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
JudasIscariot: Wow that is weird O.o
avatar
NetAndy: Hmm, I see the same thing (Firefox) when I do not maximize the window.

EDIT:
I forgot to add attachement;)
Please write to us about that, OK? :)
avatar
JudasIscariot: AFAIK, the plan to reprice the older games in the aforementioned currencies is to offset, for the most part, the fees incurred by currency exchange.
avatar
Wishbone: Well, for the older games, you can define the regions yourselves, yes? If so, does that mean that EU countries not in the eurozone will still pay in USD?
Wishbone, I really can't tell you the answer to that one because I don't know. The best thing I can recommend is saving that question for TET, OK?
high rated
avatar
mobutu: This answers just shows you that GOG does not care anymore about their principles it just money for the now.
avatar
Matruchus:
No, I mean that they're legitimately either not games we want or are games that are very challenging to sign. All the games with +500 votes on the wishlist? We've been trying to get them. We know you want them. We want them, too. But they're the cream of the crop, if you will. The best games from history. Most games aren't as good.

To explicate, I just looked up 12 games from the "A" part of Mobygames' adventure listings by advancing in counts of 5 (to try and avoid grabbing just grabbing a bunch of sequels), only counting games that were released before 2005, and only picking two games per pages of results, and then discarding any games that had no review ratings. I paid no attention to if these games were ever released on any PC-type platform. So it's a pretty weakly chosen random sample, but I think it will serve to illustrate my point. Let's see the scores are (adjusted to a 100 point scale):

ADAM: The Double Factor: 70 MobyScore
Adventure 3: Haunted Mansion: 28 MobyScore
Adventure in the Fifth Dimension: 80 MobyScore
Adventures of JP and Cosmo: A Friend Indeed: 74 MobyScore
Adventures of Robin Hood (DOS): 68 MobyScore
Africa Trail (Windows): 66 Moby Score
Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None: 69 MobyRank; 70 MobyScore
Agharta: The Hollow Earth: 53 MobyRank; 56 MobyScore
Aisle (DOS): 90 Mobyscore (with 58 for the browser version; I dunno why the split)
ALICE: Interactive Museum (Windows): 76 MobyScore
Alida (Windows): 60 MobyRank; 54 MobyScore
Alien Rape Escape: 44 MobyScore

So, yes. There are thousands and thousands of classic games that we could get on GOG.com. But absent any classic brand recognition that means that they might be interesting or culturally relevant to people, how many of those 12 would I want to put on GOG? There are a variety of elements we use to select games. Games with a MobyRank or MobyScore of over 70 are likely prospects. That's 3 of those 12. Maybe 4, if I investigate Aisle and see what's up with that weird review split. Wishlist is the next factor we look at:

ADAM: The Double Factor 2
Adventure 3: 0; maybe 5 if count some of the anthology votes.
Adventure in the Fifth Dimension: 0
Adventures of JP and Cosmo: 0
Adventures of Robin Hood: 0
Africa Trail: 4
Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None 30
Agharta: The Hollow Earth: 3
Aisle: 0
ALICE: Interactive Museum: 0
Alida: 9
Alien Rape Escape: 0 (<-thank heavens. That....that can't be a good game.)

So the only game with enough votes on the wishlist to stand out from the pack doesn't have a good enough MobyScore where it's a hot prospect. Now we could evaluate the game further and see if it just didn't get a fair shake in the reviews, but none of the 12 games I pseudo-randomly grabbed are the kind of thing that we would evaluate and immediately say, "Yes, that's going to sell enough copies that we can afford to go through the acquisition process."

My previous reply sounded dismissive. I'm sorry and that wasn't my intent. I wasn't saying that GOG.com has abandoned our efforts to bring back classic games to users. I was simply stating the fact that, out of the thousands and thousands of games that are classics that we *could* acquire, the number of games that *should* acquire is much lower.
avatar
NetAndy: It will not be radical (initially) but they plan to reprice all older games.
avatar
lostintime: If that is true, then it is cause for some concern... I initially read that as newer titles being priced. I hope they would not do that to games already in the catalog. Ideally they should just choose a price in one currency and convert to all others. Prices fluctuate after all.

