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
hedwards: Companies tend to pay closer attention in cases like this when their faithful are willing to cut off their own nose in order to spite them over the treatment. Gog's just fooling itself if it thinks that it can continue to be successful without the support of the community.
I see it as they're overestimating the power of the publishers and underestimating the power of the consumers. They are better about that ratio than most, but I think in this instance they've made a bit of a mistake. Not in their final course, but in the way they communicated it. If they'd had this discussion immediately after deciding internally that it looked appropriate and honestly followed what their users wanted, they could've still gone down this exact same path and been fine.

I can forgive someone for making a choice I don't like or agree with when I believe they respect me and my opinion and all things considered found it appropriate to differ. There's a big difference when someone arrives a the exact same conclusion but doesn't respect me or my opinion. A bit of conversation before things are decided and an explanation why there's disagreement and a "Sorry, we're going another way" before they go that other way makes a world of difference over an after-the-fact explanation, which might be even more thorough and just as valid.

I say all this as someone from the US, who doesn't appear likely to see any price difference. It's not an impact to my wallet, it's a question of trust. It's like this year in the "I want to tell myself I'll get in shape but I know it's less likely than I want to believe"-type impulse. Chances are strong I cancel whatever I get without using it much. So I got a membership at a YMCA because while they're a bit more expensive than others I could find for my situation, they are charitable in general and the money I waste being lazy has a pretty good chance of doing some good for someone as opposed to just being a profit for some random rich guy. While I can't claim it on my taxes, from a personal morality stance I can consider it charitable as opposed to a waste.

Before all this, my decision criteria for buying something on GoG included the thought of, "Well, I may never play that game, and perhaps I only consider it worth $1.00 on the contingency that some day I'll change my mind. However, for $5.00 then I'm contributing to help bring more games I do want to be available. I'll go ahead and spend $5.00." Those decisions aren't going to go the same way in the future.
avatar
hedwards: Companies tend to pay closer attention in cases like this when their faithful are willing to cut off their own nose in order to spite them over the treatment. Gog's just fooling itself if it thinks that it can continue to be successful without the support of the community.
avatar
PaladinWay: I see it as they're overestimating the power of the publishers and underestimating the power of the consumers. They are better about that ratio than most, but I think in this instance they've made a bit of a mistake. Not in their final course, but in the way they communicated it. If they'd had this discussion immediately after deciding internally that it looked appropriate and honestly followed what their users wanted, they could've still gone down this exact same path and been fine.

I can forgive someone for making a choice I don't like or agree with when I believe they respect me and my opinion and all things considered found it appropriate to differ. There's a big difference when someone arrives a the exact same conclusion but doesn't respect me or my opinion. A bit of conversation before things are decided and an explanation why there's disagreement and a "Sorry, we're going another way" before they go that other way makes a world of difference over an after-the-fact explanation, which might be even more thorough and just as valid.

I say all this as someone from the US, who doesn't appear likely to see any price difference. It's not an impact to my wallet, it's a question of trust. It's like this year in the "I want to tell myself I'll get in shape but I know it's less likely than I want to believe"-type impulse. Chances are strong I cancel whatever I get without using it much. So I got a membership at a YMCA because while they're a bit more expensive than others I could find for my situation, they are charitable in general and the money I waste being lazy has a pretty good chance of doing some good for someone as opposed to just being a profit for some random rich guy. While I can't claim it on my taxes, from a personal morality stance I can consider it charitable as opposed to a waste.

Before all this, my decision criteria for buying something on GoG included the thought of, "Well, I may never play that game, and perhaps I only consider it worth $1.00 on the contingency that some day I'll change my mind. However, for $5.00 then I'm contributing to help bring more games I do want to be available. I'll go ahead and spend $5.00." Those decisions aren't going to go the same way in the future.
"Hey, if any company deserves my hard earned money, it's GOG.com!"

- Me, until a few days ago.
I'd like to know what some of those better ones out of that list of 100 you have are.
Because, for the most part. I think when gog throws their percentage of classic games out there... they mean the games worth paying money for.

Think about it, you can see they are shooting for titles they can say "That's worth about 5 bucks.."

Not many people are going to pay that for a game like Rogue.

And, there are other methods for acquiring such titles.

I also have to wonder if the 2 people above me even read the post.

You're acting all hurt, like your trust was violated because they made a decision behind closed doors to actually make pricing more fair.

Granted I'm just stepping into this whole thing and this post is the first thing I've even seen that made me aware of some kinda drama happening out there in the internet world... but I'd have to say. I've never seen such a huge misdirection of wasted hate towards a business.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by MrEos
I've bought 148 games from GOG since 2010. Last year I bought 3. I do business with GOG mostly to buy old classic games (I consider "old games" games older than the year 2000). Most old games aren't "garbage". I saw this crap coming.:-)
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: And that's the reason I don't buy GOG.com's explanation, especially with these examples.
This is one of the difficult areas to judge in human nature. If you have time, I suggest reading the whole of https://www.schneier.com/essay-155.html . It's at a fairly accessible level and talks about some of the tendencies we have for risk assessment. The relevance here is that GoG most likely has a tendency to be caught in an echo chamber effect. They spend 30 hours a week negotiating with people who believe X,Y,&Z. If they go into that with a strong belief that X is wrong, they'll still slowly start to believe Y & Z because it'll be more common and available in their lives, which the primitive part of the brain associates with increased likelihood.

