I'd say definitely Divinity. Probably not Eternity as it may be too far out. Don't know about Wasteland 2.
Wasn't aware they did the free game thing with The Witcher 2, or I just forgot because I'd have paid US prices anyway. Very cool of them.
GOG News and Updates 2014
- Thread starter Minsc
- Start date
- Status
Wasn't aware they did the free game thing with The Witcher 2, or I just forgot because I'd have paid US prices anyway. Very cool of them.
Minsc
Gold Member
If you want to consider 2008 new, we've had 15 other releases 2009 or newer this year (just Jan+Feb) in addition to the 3 STALKER games, so there are a bunch of newer games releasing on GOG now. With more to come, and big ones too going by the recent chatter above.
That is a shitty thing to do, online regional pricing is just flat out discrimination!
If an owner of a brick and mortar store started charging different prices based on someone's country of origin, they would get their shit kicked in!
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
I think it's a good thing. Yes, discriminating between regions is an unfortunate practice, but if it was genuinely impeding bigger games from coming to the store, then I think it's a fair compromise. I like being able to buy games on GOG instead of Steam. It feels like I own them, because there's no restrictions on what I can do once I buy them. If I have to pay a little more for that privilege, fine. I feel like the product I'm getting on GOG is worth it.
Though I suppose that's easy to say, coming from America.
Eh, price discrimination is everywhere, anyway. Ever gone to a movie theater? They discriminate based on age.
Nobody's gotten their shit kicked in over some geriatric dude getting in for $5.
This is what mclem was referring to. They're getting more games on the store DRM free, and they're trying to make up for it with a free game covering the regional price difference. I'd say this is overall a good thing, though I don't think anybody really preorders a game with the intention of getting another cheaper game along with it. They could not sell the game to anyone at all, have regional price differences, or offer a "free" game to cover the price difference. Seems like they're doing the best they can in this situation.GOG said:
That is nothing a like!
Giving a discount to the elderly because they would have a hard time affording it otherwise =! Turning around and changing more just because of the country of origin of someone that just walked into your shop!
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Pfffff. Old people can be rich as fuck. You don't know someone's financial situation just because of their age or country, and in any case, it's irrelevant. Price discrimination is everywhere, in all sorts of forms, and there's nothing particularly sinister about it as a concept.
It might not seem like it when you're on the 'more expensive' side, but that is actually one of the reasons for regional pricing.
It's not the only one, of course, I'm not claiming it is an altruistic measure (it does still lead to the pubs making more money!) - and I do *strongly* dislike it from a personal standpoint - but if regional pricing didn't exist, there would be regions where the average person couldn't realistically afford games.
CaptainGyro
Banned
If they do not know someones financial situation based off the country, why the fuck are they charging more for some people?!
But it is not like they are dropping prices for some with lower wages, they are increasing the price for some over what they are clearly happy with.
Hell, if you look at stuff like PPP between countries, you would see that places like Aus do not even get close to the double the usable money over the US that is needed to make up for the flat out doubling in price of games!
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Differences in the value of various currencies, difference in the relative spending power of most people in a given region, differences in piracy rates, etc.
If GOG wants to charge the same flat price everywhere, but a publisher charges higher prices in some regions than others on Steam, why would they bother releasing a game on GOG? Everyone can buy it for that lower, flat price, and the publisher loses out on profits. GOG's not a significant enough chunk of the market to compensate for that loss in profits, either.
There's also the issue of the legal agreements in place with publishers. Many of these agreements account for price discrimination in different regions, or the developers have agreements with different publishers to publish in different regions. The problem here is that if GOG requires flat pricing, then those contracts make it impossible to put the game on GOG.
The rationale behind region pricing in games really comes down to the contracts 99% of the time. So when GOG says that they have to get rid of that policy in order to get these games, I believe them.
At the end of the day, the product they sell is still uncompromised. That's what's really important.
Delusibeta
Banned
Oh, and they open the window for region restrictions, too.
This has the potential to be the biggest fuckup since the joke shutdown.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
DRM-free classic games at low low prices, same price around the world with bonuses -> DRM-free classic (with new indie) games at the same price around the world with bonuses -> DRM-free games and DLC at the same price around the world, most with bonuses -> DRM-free games and DLC, most with bonuses ->
Before today:
(It's small but #2 says 'One world, fair price')
Today:
Indeed it's a bit concerning. Some of us have talked about this in the past, and I get why GOG has had to move in new directions. I think bringing indies to the store was a great idea and smart move. Yet, it has to be demoralizing to see your games sold dirt cheap in bundles and wonder how you're going to get people to buy that game on your own store. I imagined someone at GOG seeing Humble Bundle 11 on Tuesday and thinking, "Damn it, not again."
The writing's been on the wall for a year or so, though. Last year GOG did a customer survey asking how people felt about DLC, multiplayer DRM, early access, etc. They've been facing a shrinking pool of classics they can acquire for distribution, and they've had to shift onto newer games to maintain a steady flow of releases. I suppose today's news was inevitable - if GOG wants to continue to grow and bring in customers while marketing their DRM-free philosophy, they unfortunately have to compromise to meet publisher demands. Even a couple years ago GOG talked about the risks of devaluing games with high discounts (which I agree with), but they had to offer higher discounts to stay competitive. I sympathize with them - I really do. I'm surprised they've held out this long. Just looking at the Fallout situation - with Zenimax not even acknowledging GOG's existence, it seems that GOG doesn't have much of a bargaining chip with publishers in an industry that is largely accepting of DRM, regional pricing, etc.
