Sounds fair enough, but why then didn't GOG target the 99% consumers when it comes to gaming? (say, consoles, new titles, DRM)

Not as much as it seems. What I'm arguing here, is that GOG made the choice to cater that 1% because that was a marketshare that was still left open. In other words: the argument 'they cover 99% so the remaining market is too small' is largely invalid.
Plus GOG had an advantage with the experience they gained in the difficult market that was Poland at the time, agreed. Of course, I do not ask GOG to go bankrupt solely because I would want to see freer markets. But I ask them to take this into consideration when they make decisions about their partners.

EDIT: added the 'in other words' to clarify

That could be a strong argument in favor of more payment options. Namely that other payment options could mean less costs and fees.

I for myself have to reach a certain transaction volume for my credit card or I pay a yearly fee worth 2-3 GOGs...

Oh, and let me stress that I do not ask for a boycott. As I said, I feel you have a right to your opinion and would actually encourage you to buy as much Holiday Sale items as you can to support Mastercard in their decision. :-) However, it would decorate you if you would support my freedom to do the exact opposite. Thanks for your input. As for additional costs, I'd be happy to pay these and I don't think anyone else should have to pay more just because I want more freedom. That goes for GOG and other users. Of course, anyone willing to join my cause is free to do so.
I don't doubt the convenience of the current payment providers, I suggest adding more to ease the inconvenience of having to support monopolies.

See below.

The problem is that it's not you who are paying those, GOG pays most of the fees behind the scenes, not the customer, and in almost all cases those fees grow exponentially the less users are using that payment option, even ignoring the higher fees the services themselves ask for when compared to PayPal or Mastercard/Visa.

I happen to know this for a fact because I've recently had to go through a comparison of payment services with a friend who wanted to open an online store. At this point in time the most viable options are PayPal and direct processing with MasterCard/Visa and guess what, these are also the most used options.

Those "monopolies" (the fact that there's more than one kind of negates the whole monopoly premise ;) ) got where they are (that is, being the prominent options) exactly because they offered the highest value in their service.

I don't know how many people remember the time before PayPal and how hard it was to deal with direct transfer or Beenz/Flooz (heck, I wonder how many people even know what they are) or how absurd the fees were initially for online shopping using a credit/debit card.

Just as PayPal took over Beenz/Flooz and MasterCard/Visa took over direct transactions so can something better take over them in the online space.

Couldn't GOG simply add a fee whenever people want to use these extra's?

Might be, but at this moment they'll stay in that position, regardless of whether better options exist. Call it a *poly (* = three at most ;) if you like, fact is they control the whole market.
I'm quite interested in your comparison of payment services, if you'd be willing to share..

They could, but that would mean a different price-point based on what payment method you use. And if you use bank transfer then that fee varies from bank to bank, from country to country and from transaction value to transaction value. Even ignoring the fact that it wouldn't make sense financially for them and it would end up eating more money than generating, it would also break the whole "Same game, same price, no matter where you're from!" concept.

The problem is that the better options do not exist at this point in time.

As for that comparison, I'll search through the IM archive and see if it's still saved there.

Not really, only the transaction costs differ. Who says that your provider charges the same for having and using a credit cards as mine?

But in any case, I thank you for your well-thought input and look forward to your comparison.

Could someone tell me what the heck this Wikileaks stuff is all about in the first place? You know the Readers Digest version I'll be able to understand.

Yes, but the transaction costs on their end are added into the price of the product. If the transaction costs on their end vary wildly (like they would for a game purchased via bank transfer for example) they'd need a different price point based on payment method chosen.

Okay, so I agree that bank transfer might not be the smartest option (I didn't know it was that expensive to wire internationally, and I still wonder why that is). And I have the feeling we're not on the same page here. If I would pay an extra fee for paying through a non-standard provider, but you wouldn't since you pay through PayPal, what's the problem? As I see it, it doesn't influence current standard practice..

You are not the only one paying a fee no matter what payment method you use; GOG also pays a fee based on what method the customer pays in, transaction volume & price per transaction. You don't see these fees on your end but they exist and are paid by GOG and in the end are rolled back into the price of the game.

Because that fee is higher than the one paid through PayPal, MasterCard and Visa (on the backend, on the GOG's end) it means that the price of the game needs to be adjusted (risen) to cover that fee that GOG must pay. This in turn leads to a different price point based on your payment method. *

Also, these fees generally go smaller as the volume and price per transaction increases. Considering that very few people would use the other payment methods this means that the volume is small (number of transactions) and that the price per transaction is already small; this in turn leads to those fees being even higher.

Combine these high fees with the price needed to implement, support and keep the new payment methods alive and you end up with a sum that is higher than the income generated via the new payment methods.

* or all the prices rise and then you don't have a few people that complain about lack of a small and unused payment option but a large number of people complaining about a price increase (ergo, chances of losing more customers than just those that don't have their favoured payment option).

I know, but I'm talking about a 'extra' fee if you like (which equates the amount of extra they are charged in turn by the provider), that GOG can charge me, you're talking about the fee the payment provider charges. I wouldn't mind paying, for example, EUR 5 extra on each transaction, which will gradually become less as more and more people start using the alternative.

Actually I've heard that in germany payments made by direct debit are actually much cheaper than paying by credit card - for the company receiving the payment. The only problem, you would have to wait until the bank in question affirms the transaction (could be days).

However paypal lets me do this too (direct transfer), I guess, because otherwise they would not be competetive. But paypal will surely add some fees for this service.

Gamersgate has more payment options. In germany they have direct debit, because its so cheap and popular. And they have Moneybookers eWallet. Steam has additionally ClickandBuy and PaySafeCard.

Okay, I don't need more payment options, but I guess maybe one or two more could increase sales.