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”
high rated
1. This letter or something similar should've been the first time we heard about this. Starting a discussion about this before finalizing these plans would've been a lot better of course, but such a straight, clear announcement of the facts should really have been the least to expect. Doing the bullshit backdor PR spin thingy with the "Good news!" was -sorry for my language- just a really dumb move and made this already unpleasant situation that much worse.

2. Making all this about some awesome secret upcoming AAA titles wasn't generally making things better, but there was a chance it probably might help to turn at least some people's disappointment into excitement about getting those games free of DRM. But as many other pointed out - these 3 specific games weren't exactly what was needed to achieve that. We'll see what other games might follow.

3. I'm not exactly rich, but I'm far from being in a bad financial situation, so the higher costs aren't my main issue with that. This really is about principles, which were pretty much what made GOG unique and appealing in the first place. Yes, games being DRM-free was and is the most important principle here, but it must be noted that other principles are important as well. Seeing the one that, of those left, might be considered the second most important by many users disappear like this is unsettling.

4. The regional prices, while explained in more detail in the letter, still do come with quite some questions and corresponding fears and doubts. Many community members. for example, have already voiced their concerns regarding gifting across regional borders, and I hope we'll get answers sooner than later.

5. I will not abandon GOG in a hurry because of this. There is still much good about this site, and, well, it's simply my one and only digital games library. These changes do cost GOG heavily, however, in the currency of user trust and goodwill. It's sadly been made near impossible now for me to fully trust further assurances about any of the leftover basic principles these site was built upon, and that is just sad.

I spent more money on Kickstarter and GOG over the last two years than on the so-called AAA titles from big publishers, because both platforms and what they offered were very much in line with my naive fantasies about how at least part of the gaming world not only could be, but needed to be. I do not regret any of it one bit, but I can't act like I'm not severely disappointed to witness GOG making a step forward as a business, but at least one step back as advocates of the idea of a truly globalized gaming community (warts and all).
avatar
Shendue: Well, i beg your pardon then. I misunderstood. I'm all for constructive discussions. And having fun, of course. :)
the danger of text discussions...always open for misunderstandings. GOG is generally pretty pleasant, so I hang around.. (here and Groupees...). Have a great evening!
avatar
RawSteelUT: CD keys for offline play? Uh, not that I've seen. The only serials I've seen, for Two Worlds II, Rise of the Triad 2013 and... I THINK UT2004, are only for online play. Not wanting pirates on your servers is hardly the same as DRM preventing offline play.
NWN also requires keys, even for local multiplayer (which IS client side DRM). Is server side DRM the same as client side DRM? No. But I certainly wouldn't go so far as 'hardly the same', as in reality is has almost all of the problems that client side DRM does (lock out, publisher control, etc).
up front: regional pricing in an international market is ... wierd.
However, if this is what publishers want, so be it. If prices are too high for my taste, I'll take my business elsewhere or not buy at all. And, let's face it, gog.com has often been a pretty expensive place in the past (just look at Assassin's Creed). However, I usually accept paying extra for getting a game DRM-free.

The most important things for me (and the reason why I often choose gog.com) are:
* game must be DRM-free. period.
* game MUST be playable in its ORIGINAL form, without any kind of ridiculous translations or censorship like we often get in Germany. So please do not even think of adding regionalized games next. If you do that, I'm outta here, DRM-free or not.

Cheers
Mike
I've expected something like this "post-friday-announcement"-statement from gog.

The part concerning the classic games got my main attention. First I thought, once I'd check todays € - $ exchange rate, "Hey its exactly 4,49€! Yay! So this whole rp-thing won't be that expensive as I've feared at first!"
But then I've checked the todays exchange rates of the other mentioned currencies...
Please can someone tell me, why I as one who have to pay with €, feel screwed again? ...

I'm not rich you know and I am not in the least a profiteur of this so called "Wirtschaftsaufschwung/Economic Upturn" in germany. But with every buy in the future (IF I'll buy again) I'm treated more unfair as britains, russians and australians. Thanks for that.

PS: A strong arguement for higher prices would be to get ALL languages for ALL the games for example. Almost all of my games (ca 70) I can't yet play in german.
@ the publisher-partners of GOG: You are quite happy with gog-sales? You did realize that you could make money with the old pixels?? And now you wanna make more $$$??? Well alright! But then move your cashy asses and give us finally ALL THE LANGUAGE FILES!!!
Post edited February 25, 2014 by gamefood
avatar
Russonc: the danger of text discussions...always open for misunderstandings. GOG is generally pretty pleasant, so I hang around.. (here and Groupees...). Have a great evening!
Indeed. It happens a lot when you have no way to express the tone of your sentences. Great evening to you as well. *bows*
avatar
RawSteelUT: CD keys for offline play? Uh, not that I've seen. The only serials I've seen, for Two Worlds II, Rise of the Triad 2013 and... I THINK UT2004, are only for online play. Not wanting pirates on your servers is hardly the same as DRM preventing offline play.
avatar
_Bruce_: NWN also requires keys, even for local multiplayer (which IS client side DRM). Is server side DRM the same as client side DRM? No. But I certainly wouldn't go so far as 'hardly the same', as in reality is has almost all of the problems that client side DRM does (lock out, publisher control, etc).
eh ... I'm okay with CD checks or copy-protection in the multiplayer game - servers are service, not a product and a company should make sure that multiplayer servers that the company owns don't get used by copies that weren't paid for otherwise they'll find themselves quickly swamped and simply have to shut them down (this has happened when multiplayer games weren't properly protected). Ideally though they would also allow people to setup their own serves and play on them and not have to rely on company servers if they don't want to.

