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
Bloodygoodgames: LOL, I've been in the PR and Marketing field for 25 years. I'd say I have a few more 'credentials' than you have on that score.

I must say I'm loving reading some of the comments on here from the GOG fanboys though. I'm going to enjoy reading them even more when new games come on GOG where you're all being shafted with ripoff prices. The outrage then will be hilarious to watch.

I'll laugh even harder when GOG introduces DRM. Which......they eventually will.....with yet another excuse as to why they 'had to'.
Well, if you're claiming to have worked PR for 25 years then I'm sure you have. Why would you lie about it? But it does give me pause that you're inclined to write "LOL", which is not something I've seen from 40+ year old veterans in the communication business, and you're also displaying a very odd use of the ellipsis. Then again, I don't know anyone with 25 years of experience from marketing in Thailand, so admittedly my instincts aren't exactly super accurate.

By the way, I'm also not sure many 40 year olds are busy trying to troll like you are. Accusing people of being fanboys, looking forward to their outrage, and so on. Yada, yada. A guy who has been doing marketing for 25 years should know better, shouldn't he?

In any case, as long as GOG is offering DRM-free games at a good price then I'm game. When they stop doing that, I'm gone. That's business. DRM-free they have a fairly solid niche. With DRM they're a miniature version of Steam with angry customers and no competitive advantages. If your 25 years of experience is telling you that they'll think it's a smart decision to go with DRM then I think your 25 years of experience aren't serving you too well.
avatar
StormHammer: 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.
Maybe so. Or maybe they just believe that picking one of the two can make them more relevant.
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: I agree, I'm no expert in the business.

Let's listen to some experts, shall we: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6P3yOTR2Vc&t=1194
avatar
dhundahl: So your entire defense of you butchering my quote and being somewhat hysterical about them converting the price of their classics to euro instead of dollars is: "WAAAAAAAH!"

Brilliant. You know what? Your user name is a great suggestion. If you only want to complain and refuse to listen to any kind of argument then why am I bothering? I could be doing at least a few dozen better things.
Trust me, if they abandoned their core value DRM-free, and kept flat prices, I would be just as "hysterical", and I would show that video to you, and your defense would be exactly the same I imagine: "They don't agree with it, they just go along with it".
Post edited February 27, 2014 by Ichwillnichtmehr
avatar
PaladinWay: Absolutely true. My main point is that even those actions have interpretations that are influenced by actions even older. The initial actions haven't made me decide GoG is scum or anything, but it has made me increase the amount of scrutiny required for their actions and a higher bar for judging the reasons behind those actions.

Trust can never be regained as fast and as easily as it can be lost. That's why all the tiny things can add up.
avatar
cmdr_flashheart: There's nothing they can do today, tomorrow, or even in the next few days which will make regional pricing go away.
Agreed. However there are things they can do today, tomorrow, the next few days, and the next few weeks/months/years which will help customer confidence.

There are also ways that the same action, from a pragmatic/realistic business stance, can be done which will be positive, negative, or neutral regarding customer confidence.

For example, something my employer did regarding delaying a benefit had an excellent reason that they didn't make public but I happened to know from other sources. With what they did make public and communicate to employees (and the knowledge I had was actually of a level that was in our local newspaper, so they could've said), they sounded like complete jackasses. If they would've given the real reason, most people would've said, "Ah, ok. Sucks, but I can see that." Instead they said "Trust us, even though we know you don't because of things we've done and the way we've done them in the past." Can you guess how most people reacted? [HINT - If you have trouble guessing, go through this whole thread and count the Godwins, I counted two just on very sporadic looking for other things.]
avatar
paulrainer: back in 1998/99/ 2000 pc games were released in the uk every friday on average 5 - 10 games per week , some weeks more , some weeks less but there should be no shortage of these games.

The truth is GOG dont want old games anymore as their cash grab future plans dont extend to classic games - just new releases where customers can be shafted on regional pricing

thats the truth ^
avatar
Matruchus: second that - if you look at all release for sometime now there are no old games being released on gog
That depends on what subjective criteria one decides to define "old" to mean. It could mean games released in the 1980s only, or it could mean games released before 2000, or it could mean games released before 2005, or before 2007 or before 2010, or before 2012. Any one of these is potentially a valid definition if we decide that something that is not "new" is thus "old" and define "new" to be anything released after a particular date.

If I were to install http://www.gog.com/game/the_guild_2 which was just added to the catalogue today and tell someone:

1) I just installed Guild 2, it's a new game.

or

2) I just installed Guild 2, it's an old game.

