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
Matruchus: If the regional pricing is going to be on real time currency exchange value then i could agree on that but fixed currency exchange no way.

Well they could make a weekly 3 games list. I just must say that the games that are coming on gog in the last year are mostly rpg, adventure, platformer of which i dont really care about. They are really boring.
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: But there will always be those whose games are left out. The current wishlist system works because if someone wants to bring extra attention to their wishlist game, then they just make a post about it in the general forum, like "vote for X!". I think maybe you should do that, but seriously, you're not the only person on GOG, and others like the games you dislike, no offense :]

avatar
lostwolfe: this is kind of why i wish the wishlist was sorted better and consolidated.

what i would do, if i were gog, is, as you say, present - say - the top three wishes from a genre. let's say adventure. then gog goes out, does it's thing and gives us a timeline: let's say two weeks to a month. when they're done, they report back to us on how they fared with all three.

then the repeat the cycle with, say, shoot-em-ups. etc.

sure, it'd b pretty slow going, but in the end more "wishes" would be granted [or not, as the case may be.]
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: I am sorry, but one reason why voting for games isn't a good idea is because current and potential customers don't all visit the forum, and so the votes are not going to be reflective of what people, overall, want to buy- they will only be reflective of a subset of forum dwellers.
then it needs to belong on the main page as a feature that everyone sees when they land there. much like the releases list is, now.

"this week, we're voting on strategy games, help us decide which of the three we pursue!"

then they list all three games and interested parties can go ahead and vote.

a month after that:

"our feedback from the strategy week is...!"

all on the site's main page.
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: But there will always be those whose games are left out. The current wishlist system works because if someone wants to bring extra attention to their wishlist game, then they just make a post about it in the general forum, like "vote for X!". I think maybe you should do that, but seriously, you're not the only person on GOG, and others like the games you dislike, no offense :]

I am sorry, but one reason why voting for games isn't a good idea is because current and potential customers don't all visit the forum, and so the votes are not going to be reflective of what people, overall, want to buy- they will only be reflective of a subset of forum dwellers.
avatar
lostwolfe: then it needs to belong on the main page as a feature that everyone sees when they land there. much like the releases list is, now.

"this week, we're voting on strategy games, help us decide which of the three we pursue!"

then they list all three games and interested parties can go ahead and vote.

a month after that:

"our feedback from the strategy week is...!"

all on the site's main page.
yeah that would be great

its obvious the wishlists don't work at all
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: But there will always be those whose games are left out. The current wishlist system works because if someone wants to bring extra attention to their wishlist game, then they just make a post about it in the general forum, like "vote for X!". I think maybe you should do that, but seriously, you're not the only person on GOG, and others like the games you dislike, no offense :]

I am sorry, but one reason why voting for games isn't a good idea is because current and potential customers don't all visit the forum, and so the votes are not going to be reflective of what people, overall, want to buy- they will only be reflective of a subset of forum dwellers.
avatar
lostwolfe: then it needs to belong on the main page as a feature that everyone sees when they land there. much like the releases list is, now.

"this week, we're voting on strategy games, help us decide which of the three we pursue!"

then they list all three games and interested parties can go ahead and vote.

a month after that:

"our feedback from the strategy week is...!"

all on the site's main page.
That might be a little too transparent. Competitor's could potentially screw them. I do think the wishlist needs a bit of an overhaul (consolidating things and what not), and maybe it should be place on the front-page to get more attention (maybe on the pages of games missing parts of a series as well).
avatar
Matruchus: Take in mind for example Hegemony Rise of Caesar (indie game) is now 24.99$=24.99€ on steam. And this will be gog standard.
How do you know the underlined part? Assumption? Guess? Did someone in the know actually tell you? I'm pretty sure the classics will remain mostly as they are for now. New releases are a different animal but what do you propose GOG does about that, aside from refusing to distribute new release games with no DRM?
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: But there will always be those whose games are left out. The current wishlist system works because if someone wants to bring extra attention to their wishlist game, then they just make a post about it in the general forum, like "vote for X!". I think maybe you should do that, but seriously, you're not the only person on GOG, and others like the games you dislike, no offense :]

I am sorry, but one reason why voting for games isn't a good idea is because current and potential customers don't all visit the forum, and so the votes are not going to be reflective of what people, overall, want to buy- they will only be reflective of a subset of forum dwellers.
avatar
lostwolfe: then it needs to belong on the main page as a feature that everyone sees when they land there. much like the releases list is, now.