Edit: gog already answered part of my own concern. Just curious, what if the value radically changes between currencies after these prices are set?
Of course we'll keep tabs on that. :)
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: So the only game with enough votes on the wishlist to stand out from the pack doesn't have a good enough MobyScore where it's a hot prospect. Now we could evaluate the game further and see if it just didn't get a fair shake in the reviews, but none of the 12 games I pseudo-randomly grabbed are the kind of thing that we would evaluate and immediately say, "Yes, that's going to sell enough copies that we can afford to go through the acquisition process."

My previous reply sounded dismissive. I'm sorry and that wasn't my intent. I wasn't saying that GOG.com has abandoned our efforts to bring back classic games to users. I was simply stating the fact that, out of the thousands and thousands of games that are classics that we *could* acquire, the number of games that *should* acquire is much lower.
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: How about making a list of possible aquisitions, and asking your customers if/which they want?
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. :)
Post edited February 27, 2014 by TheEnigmaticT
avatar
JudasIscariot: Wishbone, I really can't tell you the answer to that one because I don't know. The best thing I can recommend is saving that question for TET, OK?
avatar
Wishbone: Sorry, I figured since you were here and were talking, you might have been given some answers.

I think it's pointless throwing more questions at TET right now. He probably has enough on his plate. I'll wait until he posts some of the answers to the questions they've picked up from this thread. It's possible he'll mention it, and if not, I can ask him then.
Sorry I've been AFK today; I needed to get other work that's been pending over my head all week done finally today and couldn't really check out the forums.

In regards to your question, I don't know either. :(

That's a bizdev question, and while we do follow Steam's conventions (for the most part) with the new game we've put up for pre-order, I do not know what that team is planning for classic games. That said, if you have a compelling reason why things should be one way or the other, be sure to share it with me and I'll pass it along.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: So we promised an answer for you guys today, and I've been hanging out at the office late in hopes it would develop; sadly, it seems that a few answers are still hung up on confirmations. Sorry about this, but we are going to be having a final go at it first thing tomorrow morning our time and will hopefully get all your questions answered by then.
avatar
dr4gz0r: Appreciating it TET!

Should we expect a further announcement (with the answers) regarding the situation, or rather you/the staff replying to some of the questions in this topic?
Both. I'll answer a few more myself here tonight, but we have a big list of questions we're working on getting official answers to tomorrow.
Post edited February 27, 2014 by TheEnigmaticT
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: So we promised an answer for you guys today, and I've been hanging out at the office late in hopes it would develop; sadly, it seems that a few answers are still hung up on confirmations. Sorry about this, but we are going to be having a final go at it first thing tomorrow morning our time and will hopefully get all your questions answered by then.
avatar
PaladinWay: You do realize that post 2,589 expressing hope for getting all of our questions answered tomorrow seems to be some degree of an overstatement, don't you?

I'm being harsh in the above statement, but trying to do so to point out how these things are being perceived.

For your answer first thing tomorrow your time, I'd like to add another statement requesting that your answers cover the questions posed in this comment: http://www.gog.com/forum/general/letter_from_the_md_about_regional_pricing/post438. There are certainly other concerns to address too, but I think the ones in that comment should be part of the set of questions that are answered.
avatar
dhundahl: Punishment suggestion: A fast forward recording of this topic being read aloud end to end with a clock in the background to ensure they're not cheating? Well, it's almost too cruel, isn't it?
avatar
PaladinWay: Yeah, we shouldn't suggest anything that'll violate the Geneva Conventions.
Well, I"ll try. I have answers. Lemme track down questions and we'll get this show on the road.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: I was simply stating the fact that, out of the thousands and thousands of games that are classics that we *could* acquire, the number of games that *should* acquire is much lower.
avatar
PaladinWay: You stated this in response to some criticism, and it was a fair answer to that criticism. However, what's your stance on games that are offered to you? If an old game comes to you and says, "Here's our old game, some random extra content as bonuses, compatibility fixes for Win XP, Vista, 7, & 8 are patched in where relevant and included in this 2 page document where procedural. Please put this in your catalog for $5.99 with all your standard terms." At that point, what's your boundary for it being worth it? Even with that, you'd need some man hours to test, package, and post, so I can see turning that down if it's believed no one in the world would buy it. But what kind of purchasing estimate does it take at that point?