However, this seems like a potentially derailing topic :)
Post edited February 25, 2014 by crazy_dave
I've thought about this some more, and now have some specific questions, that you may or may not choose to answer.

- What happens if you cannot convince existing publishers to maintain the low prices you have outlined for 'classic' titles? Will you simply raise the prices if a publisher demands it?

- What happens if you fail in your attempt to attract current AAA games from larger publishers onto the site?

- Where would that leave the regional pricing policy? Would it still remain?

- You say that jobs are reliant on this happening, so if it falls through, what then happens to GOG.com?

Assuming you DO attract current AAA games from big publishers:

- If all new games will be offered under a regional pricing policy, surely adding value (by offering some free games) would be unsustainable as it will impact profit margins? So how limited is this offer (timespan and/or number of titles)?

- Will gifting across regions still be allowed for new regionally priced titles?

- Will certain games be region-locked, if requested by the publisher? If so, how will that be implemented?

- What currency will take precedence for a gifted game - the gift-giver's region, or the recipient?

- What measures will be implemented to accommodate regular patching of games?

- How will you prevent people from simply faking accounts in other (cheaper) regions?

Thanks in advance for any answers you can offer. I'm sure other members of the community would like to know some of these answers (and no doubt have their own set of questions).
avatar
RawSteelUT: I figured actual game ownership as opposed to "access" was a global value.

Guess I was wrong.
avatar
_Bruce_: To me DRM Fere and region free are both important. You claimed to report on behalf of GOG users. Reading this thread (probably baised) there are many users for whom region free is just as important or more important that DRM free. As a general rule these users are not American (unsurprising).
Well we've hardly heard anything of gamers being denied games based on where they're from. Region locking in gaming seems to have gone away (save for Nintendo's continued recalcitrance, but it's not surprising from them.)

And I wouldn't go assuming that all Americans are ignorant or unsympathetic to the issue. More than one of us have imported games from Japan and/or Europe if doesn't come here, or it's only on DRMed console stores in America, which is what made me buy a few imports from Japan and Europe. We know damned well gaming's more expensive outside the states. It's fucking bullshit, but the only way to stop it isn't to crucify the messenger, but to not buy games that are exorbitantly priced, whether until they're on massive discount or not at all.

My point is that GOG isn't the villain here. And while I'm at it, neither are Americans. It's not like we all got together as a group, twirled our collective mustaches and said "Let's screw the Europeans!" I don't even have a mustache! But the way some on this forum are behaving, with increasingly angry comments blaming America as a whole, you'd be forgiven for saying that's what happened. The fact is that this isn't some evil attempt to extort money, but the result of the fact that physical distribution is, and will be for years to come, a very important part of games distribution, whether digital-only gamers like it or not. As such, you don't wanna piss off retailers and, in turn, publishers. That's why publishers aren't being as BS with the classic titles - they'll likely never be on a shelf again, so who cares?

Honestly, I'm becoming less and less comfortable coming here with the barely-contained hatred for Americans people are showing. You wanna blame America, I guess that's your right, but many of us feel for you and the predicament you're in.
avatar
crazy_dave: eh ... I'm okay with CD checks or copy-protection in the multiplayer game - servers are service, not a product and if a company should make sure that multiplayer servers that the company owns don't get used by copies that weren't paid for otherwise they would simply have to shut them down (this has happened when multiplayer games weren't properly protected). Ideally though they would also allow people to setup their own serves and play on them and not have to rely on company servers if they don't want to.
This is the citical point. Lock you out of official publisher run servers is fine. Lock you out of all public servers (most of these cases are this) NOT FINE.
high rated
So in addition to establishing that regional prices are going to be a "thing" for new games, this letter delivers another bomb in the form of regionally priced ALL games. As if by destiny, Europeans end up paying more even for the classic games now. You have no idea how many customers you're pissing off right now, and rest assured that what you see on this forum is a drop in the ocean compared to the true extent of the dissatisfaction evoked by this shift in policy.

GOG was never in dire straits financially. In 2012, GOG had a healthy net profit margin of 20% out of over €10 million in revenue. In 2013, that revenue doubled with the profit margin staying at least as lucrative. GOG didn't sell out its flat pricing out of any kind of necessity. Don't anyone even think that. As a friendly reminder, GOG is registered in Cyprus, a tax haven and country-sized money laundromat popular among Russian oligarchs. GOG is not in a position to plea sympathy on financial grounds of any kind. In light of that, the fact that European VATs were mentioned in the letter is frankly disgusting. Isn't that nice, reminding that we should pay our taxes when you clearly don't want to pay any yourself?