Example would be that when we were living in the wild, knowledge of lion attacks would make us watch out for lion attacks, and since we probably heard "news" from an area less than a lion's daily range, that's a very helpful survival instinct. In modern times of 24-hour news cycles trying to fill slow spots with things that will keep people's attention and the ability to warn an entire nation every time a child is kidnapped, that risk assessment tendency is no longer helpful, as it promotes unnecessary precaution for a risk that is less likely than we'd bet.

All that being said, after the fact, how can you truly determine the degree someone believes what they've been exposed to in a non-representative sample and how much is a deliberate agenda.

Differences in perception versus intention are hard. Especially with diverse environments.
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: I haven't seen a classic game released on GOG in the last six months that I absolutely HAD to have. Yet I could give them a list of at least 100 games I'd instabuy if they appeared here (well, I WOULD have instabought before we all got treated with arrogance and condescension by just about every GOG staffer that appears on here. From now on I'll be taking my business elsewhere).
If I'd have provided GoG with an Instabuy list for myself, I would've gone back on it due to EULAs that came along with them.

I'm looking at you, Kyrandia trilogy and the damned EA EULA...
Post edited February 28, 2014 by PaladinWay
avatar
MrEos: I'd like to know what some of those better ones out of that list of 100 you have are.
Because, for the most part. I think when gog throws their percentage of classic games out there... they mean the games worth paying money for.

Think about it, you can see they are shooting for titles they can say "That's worth about 5 bucks.."

Not many people are going to pay that for a game like Rogue.

And, there are other methods for acquiring such titles.

I also have to wonder if the 2 people above me even read the post.

You're acting all hurt, like your trust was violated because they made a decision behind closed doors to actually make pricing more fair.

Granted I'm just stepping into this whole thing and this post is the first thing I've even seen that made me aware of some kinda drama happening out there in the internet world... but I'd have to say. I've never seen such a huge misdirection of wasted hate towards a business.
I read your post, and I'll raise you a very fair comment by a GoG staff member to me asking something similar to you.

Here's the thing. You haven't been here as long based on your registration date. They used to make a big deal about the no regional pricing thing. It doesn't impact my wallet any more than it impacts yours. The thing for me is if they went back on one thing they used to make a big deal, how much more does it take them to go back on another, and another, and another. When do they become yet another business I have to abandon. I want them to prove me wrong. I want them to make me feel dumb for ever believing that of them. I've said that in previous comments, in direct reply to GoG staff members.

It's like if you're dealing with someone in your life, and they have a hard decision to make. Let's say they make the decision that you would make, and it'll impact you, but you can understand and agree with that final decision. Now, let's say that they decide to tell you about it as if you're too dumb to understand, or try to distract you and pretend they didn't have to make that decision, or just tell you to deal with it and pretend they don't think you have any reason to be upset. While you can forgive the final decision, are you going to ever forget that they think you're an idiot, or want to distract you instead of tell you the truth, or are arrogant and uncaring enough to tell you they don't care about your problems?

While none of those are a direct analogy for GoG that fits, to me a lot of this is more the way they chose to do this shows a lack of respect orders of magnitude more than the path they chose to follow.
"Fair local pricing", you claim, except that your new regional pricing is now making those same games that have been available to Australians all this time more expensive than they have been all this time.
No, that's not fair, and no, I won't accept it. If it had just been those three new games, I could have understood. After all, when the Witcher 2 came out CDProjekt RED went and explained themselves about the price needing to be changed and publicly apologised for it; they're stuck with obligations, and I respected that they at least had the guts to admit that.
But you guys have NO obligations whatsoever to now go and screw us over with your entire catalogue, breaking your promises about what I once considered a great and fair site that still stuck up for its users and regional equality.

I'll give it another two years before TheEnigmaticT is eating his hat when you decide to screw us over again.
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: Okay, y'all. It's 7.30 here, and I've been at this for a touch under 6 hours. I'm pretty much done for the night, because the monthly company party is going on and I promised Judas that I'd teach him how to juggle flaming chainsaws.

Thanks for talking, I hope I answered the most pressing of your questions, and I'll check back in on Monday--or possibly earlier, although I make no promises--to see if there is anything I've left unanswered that I actually know the answers to.

EDIT: I don't know how to juggle, but Judas doesn't know that. I think I'll let him go first. >.>
After reading through your replies and spending way too much time myself on this post, I'm a bit disappointed that http://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_drunk_thread?staff=yes shows up empty as opposed to you having a post there after dealing with all of this.