Just curious. I won't be upset if you ignore this, just a question that came to mind reading your reply that I honestly would like to know the answer to.
At that point, it still comes back to the quality of the title or the fit for our audience (since that's another aspect I didn't go into last night; you could make the best Flappy Bird clone in the world, but we'll never carry it here). We've turned down games offered in that manner before simply because either the calibre of the game or the type of game it was doesn't match what we sell.

Exact numbers, sadly, I can't share. Both because I should not and because it's the job of TurnipSlayer and others to project if it's worth it for us to acquire a game.
avatar
PaladinWay: You know, if your desire here is to be fair with regional pricing as an option on old games, why not offer the choice? Nobody could be mad about that. So for Eurozone customers with old games list both the US $ and Euro prices on the store page and at checkout put a radio button saying "Pay in Euros" or "Pay in US dollars" and let the individuals decide which is better for them personally. Anyone who says you're being greedy bastards for giving them an additional option is clearly dumb, however you can have a lot of people who've figured out nice exchange rate tricks or perhaps keep an account in US dollars that they populate at favorable exchange rates for this sort of purchase and you can't argue with all the possible scenarios there.
Offering the choice causes a few problems:

1. We've complicated checkout. That's not good from a business perspective, a usability perspective, and even a customer support perspective.

2. Suppose we don't care about complicating checkout because all of our users are smart enough to not get lost when presented with a choice like that. From there we have two choices on our side: fixed local currency prices or dynamic local currency prices.

2a. Fixed prices make us more or less a ForEx speculation website. Before buying, then you have to check to see which is better for you today.

2b. Dynamic pricing means that we can't advertise our prices anywhere, because we have no idea what the price will be the day after the ad is done.

Wrap into that the fact that the complications on reporting and paying royalties to our partners are literally inconceivable (as in, I literally cannot conceive of all of the ways that could go badly for us), and I think you can see how this is not a good choice for us.

I do not argue that offering pricing in EUR or RUB is not ideal; our previous flat pricing worldwide was also not ideal. We believe that this new alternative is better for users and developers alike than what we had been doing in the past.

I'll be going through and trying to answer more questions here, but if you've got another one please hit me up and I'll try to reply. :)
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: Mostly, we couldn't keep up with the number of comments and also figure out sensible replies, so rather than post something sort of coherent late yesterday, we're regrouping and working on this now.
avatar
PaladinWay: Not being able to keep up with the number of comments on a thread like this is...well...just human. Anyone who expected you to read and reply to everything clearly isn't being rational. Personally, the thing I'd expected you to do is open the forum and look for comments on the current or last page or two and start replying. Saying, "I can't read as fast as all of you are commenting" is very human and very valid and any reasonable person would accept that as valid. No comments at all, when you've already lost trust and know you've lost trust and started the thread because you lost trus, and not starting to comment until AFTER someone points out how to find all the staff comments in a thread...well, that's not going to inspire additional trust.
I can understand that; what happens when things go awry in most any company is that things keep getting escalated around. Normally I can handle most questions and answers in a thread like this because I know answers or I'm empowered to make decisions and then make sure that they come true. The questions and the nature of them from this most recent piece of news require that people who are not normally involved in answering questions on the forums get a chance to answer them.

Some of those people, for added difficulty, are not currently in the same country as the rest of us.

So the timeline for replies here is very, very long compared to how we would like it to be. It's not great, and I'm sorry it's taken so long to get answers ready and back to you all.
high rated
avatar
weissel: [[lots of maths]]

Just sayin', the "identical USD value" may be "easy", but not necessarily fair.
Thanks for the full breakdown there. I think it demonstrates our point as well as anything I could offer.

And you're right; there's no "fair" approach that's always fair for everyone. PWYW is fair, kind of, although I'd argue it's pretty crap for the game makers. Unless we require you submit us your tax statements for the last year and use that to evaluate what we should charge you, it will never be "fair" in the social justice sense of the word.