"this week, we're voting on strategy games, help us decide which of the three we pursue!"

then they list all three games and interested parties can go ahead and vote.

a month after that:

"our feedback from the strategy week is...!"

all on the site's main page.
But seriously, it doesn't even make sense- if you have three potential things which customers would like, then why not pursue all three?

e b/c I can't strike through something erroneous.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by cmdr_flashheart
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: Alien Rape Escape: 44 MobyScore
avatar
Novotnus: This game on GOG and regional pricing is forgiven :)
it's a free fanadventure by the way. couldn't resist downloading it :D


and still no serious statement from gog yet, just some chitchat - disappointing.
avatar
kpz: it's a free fanadventure by the way. couldn't resist downloading it :D

and still no serious statement from gog yet, just some chitchat - disappointing.
It's not only free, it's also pretty funny :)
avatar
Matruchus: Take in mind for example Hegemony Rise of Caesar (indie game) is now 24.99$=24.99€ on steam. And this will be gog standard.
avatar
dhundahl: How do you know the underlined part? Assumption? Guess? Did someone in the know actually tell you? I'm pretty sure the classics will remain mostly as they are for now. New releases are a different animal but what do you propose GOG does about that, aside from refusing to distribute new release games with no DRM?
Look if they allow one regional priced game it means they will allow more and where will that stop. As soon as publishers see they can increase game prices on gog they will do that.

Well they should just refuse to do that - they arent making that much money with it since only a few games get released on gog with other platforms.

And what i meant with the above game is that there is a parallel between gog and longbow games that own Hegemony. Before making this game everything was flat priced at longbow, this game now is regional priced since they have a greedy publisher now (read kalypso).
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
lostwolfe: then it needs to belong on the main page as a feature that everyone sees when they land there. much like the releases list is, now.

"this week, we're voting on strategy games, help us decide which of the three we pursue!"

then they list all three games and interested parties can go ahead and vote.

a month after that:

"our feedback from the strategy week is...!"

all on the site's main page.
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: But seriously, it doesn't even make sense- if you have three potential things which customers would like, then why not pursue all three?

e b/c I can't strike through something erroneous.
that's why there's feedback. they could go ahead and work on all three, but allocate resources accordingly.

pick one gets 5 guys assigned to it.
pick two gets 3 guys assigned to it.
pick three gets 1 guy assigned to it.

at the end, they all do a report and the customers see where they got to.
avatar
StormHammer: The more I think about it, the more I think GOG.com's strategy is not going to work.

It has long been known that Divinity: Original Sin was already commited to being DRM-Free, because they mentioned as much on their Kickstarter page. It is even stated in their own FAQ: http://www.divinityoriginalsin.com/faq.php So GOG.com did not have to 'convince' Larian Studios to go DRM-Free on GOG.com, because the game was already going to be widely distributed as such.

The Witcher 3, made by GOG.com's sister company CD Projekt RED, would also probably have come to GOG.com DRM-free, just like the previous two games in the series. Or are they suddenly not going to sell the game on their own storefront?

So that leaves Age Of Wonders 3 as the only one that might have sacrificed anything to become available DRM-Free - although the previous Age Of Wonders games are already on GOG.com, so one can speculate that it would have come here eventually.
Right. But you have to have a long term perspective here.

Do not take those for granted.

1. Divinity: Original Sin: It's true that D:OS have already pledged for a GoG version but nothing is set in stone. In the worst case they can say that licensing deal is failing and they can offer a DRM free copy on their store (larianvault, which is what they did for the Divinity Anthology add-on reward) and/or offering to pay a full refund for those that only want it on GoG. In the best case it is released on GoG but the overall sale figures suffer because it's the only store at release time that sells it much cheaper than the other stores in certain regions or the other stores end up selling at the same price in all regions. Either way, Larian loses money in sales and will make sure in the future to never promise GoG release on any of their Kickstarter projects or future games.

2. Witcher 3: Similarly, it will be released here on day zero but if their sale numbers are hurt because of the prices disparity that's not something that will help CD Projekt RED or GoG long term.

All three games are from independent studios, not funded/backed by a major publisher, so essentially there is no publisher 'risk' involved in offering these games DRM-Free on GOG.com. I'll say that again - no publisher is taking a risk putting these games on GOG.com.
No but the developers are taking a risk, which is much worse.

