That extra fee must be in the transaction info, which means another price point.

But only for him and he seems okay with it. On the website they can still display 6$/10$ as the price you are paying with Visa/Mastercard/Paypal.

Same here. You'd just need some 'aggregator' providers to connect al the local ones into global ones, and off we go..
If that's the biggest problem, I think we're done here!

Still curious about your comparison though.. ;-)
That would be a totally different discussion and I would kindly refer you here. I'll be more than happy to give you a quick insight there.

Joining here, I'm also in favour of payment options other than Visa/Mastercard/paypal.

There's no need to register in order to use their service (paysafecard), and that's why I thing this kind of payment is really cool. You just need to buy some kind of prepaid-card and enter the code on your card to pay for something online.

Since I already wrote to GOG about this, here's a +1, for all it is worth. I don't believe it would be especially difficult to offer a few alternatives.

I don't understand why you can't just pay with your visa/mastercard directly instead of going through another service like amazon, google, or PayPal?

I seriously don't get what your problem is with a more free market. I don't deny you any of your freedoms? Be my guest and support Mastercard in bringing them down. But would you have the guts to support my freedom doing the exact opposite?
Of course that's technically possible. But what to do if you don't want to support visa nor mastercard? My guess is there are a lot of other small services just yearning to be used, and I would like them to grow.

Well, let's be honest here, you wouldn't have made this thread were it not for Wikileaks, so I stand by my point. Also, don't forget Openleaks (which seems less liable to falling into the same trap Wikileaks has, in which it's effectively controlled by one guy). My problem is less Wikileaks, and more Internet Whinging.

Its not just costs to the customers that could be a problem. GOG has to pay a fee in order to accept/use other payment methods. In many cases, those fees are prohibitively high, which is why they are so uncommon in comparison to the current methods GOG supports. In order to compensate for fees like that, GOG would very likely have to adjust their prices, which means all of us end up paying more just to satisfy your questionable political views.

BTW - If you are going to use words with a negative connotation like "monopoly", you really should understand what they mean. None of the payment methods GOG accepts will fit even the loosest definition of a monopoly. They are definitely large companies and their size does naturally afford them greater influence over the market than some of their competition does, but they are by no means a monopoly. The fact that there are three different methods of payment currently being discussed here proves that a monopoly does not exist in the slightest and all your arguments against their use simply fall apart as nothing more than politically motivated activism.

Well, I have been open about that from the start. Don't you recognize the situation of seeing the larger problem only after stumbling upon a smaller one? I seriously have this all the time. Not until I my gramps nearly died did I really fully understand the need to visit them as often as possible, for example. You take a lot for granted and don't worry much about stuff.
Well, isn't this quote just more Whinging in your opinion? I just see someone expressing his opinion and bothering about giving arguments. I personally like that :)
As I argued above, I'm willing to pay not just the usual payment fee, but an extra to cover the extra costs GOG makes. That's just fair.

Well, my original term was triopoly, but this is not commonly used. Anyway, if my options are two flavours of credit card and one flavour of 'internet-based' transfer, I don't call that a free market. It would be like choosing between two supermarkets and one outdoor market for your everyday food. Blame me for it, but I would like a few extra options, thank you. If that is a shame in your eyes because I only realized I had such limited options because the three of them together decided to take actions I don't approve of, so be it.

Actually, I don't care why you don't want to buy your apples where you don't buy them. Maybe you don't like the quality, maybe the salesman said nasty things about your son. If, however, you would like to create another option and a freer market, you have my support. Even if I would never buy my own apples at the store you want to create. I that so strange?

Besides, my specific choice for DRM-free games can be seen as 'politically motivated activism' just the same. Would that mean in your eyes I buy games at GOG with the wrong motivation, namely because I also have a political agenda (kill DRM if I can)?

Because maybe its cheaper for you and cheaper for GOG too? As I already mentioned, I have to pay an additional fee for my credit card if I am not reaching a certain transaction volume. For direct debit, I have no fees. The fees for GOG would be (as I have heard) also be cheaper for direct debit than for credit cards. It has other disadvantages though.

I can perfectly understand the wish for more payment options. And Steam/GamersGate are doing it too. So I guess, it makes some sense. So, there are chances that GOG might increase the options for payment, seeing that it can increase sales.

Paypal is the standard for safe online transactions. That's more than enough reason for this not happening anytime soon.

Transactions are safe. Money left in your account isn't. Thieving scum.