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
TheEnigmaticT: I know we'll be rolling out more currencies in the future. The exact what and when I do not know. I can guarantee that for some of the countries it won't be any time soon that they see their local currency on GOG.
Don't forget about Hungary .
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: We're sorry if you feel we've betrayed everything that made us special to do so. It's your feelings, and it's your right to feel that way. I hope that, when you've had some time to cool down and some time to see what we're actually doing, you'll feel that we haven't let you down, in the end.
avatar
Soeverein: I appreciate your recent posts, and I think you clarified well. So thanks. I also love your Untergang parody.

It won't change my mind about buying on GOG again though, I'd still rather not buy those games at all and spend my time reading comics instead or whatever.

Anyway, the part I quoted here is the only thing about your responses that really infuriates me. 'I'm sorry your feelings are hurt" is not an apology. It's the kind of false apology a politician spreads in the media when they're caught molesting children.

Then again, you're a marketer; and I realise full well this kind of perverse non-apology is exactly the kind of thing they teach in marketing schools these days, so maybe I shouldn't blame you. Still pissed off though that you think you can get away with this crap.
True. That phrases: "I'm sorry IF ...", I prefer Iwata's sorries 1000 times better. You just can be sorry or not.
avatar
Cavalary: Random idea (that I'm sure will may lawyers tie their underwear in knots through sheer mental strain, but anyway):
1. Ask around for the rights of an older game that isn't sold anywhere else. (Because if it is, somebody'll know who has the rights, right?)
2. Nobody seems to have them, or not enough to be able to negotiate them with you.
3. Put out a message that whoever can prove they have the rights will get their part of the revenue, release it for $9.99 and put aside 70% (I believe that was the usual dev's share?) from any revenue from it.
4. Whoever sues you over it and wins, proving they're the rights holder, gets the money, and you know who to negotiate with from then on. Whoever loses, well, loses.
avatar
skeletonbow: What an awesome business strategy, steal something you don't own and sell it and wait to get sued so you can negotiate terms and conditions with the rights owner. Brilliant! I bet that would make a company super profitable real fast.
It would be a risk. I would suggest to make new company for each game, get sued, if it is sorted out and the owner(s) are reasonable, they can sign with gog and get some money back, if they are not reasonable with their demands, than lose and go bankrupt... At least gog would know who to contact afterward... Sure it would not be cheap to create company for every game, but for the good ones it would be worth it imho... It would require those companies to act as scapegoats (if my translation is right).
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: I know we'll be rolling out more currencies in the future. The exact what and when I do not know. I can guarantee that for some of the countries it won't be any time soon that they see their local currency on GOG.
Can we use dollars in the meantime? I do not want to use euros.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by NetAndy
avatar
skeletonbow: What an awesome business strategy, steal something you don't own and sell it and wait to get sued so you can negotiate terms and conditions with the rights owner. Brilliant! I bet that would make a company super profitable real fast.
avatar
NetAndy: It would be a risk. I would suggest to make new company for each game, get sued, if it is sorted out and the owner(s) are reasonable, they can sign with gog and get some money back, if they are not reasonable with their demands, than lose and go bankrupt... At least gog would know who to contact afterward... Sure it would not be cheap to create company for every game, but for the good ones it would be worth it imho... It would require those companies to act as scapegoats (if my translation is right).
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: I know we'll be rolling out more currencies in the future. The exact what and when I do not know. I can guarantee that for some of the countries it won't be any time soon that they see their local currency on GOG.
avatar
NetAndy: Can we use dollars in the meantime? I do not want to use euros.
You can still pay in dollars for now.

Thats exactly what book publishers in our country do since they can't pay a lot for rights for publishing. And nobody sued them till now.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
Gearmos: Slip? Seriously, it was clearly intentional... and completely unnecessary.
The word "tools" was used intentionally and somewhat in jest for anyone not in full-on-gog-is-evil-I-must-hate-them mode. The "slip" was the fact that he meant to say "aren't" but accidentally typed "are" giving the opposite meaning. That was pretty clear to me personally before we even got it clarified, but then I don't have a big vendetta against GOG and try to find negative things in everything they say or do in order to fuel my hate either. ;o)

Nitpicking on his use of the word tools to denote people who would abuse the pricing system en-masse as described and try to circumvent it is petty. People who do that aren't tools, they are people who don't have strong principles themselves and don't have a leg to stand on casting stones at someone else for making compromises regarding their own principles.

