Likely due to once they've started with regional pricing on a select few titles, it'll be damned difficult convincing publishers to not introduce the same on the rest as well next time those contracts are up for renegotiation.

This is just one of many things I complain about. And it's the principle of the thing. The lack of regional pricing was one of the 'core principles' and I've seen too many companies turn to shit because of too many compromises. This is the beginning of the end and I will do what I can to resist.
Probably. It's what happened when Humble went Steam only on one bundle.

I'm just happy the main ("Humble Indie") bundles are still DRM-free and 3-OS even if Humble Weekly and others aren't necessarily so.

Mmm, but the really annoying thing is that a decent number of the games in the Steam only bundles *have a DRM-free version*. Humble is happy for the devs to go "...nahh, can't be bothered".

Yeah, and therein the danger of making exceptions, the big guys you're making exceptions for (and others that notice you've made exceptions) will use said exceptions as leverage to impose more of them.

Not a lot of choice - there aren't enough distributors, especially to reach certain areas with physical distribution and they pretty much all require regional pricing. I was surprised too when they first announced it, but after I thought about it, the surprise ... lessened. For instance I can think of the two of the biggest tech companies in the world who are each other's biggest competitor, sue each other constantly, and are still each other's biggest and important business partner because they need each other. You can probably guess specifically who I mean, but I keep it somewhat general because companies keeping business relationships they need despite lawsuits is quite common. I agree that it is mind-boggling to the likes of us, but it's a different mindset in business.

Not disagreeing with you on that (though I stay from generalization such as a universal condemnation of a particular class of games by budget), just explaining what I think is thought process: GOG wants to grow while being a DRM-free crusader and bring DRM-free to AAA and otherwise larger budget games. However, they've had an easier time convincing some devs and publishers to go DRM-free than not sign contracts with physical distributors requiring flat pricing. They value DRM-free more, so they drop flat pricing.

The above is not to excuse, but explain. They can be rightfully criticized for this thinking, especially in the light of their own previous statements.

I do appreciate the level-headed and sane clarification, crazy_dave.