So when GOG presents these three games to mega publishers (EA, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Activision) in an effort to convince them to also put their new AAA games DRM-Free on GOG.com - how do you think that will go across? GOG.com's position will be markedly weakened, because at least two of these independent studios would have released their games DRM-Free anyway. In short, these developers sacrificed nothing to become DRM-Free. This is how it will appear to a publisher like EA, Activision, Ubisoft or Microsoft, each of whom already has their own digitial distribution outlets for their own games. Yet GOG.com will be asking these publishers to make a sacrifice and take a major risk to become DRM-Free on their storefront.

Where is the bargaining power? There is none. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't find that particularly impressive, or encouraging.
Correct, with or without regional pricing GoG isn't in a strong bargaining position. The only argument they have is that otherwise they lose some customers (people like us who refuse to buy games with DRM). GoG is asking them to take a risk with DRM free, so a potential outcome of losing money for the publishers but with non-regional pricing it's a certainty of losing money (ie GoG would be the only store in EU that would sell AAA titles on release day at 20% lower price than all the other stores). GoG doesn't have the clout (ie number of active accounts) to argue that the sale volume will compensate. It's trying to get there, among other things, with a change like this.

Personally, DRM is a property of a game for which I'm willing to put a dollar amount on. So I'm fine with paying a GoG "tax", a DRM-free "tax", paying 10% more for all games on GoG vs other stores just because they are DRM free. If everyone here would be willing to do the same then GoG would have a stronger argument when convincing publishers to release games here.
avatar
Matruchus: Take in mind for example Hegemony Rise of Caesar (indie game) is now 24.99$=24.99€ on steam. And this will be gog standard.
avatar
dhundahl: How do you know the underlined part? Assumption? Guess? Did someone in the know actually tell you? I'm pretty sure the classics will remain mostly as they are for now. New releases are a different animal but what do you propose GOG does about that, aside from refusing to distribute new release games with no DRM?
Since GOG.com has abandoned it's rule in the "price"-department, what GOG.com wants to do in the "price"-department is irrelevant.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Ichwillnichtmehr
avatar
Matruchus: They should forget the metrics and other stuff and just make a list lets say with 3 games that we can choose from that they would try to bring here and let us vote on that.
And which three games would they pick? Just three random oldies? And then all three would have barely any market and they'd have the expense of converting and refitting one and not see any revenue and then eventually GOG would go bankrupt and we'd be out of a source of DRM-free games. Is that a good development?

It's very easy to say what other people should do with their fairly significant business investment while you're sitting in your comfy chair with absolutely nothing on the line. I do so myself every now and again. But it's too easy and the armchair strategist is usually too shielded from the gory details to even have a good idea of what's going on, which means that even if he knew what he was talking about, his conclusion would still suffer from the inaccurate details it would be based on.

Morale of the story, don't be too quick to say what a company should or shouldn't do when it's not your money that are on the line. :-)
avatar
StormHammer: The more I think about it, the more I think GOG.com's strategy is not going to work.

It has long been known that Divinity: Original Sin was already commited to being DRM-Free, because they mentioned as much on their Kickstarter page. It is even stated in their own FAQ: http://www.divinityoriginalsin.com/faq.php So GOG.com did not have to 'convince' Larian Studios to go DRM-Free on GOG.com, because the game was already going to be widely distributed as such.

The Witcher 3, made by GOG.com's sister company CD Projekt RED, would also probably have come to GOG.com DRM-free, just like the previous two games in the series. Or are they suddenly not going to sell the game on their own storefront?

So that leaves Age Of Wonders 3 as the only one that might have sacrificed anything to become available DRM-Free - although the previous Age Of Wonders games are already on GOG.com, so one can speculate that it would have come here eventually.
avatar
rmihaif: Right. But you have to have a long term perspective here.

Do not take those for granted.

1. Divinity: Original Sin: It's true that D:OS have already pledged for a GoG version but nothing is set in stone. In the worst case they can say that licensing deal is failing and they can offer a DRM free copy on their store (larianvault, which is what they did for the Divinity Anthology add-on reward) and/or offering to pay a full refund for those that only want it on GoG. In the best case it is released on GoG but the overall sale figures suffer because it's the only store at release time that sells it much cheaper than the other stores in certain regions or the other stores end up selling at the same price in all regions. Either way, Larian loses money in sales and will make sure in the future to never promise GoG release on any of their Kickstarter projects or future games.

2. Witcher 3: Similarly, it will be released here on day zero but if their sale numbers are hurt because of the prices disparity that's not something that will help CD Projekt RED or GoG long term.