Which statement sounds to be the most correct for a game released 8 years ago in 2006? It's a subjective question no doubt, but I believe if one says that a game is "new" it is probably understood by most people that it is a "new release" and thus a game just released, or released in the last while generally speaking. Once a game is no longer "new" and thus no longer considered a new release, is it not then an old release and thus now old? There's an argument then to say a game released in 2012 is old. But what about 2006? 8 years ago and while still subjective there's a strong argument to say that that is not a "new" game, and not being new it is by definition old. That was released today if my GOG mail notifications are correct.

This was released today too (2007) and can be reasonably considered old under the context I give above:
http://www.gog.com/game/the_guild_2_pirates_of_the_european_seas

Here are some others:

Released Feb 20th, 2014:
http://www.gog.com/game/full_spectrum_warrior (2004, 10 years old)
http://www.gog.com/game/full_spectrum_warrior_ten_hammers (2006, 8 years old)

Released Jan 30, 2014:
http://www.gog.com/game/7th_legion (1997, 17 years old - correct, not old it's ancient and has spiderwebs on it <grin>)

Released Feb 11, 2014:
http://www.gog.com/game/red_faction (2001, 13 years old)
http://www.gog.com/game/red_faction_2 (2002, 12 years old)

Released Feb 6, 2014:
http://www.gog.com/game/stalker_shadow_of_chernobyl (2007, 7 years old)
http://www.gog.com/game/red_faction_2

Released Jan 16, 2014:
http://www.gog.com/game/sid_meiers_covert_action (1990, 24 years old)

Released Jan 23, 2014:
http://www.gog.com/game/silent_service_12 (1985, 29 years old)

Released Jan 28, 2014:
http://www.gog.com/game/deadlock_planetary_conquest (1996, 18 years old)
http://www.gog.com/game/deadlock_2_shrine_wars (1998, 16 years old)

Now I just popped into my mail client and filtered the GOG RSS feed down to posts that have "Release" in the Subject field, then started from the newest releases and went back about 5 weeks or so and found 13 games released by GOG which are definitely not in any way new, and thus are in my opinion at least "old" and it took almost no effort to do so. I wasn't even aware of how old some of these games actually were in advance. Even if one disagrees about the date cutoff where "old" turns into "new, I think anyone can agree that Sid Meier's Silent Service and Covert Ops are "old" by any standard of measure any sane rational person could agree to, and I believe most people would equally agree that the various games from the 1990s I listed are also reasonably considered "old" also. I'd go as far as saying the rest of the games are "old" also for the reasons I gave above, but I can see different reasons why others may have their own opinions that are contrary.

Either way, any reasonable person would almost certainly consider games released over 10 years ago (2004) to be old I believe and I found tonnes of games released in the last 5 weeks that meet the qualification of being old under that definition with little effort at all, so...

Sorry, but I'm going to have to bust ya on saying that GOG has released "no old games". If I were to continue going back 6 months I'd get a sore arm from cutting and pasting dozens more games to the point of ridiculousness and feel like I was beating a dead horse. ;o)

Ok, perhaps you might not subscribe to the GOG release postings or the RSS feed, or perhaps you don't read the release announcements on the front page of the site every day, etc. - not everyone does and not everyone has the time to do so because of "life", but to say they don't release any old games anymore when they clearly do release many old games is well... a forgiveable mistake. Now go subscribe to the GOG release announcements please so you don't miss out on the "good old games" that GOG continues to release week after week.

<evil, but well intentioned grin>
avatar
dhundahl: By the way, I'm also not sure many 40 year olds are busy trying to troll like you are. Accusing people of being fanboys, looking forward to their outrage, and so on. Yada, yada. A guy who has been doing marketing for 25 years should know better, shouldn't he?
Well, I've certainly seen stories of marketing people who've been working in the field long enough to be counted as "veterans" in most fields who've made public statements as bad or worse (even sometimes in ways obviously traceable to them and their company).

Not particularly an argument that's a defense of the grand-poster's abilities, but it's quite possible he/she is as is telling the truth. Granted, attempting to make the distinctions in that regard opens arguments of No True Scotsman fallacy.
avatar
StormHammer: 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
dhundahl: That underlined part is of questionable accuracy. 45 of the countries where their customers are based are getting screwed over by the recommended pricing that GOG had nothing to do with. That's a general problem and it would've happened no matter what GOG had done. If GOG had decided to stay out of AOW3 then customers from those 45 countries would still be paying those prices on Steam, but they'd be getting DRM on top.
I'm afraid you slightly misinterpreted my meaning in that sentence. So to clarify:

If GOG.com had maintained flat pricing policy, those 45 countries would have paid the same as everyone else buying the game from this site: $39.99

With GOG.com implementing a regional pricing policy, those 45 countries now pay more on this site.