I know, probably against company policy...
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: And that's the reason I don't buy GOG.com's explanation, especially with these examples.
avatar
PaladinWay: This is one of the difficult areas to judge in human nature. If you have time, I suggest reading the whole of https://www.schneier.com/essay-155.html . It's at a fairly accessible level and talks about some of the tendencies we have for risk assessment. The relevance here is that GoG most likely has a tendency to be caught in an echo chamber effect. They spend 30 hours a week negotiating with people who believe X,Y,&Z. If they go into that with a strong belief that X is wrong, they'll still slowly start to believe Y & Z because it'll be more common and available in their lives, which the primitive part of the brain associates with increased likelihood.

Example would be that when we were living in the wild, knowledge of lion attacks would make us watch out for lion attacks, and since we probably heard "news" from an area less than a lion's daily range, that's a very helpful survival instinct. In modern times of 24-hour news cycles trying to fill slow spots with things that will keep people's attention and the ability to warn an entire nation every time a child is kidnapped, that risk assessment tendency is no longer helpful, as it promotes unnecessary precaution for a risk that is less likely than we'd bet.

All that being said, after the fact, how can you truly determine the degree someone believes what they've been exposed to in a non-representative sample and how much is a deliberate agenda.

Differences in perception versus intention are hard. Especially with diverse environments.
Thanks for the link, I'll give it a read when I have time.

I will just add, that GOG.com made a customer survey, before introducing DLC/Season passes, to get feedback from their customers, if they would be OK with that.

But now, when they change one of their core values, something they said they would never do, something they said would cause GOG.com to explode(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b6P3yOTR2Vc#t=1811), they didn't.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by Ichwillnichtmehr
Question

On subject of Kickstarters and regional pricing -- most of them are dev's + backing of backers to get the game done. Most of them will not have a separate publisher (although i have noticed a handful had 'a major investor" on some of them). How can a indie dev who got funded via kickstarter justify having regional pricing once the game is released? - i dont know the status of Divinity Original Sin - will they have retail presence for the game?.If not, why regional price when its under their own control?.
avatar
PaladinWay:
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: I will just add, that GOG.com made a customer survey, before introducing DLC/Season passes, to get feedback from their customers, if they would be OK with that.

But now, when they change one of their core values, something they said they would never do, something they said would cause GOG.com to explode(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6P3yOTR2Vc&t=1194), they didn't.
I don't disagree with you in the slightest. I think a survey could've allowed them to do this exact same thing in a way that wouldn't cause the outrage, just maybe some sadness, and I really wish they had done so (and I would've most likely been voting that they do what they did). Now I'm left second guessing them at every turn and waiting for them to screw me over.
avatar
RevGalen: I've bought 148 games from GOG since 2010. Last year I bought 3. I do business with GOG mostly to buy old classic games (I consider "old games" games older than the year 2000). Most old games aren't "garbage". I saw this crap coming.:-)
There are just as many turkeys or crap old games as there are shite indies (and this coming from an longtime gamer - arguably fewer indies will be Classics so to say down the track imho).
Thats the way the industry works.
avatar
Ichwillnichtmehr: I will just add, that GOG.com made a customer survey, before introducing DLC/Season passes, to get feedback from their customers, if they would be OK with that.

But now, when they change one of their core values, something they said they would never do, something they said would cause GOG.com to explode(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6P3yOTR2Vc&t=1194), they didn't.
avatar
PaladinWay: I don't disagree with you in the slightest. I think a survey could've allowed them to do this exact same thing in a way that wouldn't cause the outrage, just maybe some sadness, and I really wish they had done so (and I would've most likely been voting that they do what they did). Now I'm left second guessing them at every turn and waiting for them to screw me over.
I know that hindsight is 20/20, but this even a blind man should have seen.
M.D./GOG -

I applaud you. You are being open and honest with your customers and supporters. I appreciate that. Irrespective of changing core values...markets change, consumers change, catalogs change and sometimes, so too, must direction. Thank you for your openness, honest and transparency. I have been...and always will be...a loyal supporter.
avatar
Niggles: Question

On subject of Kickstarters and regional pricing -- most of them are dev's + backing of backers to get the game done. Most of them will not have a separate publisher (although i have noticed a handful had 'a major investor" on some of them). How can a indie dev who got funded via kickstarter justify having regional pricing once the game is released? - i dont know the status of Divinity Original Sin - will they have retail presence for the game?.If not, why regional price when its under their own control?.
They may have retail. The main point, and one that some indie devs seem to fully recognize and appreciate, is that the backers are their publishers, and demands of the backers (if a sufficient majority and reasonable from business and software development stances) should be treated similarly to demands of the publishers.

If you're a backer of a game, speak up about regional pricing sooner rather than later (though you should allow for making up for VAT that's deducted from the purchase price as opposed to added to it later). You may be pleasantly surprised by the results. That or you may manage to steer a number of other potential backers away from supporting developers in the future that they would have an ideological issue with supporting.
Post edited February 28, 2014 by PaladinWay