All three games are from independent studios, not funded/backed by a major publisher, so essentially there is no publisher 'risk' involved in offering these games DRM-Free on GOG.com. I'll say that again - no publisher is taking a risk putting these games on GOG.com.
avatar
rmihaif: No but the developers are taking a risk, which is much worse.

So when GOG presents these three games to mega publishers (EA, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Activision) in an effort to convince them to also put their new AAA games DRM-Free on GOG.com - how do you think that will go across? GOG.com's position will be markedly weakened, because at least two of these independent studios would have released their games DRM-Free anyway. In short, these developers sacrificed nothing to become DRM-Free. This is how it will appear to a publisher like EA, Activision, Ubisoft or Microsoft, each of whom already has their own digitial distribution outlets for their own games. Yet GOG.com will be asking these publishers to make a sacrifice and take a major risk to become DRM-Free on their storefront.

Where is the bargaining power? There is none. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't find that particularly impressive, or encouraging.
avatar
rmihaif: Correct, with or without regional pricing GoG isn't in a strong bargaining position. The only argument they have is that otherwise they lose some customers (people like us who refuse to buy games with DRM). GoG is asking them to take a risk with DRM free, so a potential outcome of losing money for the publishers but with non-regional pricing it's a certainty of losing money (ie GoG would be the only store in EU that would sell AAA titles on release day at 20% lower price than all the other stores). GoG doesn't have the clout (ie number of active accounts) to argue that the sale volume will compensate. It's trying to get there, among other things, with a change like this.

Personally, DRM is a property of a game for which I'm willing to put a dollar amount on. So I'm fine with paying a GoG "tax", a DRM-free "tax", paying 10% more for all games on GoG vs other stores just because they are DRM free. If everyone here would be willing to do the same then GoG would have a stronger argument when convincing publishers to release games here.
The problem at the moment is that most people pay 30% to 50% more for new regional priced games on gog depending on country. US and few lucky one excluded.

avatar
dhundahl: How do you know the underlined part? Assumption? Guess? Did someone in the know actually tell you? I'm pretty sure the classics will remain mostly as they are for now. New releases are a different animal but what do you propose GOG does about that, aside from refusing to distribute new release games with no DRM?
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: Since GOG.com has abandoned it's rule in the "price"-department, what GOG.com wants to do in the "price"-department is irrelevant.
Agreed they had no regional pricing, fair pricing policy till yesterday no its erased from this site.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Matruchus
high rated
avatar
StormHammer: For the sake of clarity for other members of the community, here is the list of countries that would currently be affected by a price rise (using the AOW3 list as a basis for other games utilising regional pricing):
avatar
dhundahl: And what does the AOW3 list tell us? How GOG wants to price games or how the industry is currently pricing them?
It tells me that regional pricing is a system that is inherently flawed, and even more unfair to a significant number of countries around the world.

You can continue arguing industry standards as much as you like, but as others have pointed out in this thread, DRM protection is also currently an 'industry standard', and other sites that were wholly DRM-Free (like Humble Store) are now buckling to meet that demand. If GOG.com is willing to compromise a current ethical value (that they themselves trumpeted in various media as champions of the cause), to adopt the industry standard of regional pricing in order to appease publishers, it follows that they thereby reduce their credibility in resisting other industry standards in the future.

I am well aware that they are a business, the market is changing, and they have to adapt to survive. However, it does not change the fact that 45 of the countries where their customers are based are now presented with a higher price from this site (for certain games). It is highly debatable whether their decision was worth it, and the consequences will be seen over the coming months.
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: But seriously, it doesn't even make sense- if you have three potential things which customers would like, then why not pursue all three?

e b/c I can't strike through something erroneous.
avatar
lostwolfe: that's why there's feedback. they could go ahead and work on all three, but allocate resources accordingly.

pick one gets 5 guys assigned to it.
pick two gets 3 guys assigned to it.
pick three gets 1 guy assigned to it.

at the end, they all do a report and the customers see where they got to.
C'mon, as a customer, I am not interested in their reports, but maybe you are (and I can't imagine why, honestly).

I just want games, so when I want something which isn't here, I vote on the wishlist. But I think what you and others want is some sort of confirmation that GOG is working on the wishlist.

It would be nice to get that, but I think the reason they don't is because they need to negotiate back and forth with their partners, and it's silly to raise customer's hopes up by telling them "oh we're working on this!" because what if it doesn't pan out. It looks bad on GOG to fail like that publicly.

There's still the desire of forum people wanting to feel like their wishes are being looked at, but there should be a better way to address it other than "vote for three and then report back".