I was not suggesting GOG.com was more expensive than other retailers in that region, only that GOG.com itself had become more expensive as a result of implementing this policy. ;)

Again, I understand your viewpoint on GOG.com making a sacrifice in order to attain their singular DRM-Free goal by bowing to publisher pressure on regional pricing. However, I remain dubious that it will (a) attract more customers to the site, and (b) convince major publishers to release more AAA games DRM-Free on GOG.com.

They could be throwing out the baby (DRM-Free) with the bathwater (flat pricing worldwide).

Also, I feel it needs reiterating that the fixed regional prices for the 'classic' games in the catalogue is still not set in stone. It is clearly stated in the letter that these are the prices GOG.com would like to use in future, but what happens if a publisher now turns around and says they want the price increased in line with any other games they offer? Will GOG.com simply adjust the price to match a publisher's request, or stop selling that game?

It seems they are still negotiating much of this with the publishers, and nothing is finalised except the regional pricing on AoW3 (which is now plain to see in the store). They obviously misjudged how this news would be received, and how important the issue is for many existing customers.

That does not fill one with confidence.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: That's more or less what the wishlist is there for. We can't really tell people, "Hey, this is who we're talking to!" or we'll find more examples of studios swooping in and signing rights out from under our noses. :)
avatar
PaladinWay: It's fair that it's business sensitive in one way or another not to say exactly who you're talking to. However, could you perhaps check your wish list and make a statement along the lines of:

Going down to the Nth item of the wishlist, there are only X% of the games we haven't been trying to sign (the Nth game includes M different studios).

Ideally I'd think it'd be nice to hear that answer where X = 5, but if that's too competition sensitive then perhaps X = 10?
That (at least from my standpoint) sounds like a decent idea. Some of the post regarding wishlists earlier in the thread made me post some of my thoughts on some of the wishlist issues here: http://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_wishlist_has_problems

I think some of the kneejerk reaction (especially in regards to TET's posts) is that with the current setup the Wishlist feels neglected and irrelevant. This is especially problematic as some of the posts give the impression that they have (or in the process of) run[ning] out of classic titles (when not everything people want is from a. publishers they haven't already collaborated with and b. not everything is in licensing-hell).
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: LOL, I've been in the PR and Marketing field for 25 years. I'd say I have a few more 'credentials' than you have on that score.

I must say I'm loving reading some of the comments on here from the GOG fanboys though. I'm going to enjoy reading them even more when new games come on GOG where you're all being shafted with ripoff prices. The outrage then will be hilarious to watch.

I'll laugh even harder when GOG introduces DRM. Which......they eventually will.....with yet another excuse as to why they 'had to'.
avatar
dhundahl: Well, if you're claiming to have worked PR for 25 years then I'm sure you have. Why would you lie about it? But it does give me pause that you're inclined to write "LOL", which is not something I've seen from 40+ year old veterans in the communication business, and you're also displaying a very odd use of the ellipsis. Then again, I don't know anyone with 25 years of experience from marketing in Thailand, so admittedly my instincts aren't exactly super accurate.

By the way, I'm also not sure many 40 year olds are busy trying to troll like you are. Accusing people of being fanboys, looking forward to their outrage, and so on. Yada, yada. A guy who has been doing marketing for 25 years should know better, shouldn't he?

In any case, as long as GOG is offering DRM-free games at a good price then I'm game. When they stop doing that, I'm gone. That's business. DRM-free they have a fairly solid niche. With DRM they're a miniature version of Steam with angry customers and no competitive advantages. If your 25 years of experience is telling you that they'll think it's a smart decision to go with DRM then I think your 25 years of experience aren't serving you too well.
Dude, this is a forum post on a forum where he's not representing anybody. Just because somebody is in PR doesn't mean that everything always needs to be perfect. I teach English and I don't waste time spell and grammar checking all my posts.
avatar
hedwards: They could have evaluated the situation ahead of time and made contingency plans. It's not like this is the first time that the customers have been outraged by change.

