pay more/that they get ripped off?

avatar
JMich: ...Even if I wouldn't mind paying 10 times more and still consider it a bargain. ...
I'm sure you do mind paying 10 times more. You probably also would like to pay less.

My solution (mentioned it earlier already): Rich people buy games on release for a high price. Poor people buy it later. That way everyone can have every game and there is no discrimination while the companies will make some profit.

avatar
JMich: ...If your objection is that the $5.99 will become €5.99, then it is the same as the complaints that "No more old games will be released" circa 2011 and/or the "No more complete editions will be released" circa Feb 2013. Last I checked, both those fears remained untrue, so I am willing to wait and see which games will be priced regionally and which will be priced "Fairly". ...
I'm also willing to wait but I just want to say that because the last fears didn't materialize doesn't mean this won't. Here the reasoning would be that once GOG allows regional pricing the negotiation power for keeping the prices of classics equal will be weakened too.
Post edited March 11, 2014 by Trilarion
avatar
Trilarion: Yes and no. Indeed, if the best for me is paying 40% more then I think the best is not good enough. However if I can make me and the rest paying all together less then it is surely good for me too (in the long run).

My solution (mentioned it earlier already): Rich people buy games on release for a high price. Poor people buy it later. That way everyone can have every game and there is no discrimination while the companies will make some profit.
Combine the above two. If 40% more is too much, buy it later. If 40% more is not too much for me, I'll buy it then.
Or, you could have rich people buy it for rich money on day 1, and poor people buy it for poor money on day 1. But no, let's not do this, let's wait for the price to drop instead.

avatar
Trilarion: So yes, if I get a worse deal and if I feel ripped off I feel offended and turn away. Sounds to me like a very natural reaction. What did you expect? People being happy that they have to pay more/that they get ripped off?
Let's take for example the XCOM:EU and XCOM:EW. The €49.99 and €29.99 price points were for me worth it, so I got them on day 1. For others, the $49.99 and $29.99 price points were too expensive, so they didn't get them. Was me spending €79.98 a worse deal than the ones who spent $19.98 for the game? For me it wasn't. I got to play the game on release, and I have spent quite a few hours playing it. So I do consider myself getting the better deal. The deal could have been even better of course, but that would make it an excellent deal, not a good deal. I already had a good deal.
avatar
Zoidberg: It has been demonstrated in this thread, time and time again, that regional pricing is NOT aligned on the cost of life in each country. So please please think before posting flawed arguments yourself.
avatar
JMich: And it has been demonstrated before that paying the same amount of dollars does not constitute paying the same. Consider what you earn in 1 hour now, what you earned in 1 hour as a student, what your parents earn in 1 hour. Yet if the monetary amount is the same, you didn't care if it cost others more (or less) to buy it. You only care that you now have to pay more money than others.

I never said current regional pricing reflect cost of living, I said that saying there wasn't regional pricing before is flawed.
avatar
SirPrimalform: GOG needs to put its foot down and say "No, the price points for the classic games are $5.99 and $9.99".
avatar
JMich: If the $5.99 was €4.49, I would have paid a couple of hundreds less. So it is a good thing for me.
If the price was €5.99 instead of €4.49 though, it would have cost me quite a lot more.
So you say that we should sold expensive sports cars to teenagres the fraction of a price their parents pay?

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense, nonsense, ...

Pricing is unfair and with no sensible reason to be.
avatar
JMich: ... Combine the above two. If 40% more is too much, buy it later. If 40% more is not too much for me, I'll buy it then.
Or, you could have rich people buy it for rich money on day 1, and poor people buy it for poor money on day 1. But no, let's not do this, let's wait for the price to drop instead. ...
I don't want it combined. It would mean that I always have to wait longer than others or maybe forever. This is also not nice. Same problem still in essence.

Call it jealousy or sense of justice, both interferes and makes me wanting to not take part in regional pricing at all. For me this is important. It makes me happy to not take part in this because I don't like it, even if I have to wait for a really long time.

But for practical considerations I will make it approximately like you said: wait a bit longer, pay a bit more and be a bit unhappy about it all.

Of course I cannot change GOG's pricing model (or the whole industry for that matter) by myself. So I mostly hope that laws will catch up and forbid practices like $1=1€ on the grounds of discrimination.
Post edited March 11, 2014 by Trilarion
avatar
Trilarion: Yes and no. Indeed, if the best for me is paying 40% more then I think the best is not good enough. However if I can make me and the rest paying all together less then it is surely good for me too (in the long run).

My solution (mentioned it earlier already): Rich people buy games on release for a high price. Poor people buy it later. That way everyone can have every game and there is no discrimination while the companies will make some profit.
avatar
JMich: Combine the above two. If 40% more is too much, buy it later.
But later it will STILL be 40% more expensive, so what? Buy even later?
avatar
Zoidberg: But later it will STILL be 40% more expensive, so what? Buy even later?
Yes. Buy when the price for it seems fair to you. If it does, buy it. If it doesn't, don't buy it. Same thing as it has been happening for way too long.
avatar
Trilarion: But for practical considerations I will make it approximately like you said: wait a bit longer, pay a bit more and be a bit unhappy about it all.
And again, your prerogative to do so. Just don't assume that everyone is willing to wait, or that they would prefer to not play their games. The price you find fair may not be the price I find fair.
avatar
Zoidberg: So you say that we should sold expensive sports cars to teenagres the fraction of a price their parents pay?
I'm saying that the price was always based on many things, even if the monetary price tag was the same. Using workhours instead of dollars would show that, but some people choose to ignore it.
Post edited March 11, 2014 by JMich