For our catalog of classic content, I think we can make it really damn close to flat pricing everywhere (and we will, of course, re-adjust the currency exchange if something goes titanically weird with them. I believe our current target is that if the price difference between <<local>> and <<USD>> gets to be more than 5%, it gets looked at? The numbers aren't final yet, of course...), but with the convenience of the fact that we're now charging in local currencies. This is a big deal because we can now also accept more local payment methods. Suddenly, entire countries that can't really buy games from us will be able to do so. I'd note that, in our new setup, we're still eating the costs of VAT, which means we make less from EUR and UK than we do from the rest of the world for every game sold. We believe that flat pricing is a better alternative (when we can manage it), so we're happy enough to take that hit to make it a better offer for you guys.

For new games, we're offering competitive pricing (as in, it costs the same price on GOG.com as it does at any other store in the world.). Then, beyond that, we're offering something from our own pockets to offset the fact that, yeah, regional pricing can suck when it's not done fairly. But the argument over what's a bigger fight (DRM or flat pricing) was one that we worked on for a long time, here, and our decision was that to advance the cause of DRM-Free gaming.

You could argue that we could have done both, but we believe that we'd been hitting a whole lot of walls trying to fight both at once. And so we chose which was more important to us and, we believe, to gamers in general. We're not giving up completely on making regional pricing better. We will push for better terms for regionally priced games when and where we can. But part of growing up is realizing which fights to pick. I think we can make many more gamers happy with our new policies than we would have with our older ones.

Some of you feel betrayed by this change. I understand that. Some of you are incandescently angry about it. I'm sorry that we've made you so upset. Every change that we've made in the last 5 years has been a change that we believe will help make GOG.com bigger, bring us more gamers, and help us sign more big content DRM-Free on GOG. 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.
high rated
avatar
Entropy87: I just realized something. Even though things changed for the worse we, the GOG community, can be really proud of ourselves because this must be the most polite shitstorm ever.
It's been remarkably civil, yeah. I've seen *good* threads on other places that were a lot less civil than this. :)
avatar
dhundahl: What you're saying depends entirely on how the regional pricing model is implemented. Regional pricing means that prices are different in various regions. It does not necessarily imply that prices are higher. As an example, the car industry actually used to sell cars a bit cheaper in Denmark to boost their sales. This was necessary because the Danish government, being a bunch of greedy buggers, tax car sales with a 180% registration fee and on top of that a 25% VAT. If a car is sold at 100, the registration fee adds on 180, taking the car price to 280. Then comes 25% VAT, taking the car price to 350.

Unfortunately this principle was in violation with some EU bullcrap and the car industry had to align their prices across the EU instead of giving one country preferential treatment. I'm pretty sure that was EU-speak for the German government not liking how Germans could buy cheaper cars across the border.

The point is, regional prices just mean different prices in each region. It doesn't have to mean that price go up and so far we've got no real indication that GOG is going to hike the prices to any significant degree, at least not beyond what forces outside their control force them to do.
avatar
Matruchus: Well will have to see but at the momen everything points that way.
I would hope that our answers have helped clear this up a bit: we're not raising pricing in any significant degree for back catalog (indeed, one user analysis suggests our current proposed pricing is actually a very slight pricing cut for the EU). For some new games (those which are regionally priced in other stores) we will be charging the same amount here on GOG.com that you'd be charged anywhere else in the world. If you're that opposed to regionally priced games overall, then there's no need to buy them. On the other hand, bringing games DRM-free to digital distribution seems like a big plus to me; for all of those who don't mind the regional prices, I would think that you wouldn't mind that they now have those games DRM-Free somewhere, even if you don't care for them.
avatar
bouncedk: Regional pricing / locking = DRM. Not full fledged super annoying DRM, but it certainly IS DRM. So you better eat your hat Enigmatic T ...
Well, the definition of DRM is "Digital Rights Management (DRM) is a class of technologies[1] that are used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders, and individuals with the intent to control the use of digital content and devices after sale;(1)". Under any circumstance I can think of, regional pricing is by definition something that's occurring before sale (possibly during sale; I don't see how it's after the sale). For the moment, I believe my hat's safe; that said, tell me why you think it counts as DRM, because I'm curious what "DRM" means to you.
high rated
avatar
MoP: . After all these years I really hoped Your "net" would be more encompassing than the wishlist and the "metacritics", which just seems short-sighted.