I'm not really sure that there was a good way of doing this, but I think the condescension in the posts and trying to spin this as somehow good without giving us any reason why it's good for us were poor decisions.
Yeah, they could've tried to plan for it a bit better but they probably underestimated the shitstorm somewhat. And once the shit is hitting the fan, there's really not too much they can do. I don't know what TET, the marketing guy, should've been saying that would've made any kind of difference. Some more clarity would help but if GOG themselves don't actually know all the details of what's going to be happening then it's hard for the marketing guy to give clearcut answers that he doesn't actually have.

They could've been less snarky and avoided trying to spin this as a great change but from their perspective, I'm pretty sure that GOG distributing AAA titles DRM-free on release day is in fact a great change. And I'm not sure they see it as a negative that their regular prices for classics is in a local currency instead of in dollars. I'm not even sure I see that as a negative thing.

I think the bigger problem here is that cultural factors is wrecking havoc on people's reading comprehension, causing people to see messages that aren't actually intended. If people were to calm the heck down and wait for the details before going crazy, this topic wouldn't be half as big, but emotion is running rampant and there's just nothing much the marketing guy can say that's going to suddenly make everybody calm. Well, "we're not doing regional prices!!" might, but of course that's not something the marketing guy can promise. And for all we know, it might actually be a necessary change going forward.

And then, as I said, there's that breaking of the "fair price" principle, which is essentially a case of them having previously managed to highlight their position so well that they're now getting into hot water if they're doing even the slightest bit of repositioning. That probably could've been handled better. If they've known for a while that they're going to break away from "fair pricing" and into "fair regional pricing" then it probably wouldn't have hurt if they'd clarified their repositioning on the issue long before before announcing that they'd be regionally pricing a new release game pretty much like the wind blows, so the risk of the two things getting mixed together had been kept minimal.
avatar
hedwards: They could have evaluated the situation ahead of time and made contingency plans. It's not like this is the first time that the customers have been outraged by change.

I'm not really sure that there was a good way of doing this, but I think the condescension in the posts and trying to spin this as somehow good without giving us any reason why it's good for us were poor decisions.
avatar
dhundahl: Yeah, they could've tried to plan for it a bit better but they probably underestimated the shitstorm somewhat. And once the shit is hitting the fan, there's really not too much they can do. I don't know what TET, the marketing guy, should've been saying that would've made any kind of difference. Some more clarity would help but if GOG themselves don't actually know all the details of what's going to be happening then it's hard for the marketing guy to give clearcut answers that he doesn't actually have.

They could've been less snarky and avoided trying to spin this as a great change but from their perspective, I'm pretty sure that GOG distributing AAA titles DRM-free on release day is in fact a great change. And I'm not sure they see it as a negative that their regular prices for classics is in a local currency instead of in dollars. I'm not even sure I see that as a negative thing.

I think the bigger problem here is that cultural factors is wrecking havoc on people's reading comprehension, causing people to see messages that aren't actually intended. If people were to calm the heck down and wait for the details before going crazy, this topic wouldn't be half as big, but emotion is running rampant and there's just nothing much the marketing guy can say that's going to suddenly make everybody calm. Well, "we're not doing regional prices!!" might, but of course that's not something the marketing guy can promise. And for all we know, it might actually be a necessary change going forward.

And then, as I said, there's that breaking of the "fair price" principle, which is essentially a case of them having previously managed to highlight their position so well that they're now getting into hot water if they're doing even the slightest bit of repositioning. That probably could've been handled better. If they've known for a while that they're going to break away from "fair pricing" and into "fair regional pricing" then it probably wouldn't have hurt if they'd clarified their repositioning on the issue long before before announcing that they'd be regionally pricing a new release game pretty much like the wind blows, so the risk of the two things getting mixed together had been kept minimal.
Possibly, but even when they took several days to draft the letter, it was even worse than the original announcement. And AFAIK, there's still details that they don't yet have nailed down.

And yes, predicting the firestorm is one thing, figuring out how to deal with it is something completely different.
avatar
dhundahl: A guy who has been doing marketing for 25 years should know better, shouldn't he?
avatar
hedwards: Dude, this is a forum post on a forum where he's not representing anybody.
You're talking about a woman btw. ;)
avatar
hedwards: Dude, this is a forum post on a forum where he's not representing anybody.
avatar
MoP: You're talking about a woman btw. ;)
Attachments:
Clearly You cannot appreciate attention to detail and precision in serious-business debates on a video game forum :monocle:
avatar
StormHammer: If GOG.com had maintained flat pricing policy, those 45 countries would have paid the same as everyone else buying the game from this site: $39.99
If GOG had maintained flat pricing policy, those 45 countries would have likely had to buy the game on another site for the same amount, encumbered with DRM.