Why is it that it seems most people who are the loudest in their opinions that GOG violated their principles, appear to not have the principle of retaining some modicum of civility or many other common principles to human decency themselves? I just see a lot of pot calling the kettle black when I read that.

Also if people purposefully look in someone's words to find a negative, they'll find one or they'll find something and put spin on it to turn it into one to suit their own purposes/agenda. Hardly someone that is what I'd think of as "principled".

Anyhow, mumble mumble, something about stones in glass houses, mumble mumble.
avatar
LiquidOxygen80: I clearly love the part where all the entitled "protesters" are allowed to run around shouting insults and behave like giant douchebags, but LAWDY LAWDY DON'T MAKE DEM TYPOS, TET.

I'm pretty sure once you throw Downfall parodies in, that clearly invokes Godwin's. JUST SAYIN' :P

For fuck's sake, people, just because it's the internet doesn't mean you can't act like ydowhosiewhatsis and Stormhammer, by voicing disapproval and displeasure in a clear, concise, meaningful and more importantly POLITE way. ( Big ups to the both of you guys, I +1 both your posts because of that.)

Jesus, I'm from the USA. WE'RE supposed to be the giant dickbags. >.>
I hope you see the irony in calling those who are against regional pricing entitled and douchebags and then complaining about insults.

Other than that I agree that it is not helpful to insult people. I have seen that more from people who defend regional pricing, but on both sides of the argument are people who should question their behavior.

Edit: Though in general the discussion has been very civil. There are thousands of posts now and relatively few insults.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by silentbob1138
avatar
Cavalary: Random idea (that I'm sure will may lawyers tie their underwear in knots through sheer mental strain, but anyway):
1. Ask around for the rights of an older game that isn't sold anywhere else. (Because if it is, somebody'll know who has the rights, right?)
2. Nobody seems to have them, or not enough to be able to negotiate them with you.
3. Put out a message that whoever can prove they have the rights will get their part of the revenue, release it for $9.99 and put aside 70% (I believe that was the usual dev's share?) from any revenue from it.
4. Whoever sues you over it and wins, proving they're the rights holder, gets the money, and you know who to negotiate with from then on. Whoever loses, well, loses.
Won't work. Distributing a copyrighted work is a criminal offence in most countries. So anyone who gets to point 3. is asking to be put in jail. And of course civil litigation will not end at 70% of the revenue...
What get's mixed up and what makes this all more complicated is, that there are two "regional pricings" the "fair" and the "differential". I personally I think the "fair" pricing (basically all get the same price just in local currencies is fine. If there are a few cent differences it's ok, you can't possibly adjust to each and every exchange rate and fee.

The second thing is the "differential" regional pricing with highly different prices. That's everything but fair. And that's why I opened (one of several like that) wishlist entries. If we can't get around those "differential" prices let's at least make it transparent when they are applied = mark the games and provide an easy list with the pricing zones and the prices. Wishlist here: http://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/full_disclosure_more_transparency
avatar
Gearmos: Slip? Seriously, it was clearly intentional... and completely unnecessary.
avatar
skeletonbow: The word "tools" was used intentionally and somewhat in jest for anyone not in full-on-gog-is-evil-I-must-hate-them mode. The "slip" was the fact that he meant to say "aren't" but accidentally typed "are" giving the opposite meaning. That was pretty clear to me personally before we even got it clarified, but then I don't have a big vendetta against GOG and try to find negative things in everything they say or do in order to fuel my hate either. ;o)

Nitpicking on his use of the word tools to denote people who would abuse the pricing system en-masse as described and try to circumvent it is petty. People who do that aren't tools, they are people who don't have strong principles themselves and don't have a leg to stand on casting stones at someone else for making compromises regarding their own principles.

Why is it that it seems most people who are the loudest in their opinions that GOG violated their principles, appear to not have the principle of retaining some modicum of civility or many other common principles to human decency themselves? I just see a lot of pot calling the kettle black when I read that.