Hoping Your sights will widen eventually (or somebody creates a GOY, "Gems of Yore" or something and gets to it ;P).
Our net is as wide as it can be, practically. I think the thing that is least known by gamers is that the rights for pretty much every single 10+ year old game are complicated. The level of complication varies immensely, but the more old-school and indie that the industry was, the fewer details were handled with things like "contracts" or "documentation." The more obscure a game is, the harder it is for us to get it, because likely the odder the rights are.

Theodore Sturgeon proposed a law that suggests that 90% of everything is crap. I think he's probably pretty pessimistic, but I do believe that Pareto's Principle suggests that 20% of the games in any genre probably accounted for 80% of the revenue (and, thus, were probably the ones that were good enough to be the ones most worth having on GOG). To that end, when you say we have 5.35% of the adventure games market on GOG.com, I'd suggest that's we probably actually have 25% of all of the adventure games that would be most worth bringing to GOG. I would find it believable to say we're working on acquiring at least another 25% of them (based on who owns them and who we're talking to constantly), we've tried to acquire another 25% and couldn't get the rights, and the last 25% may never have even been released on the PC market.

We will never give up looking for more classic games. Fortunately as time goes by, more and more games become "classics". The challenge of releasing 2 - 6 classic games a week remains a pretty hefty one. We have found that adding in the revenue from newer games helps us acquire classics (by signing package deals with partners), helps give us enough size and legitimacy to deal with companies who might not deal with a small, crazy company from Europe, and gives us the resources to work longer and harder for the games that we know everyone wants to bring to GOG most, and which we hope we will be able to someday.
avatar
Redfoxe: Can i just fling in a list of maybe old games they could perhaps look into?
So that they arent crap or anything ;) (sorry gonna have a field day with that for a long time)

Age of Empires/Mythology Series
C&C Series
Civilazation 1-4
Eye of the beholder franchise
Blade Runner
Lucasarts games are probably their top priotity, so i shouldnt name that one ;)
heretic 2?
Knights of the Old Republic 1+2 (on steam yeah i know :P)
Mafia
max Payne 1+2
Elder Scrolls (up until Skyrim) guessed you have worked on negoatiation a bit already there.
Quake, Doom, Wolfenstein games
The first The Sims (yeah right :P like EA will drop that one)
No One Lives Forever
Aliens vs. Predator 1+2
American McGee's Alice
Bad Mojo
Black & White
The Dark Eye
Dungeon Siege
Throne of Darkness
Emperor of the Fading Suns
Heavy gear
Jazz Jackrabbit 2
Marathon seriers
Mechwarrior games
Classic Warhammer games (Shadow of the horned rat, Chaos Gate etc)
Motocross Madness
The Neverhood
One Must Fall: 2097
Outlaws
Worms World Party
The Wheel of Time

I guess im missing alot here. Well this is one of the reasons i mostly want old PC games here.
I didnt have a PC when i was a kid. It wasnt until maybe the 2000s i got one.

So i have missed alot of the history of PC games. But i cant say that you havent added games, i thank you for those you have managed to add :)

But dont get me wrong, not against tripple a titles being added in. The day i can play the Mass Effect/Dragon Age Series, maybe Might and magic X without draconian drm, i can be a happy lad.
(but i guess also thats when ill win the lottery...)
My previous reply seems to have people thinking I was saying that everything we haven't released is crap. Some examples of games from your list above that we would like to add but, if I recall correctly, the rights are a complete wreck:

Eye of the beholder franchise
Blade Runner
No One Lives Forever
Aliens vs. Predator 1+2
Emperor of the Fading Suns
Heavy gear
Mechwarrior games
The Wheel of Time

Are all extremely difficult to sign. As in, no one owns all of the rights to any of them. They're all licensed, and the licenses for them are no longer clear...