GOG wants to play its customers for fools. The initial announcement was sexed up with "good news" and focusing on three exciting new games that wouldn't be possible without regional pricing. The follow-up letter continues this condescending treatment by dressing up regionally priced classic games as an exciting and positive thing: "by the end of this year, I'm making the promise that we will have converted our classic catalog over to fair regional pricing". What a great promise, I just can't wait! Three hoorays for "fair local pricing" and paying more as a European! And here I thought that the original announcement was good enough news! It seems we can always trust GOG to go above and beyond the call of money... DUTY! I meant duty! To its customers!

I suppose all of this is going to at least pay off in games that we'd otherwise never get? No. LucasArts, Bethesda, 2K and others already have had their old games on Steam for years. To clarify: Steam has old games by LucasArts, Bethesda and 2K, including Doom, Fate of Atlantis and the old UFOs. I cannot stress that fact enough! Unless the Steam client is programmed to specifically kill your PC on sight, chances are you'll be able to play those games instantly with no incidents whatsoever. Go and play them right now if playing them is your main reason for wanting them! But if your main reason to buy a game is to bask in its non-DRM glory on your virtual shelf, I suppose you're stuck between GOG and piracy, but don't fool yourself or others that you love the games themselves.
Its nice that GOG still has open discussions with its community, although it was a bit late (after deciding the switch to regional pricing rather than before the big change).

Its nice also that time was taken to address the community concerns and its good to see you are trying to make prices better for everyone regarding classic games.

BUT I was expecting the switch to regional pricing was to add AAA titles from some of current or new publishers. And frankly, 2 of the titles are not AAA and although it is great we have them at release, they are not worth the switch to regional pricing. Last but not least Witcher 3 is CDPR game, yes its AAA but I thought you guys learned from your previous legal problems and wrote better deals this time, unless of course you prefer the conversion rate of $1=1 EUR.

TL;DR these 3 titles didn't need a drop of one of your values as they could have been handled like what you did with Witcher 2 if needed or just waited a bit after release like other titles. Maybe if the drop of values was to get AAA EA games or Activision DRM-free on release, ppl would get excited but frankly dropping values of these 3 titles, just make it worse.


I used to support GOG (buying games I already own on GOG again, telling everyone to try it), but after that fiasco (dropping one of your core values that easily and for no reason), if there is a good deal and good game I am interested in, I will buy it cause for me, you are not walking the talk anymore and I am seeing a drop of DRM-free in the near future.
avatar
mthomason: When I buy from GoG, I ought to be seen as importing a digital copy from Poland, priced for Polish sale.
avatar
_Bruce_: This. Importantly for all legal/tax implications this is exactly what you are doing.
Not anymore, many countries and states require internet retailers to pay point of sale tax now. In other words, it is considered a local sale. And technically GOG is incorporated in Cyprus, but that's a niggling detail. :)
avatar
crazy_dave: eh ... I'm okay with CD checks or copy-protection in the multiplayer game - servers are service, not a product and if a company should make sure that multiplayer servers that the company owns don't get used by copies that weren't paid for otherwise they would simply have to shut them down (this has happened when multiplayer games weren't properly protected). Ideally though they would also allow people to setup their own serves and play on them and not have to rely on company servers if they don't want to.
avatar
_Bruce_: This is the citical point. Lock you out of official publisher run servers is fine. Lock you out of all public servers (most of these cases are this) NOT FINE.
Sure I agree with that
Post edited February 25, 2014 by crazy_dave
avatar
_Bruce_: NWN also requires keys, even for local multiplayer (which IS client side DRM). Is server side DRM the same as client side DRM? No. But I certainly wouldn't go so far as 'hardly the same', as in reality is has almost all of the problems that client side DRM does (lock out, publisher control, etc).
avatar
crazy_dave: eh ... I'm okay with CD checks or copy-protection in the multiplayer game - servers are service, not a product and a company should make sure that multiplayer servers that the company owns don't get used by copies that weren't paid for otherwise they'll find themselves quickly swamped and simply have to shut them down (this has happened when multiplayer games weren't properly protected). Ideally though they would also allow people to setup their own serves and play on them and not have to rely on company servers if they don't want to.

However, this seems like a potentially derailing topic :)
See, that's what I'm thinking. Services like multi-player are way different than products like the game itself. It's no more unreasonable to make sure the people on the servers are paying customers than to make sure no one's drinking coke from the spigot at the local Burger King without paying.

I'd try out the games I have to see if local multi-player requires keys, but sadly I have no PC gaming friends. :(
Post edited February 25, 2014 by RawSteelUT
he only thing I'm really mad about here is that both the RPGs were already known to be coming here... I had hoped this would have meant anything other than W3 and Divinity.

Also, to all of you abandoning ship, don't let the door hit you on the way out.