Also if people purposefully look in someone's words to find a negative, they'll find one or they'll find something and put spin on it to turn it into one to suit their own purposes/agenda. Hardly someone that is what I'd think of as "principled".

Anyhow, mumble mumble, something about stones in glass houses, mumble mumble.
I do understand what your going at but I also understand people for breaking their principles if GOG breakes its own core principle and thats what they did. Fair pricing policy was on the webseite since they started and now its not listed anymore. So much for that.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by Matruchus
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: If we're seeing some crazy 40% of revenue from a game coming from RUS buyers, it's because people in Russia are reselling our game codes on some forum somewhere. And, yeah. The guys who are breaking their ToU to make some money? Tools.
Agreed. If I might put forth a solution suggestion should that occur...

price.russia == price.russia * 2;
problem_solved();

I license that code under the standard BSD license without the advertising clause, feel free to use it royalty free. ;o)
high rated
avatar
silentbob1138: How exactly were you unable to get a Kickstarter game that was promised to the backers to be on GoG DRM-free while regional pricing was not allowed? They needed to get the game on GoG at all costs or break a promise to their backers.
avatar
Leroux: I guess the answer to that question is that the change in the regional pricing policy was decided a long time before GOG announced it to the public.
If that is true, Gog didn't just abandon one of their core values, they would have deliberately lied last summer when they still talked about it as one of their core values.
avatar
skeletonbow: Agreed. If I might put forth a solution suggestion should that occur...

price.russia == price.russia * 2;
problem_solved();

I license that code under the standard BSD license without the advertising clause, feel free to use it royalty free. ;o)
I'm afraid giving the publishers free hand means that GOG can't set the price higher either :)
avatar
Fakum12: What get's mixed up and what makes this all more complicated is, that there are two "regional pricings" the "fair" and the "differential". I personally I think the "fair" pricing (basically all get the same price just in local currencies is fine. If there are a few cent differences it's ok, you can't possibly adjust to each and every exchange rate and fee.

The second thing is the "differential" regional pricing with highly different prices. That's everything but fair. And that's why I opened (one of several like that) wishlist entries. If we can't get around those "differential" prices let's at least make it transparent when they are applied = mark the games and provide an easy list with the pricing zones and the prices. Wishlist here: http://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/full_disclosure_more_transparency
I agree to that one.
If GOG relay insist that we get beep'ed wit unfair prising. They should at lest do so with style. Showing us just hov mutch extra we are asked to pay :D
Post edited February 28, 2014 by Agrilla
avatar
skeletonbow: Agreed. If I might put forth a solution suggestion should that occur...

price.russia == price.russia * 2;
problem_solved();

I license that code under the standard BSD license without the advertising clause, feel free to use it royalty free. ;o)
avatar
Novotnus: I'm afraid giving the publishers free hand means that GOG can't set the price higher either :)
Yea
avatar
skeletonbow: What an awesome business strategy, steal something you don't own and sell it and wait to get sued so you can negotiate terms and conditions with the rights owner. Brilliant! I bet that would make a company super profitable real fast.
avatar
Wishbone: Hehe, Cavalary is not the first to put forth that particular proposal. It has been suggested many times over the years, usually in jest, and borne out of frustration over the fact that for some classic old games, nobody knows who actually owns the rights.

Of course it is not practical due to the incurred legal fees, but one cannot help but think that if it was actually done, whoever did own the rights would surface like a cork in water. Sadly, in such cases nothing seems to happen until money is on the line.
It would be shady business practice to say the least. If some company were to do something like that I would consider it very shady to say the least and wonder what other shady practices they'd be willing to violate the law and roll the dice on. The bigger the company, the bigger the risks too. You just don't do things like that for a quick short term buck if you have an eye on your long term future.

Additionally a company that is trying to make the world a better place by offering DRM-free games with various benefits as a way to encourage people to buy from them instead of pirating games should not themselves be pirating video games in order to track down the owner. That is not a sensible way of doing business and has serious ramifications which one should not overlook when considering such an idea.

(Edited and reworded to clarify intentions)
Post edited February 28, 2014 by skeletonbow