While DRM-free and one fair price are not directly related, both form the heart of what GOG has been - a place that essentially gives customers an experience they may not get elsewhere. And that's what I'm seeing is the primary concern on the forum. It's not just that select few new releases will have regional prices (games GOG would not have otherwise carried) - it's that a fundamental core philosophy has been abandoned, and it makes people wonder if the DRM-free principle is next (among myriad other concerns).
GOG essentially had to make a choice - sell these new titles with regional pricing or don't sell them at all. It's a tough situation and I refrain from calling it a good or bad decision. However, I can't help but think that what they gain in the short term from additional day one sales, they might lose in the long run by essentially caving into something they've long opposed. It opens a can of worms.
I love GOG immensely, but in a way I find it harder to stump for them as I usually do given that one of their biggest selling points was just erased from their front page. I understand their decision and the tight spot they are in. Two or three years ago they would have laughed at the idea of selling games with regional pricing. Now, I don't think they have a choice given the various complications of fewer old games available due to licensing, indie competition with bundles, etc. Despite my concerns I certainly still hope this works out for GOG.
Sorry for the long post. I don't mean to sound the alarm or convey doom and gloom.
Discounts aren't devaluing games, the cut-throat competition in the games industry is. There are countless high quality games coming out that, quite frankly, I don't have time to play. Unless a game is one of the maybe 5-10 a year that I'm excited enough about to buy and play at release, pretty much the only way it's going to get a sale is if it's cheap enough for me to buy it on a whim and add it to my backlog to play "eventually". Even waiting for rock bottom prices, games get added to my collection far faster than I can actually play them.
Discounts derive from the cut-throat competition to offer low prices and gain sales. These two concepts aren't separable - without competition there's no incentive to reduce prices. The competition exists on two fronts: 1) between different developers/publishers, and 2)between retailers/stores. Of course there's nothing wrong with consumers wanting to pay the lowest possible price, but GOG's point of concern was that steep discounts devalue games in the long term - the devaluation manifests in the purchasing philosophy you outlined in your post. That's not a criticism of you - I do it, and most other people do it, because paying less is always preferable.
Anyway, this is more of a side discussion to the subject of the announcement. I mentioned GOG's earlier skepticism of high discounts because it's another example in which they essentially had a change of heart. Again, not at all a criticism as offering better sales has worked out amazingly for them. I was lamenting the symbolic nature of that in light of GOG deciding to allow select titles to have regional pricing.
My point is that blaming discounts for that philosophy is backwards. The discounts exist because the reality of the marketplace is that there actually are more games out there than people can actually play, which means, unless a game is something really special, it really is less valuable than it would have been in the past.
charlequin
Banned
The bullet points on the front page aside, I don't think the pricing strategy has ever been a "core value" on the same level as distributing games DRM-free is. I think expecting this to lead to them abandoning their DRM-free stance (which would both be impractical and incredibly destructive to their business) is pretty silly.
Similarly, I think reading this as part of some consistent decline narrative when a lot of GOG's changes (adding newer indie games, providing deeper discounts in some sales, continuing to sign publishers of old games when possible) have been generally positive.
It does suck that this is happening, but I think this is something that on a certain level GOG really can't push back on effectively (without just refusing to deal with any publishers who do it) in a way that really doesn't apply to DRM-free releases.
The regional pricing aspect was definitely a core value alongside DRM-free. The latter was more important, but regional pricing was still critical. They seemed to be a sort of yin and yang of GOG's customer first policy, and it was a big part of their marketing. They even made a commercial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRdfYwvGTos
I explained that many changes GOG has made (selling indies, better sales) have been positive. The point was that GOG has had to consistently adapt to a market that has moved in directions in which they previously didn't see themselves going. Before it was better sales and newer games, but now it's regional pricing on select titles. I'm not claiming the sky is falling.
I don't think it's silly to wonder about the DRM-free aspect - currently GOG's privacy policy says that they do not track GeoIP. In order to enforce regional pricing they would need to do that. Otherwise people can just set their location to a cheap region, but to counter that games/gift codes would need to somehow be region locked. Of course, another way to enforce regional pricing is some form of soft DRM.
I'm speaking in hypothetical terms, but the point is that it's not entirely out of the question that one day GOG might sell a game that has DRM, just to keep pace with other retailers. I personally don't think that will happen, and obviously GOG isn't planning on it, but I was conveying what the concerns are. Yes, the crux of GOG's pitch has always been DRM-freeness, but 'one world' pricing was a big draw for consumers. If GOG had to cater to a publisher's terms for regional pricing, it's not impossible that one day they might have to sell a game with DRM. With fewer classics they can license, GOG has to keep moving toward newer games. With that, they've seemingly hit a wall in which they need to push into bigger releases, but make a compromise on those select releases.
Also, here's an article about a survey GOG did last year regarding DLC, DRM, and other topics.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
That's the thing. Fair pricing has been a nicety, but GOG has never competed on price. The differentiator has always been that the games are DRM-free, the bonuses, and the focus on old games. They still do all of those things. Yeah, they release indie games and some more modern titles these days, but they've still been consistently pumping out old games, and I hardly think anyone's being disserviced by them releasing a DRM-free version of STALKER. At the end of the day, it's a store that's always been focused on giving you a better product, and, based on what they've been saying on their forum, this really was the only way to get a GOG-style release for some of those bigger titles, largely due to all the legal red tape involving pricing.
Introducing region pricing, while unfortunate, hardly indicates that GOG's going to go back on something else, like offering DRM-free games. It was a nice bullet point, but hardly a founding principle that they're suddenly negating.
I think what I'm saying is unfortunately getting mistaken for a "change is bad, stick to old games" mentality. I don't know how else to make it clear that I supported GOG moving to indies and newer games, and that I think these were great decisions that helped their site grow (alongside offering tons of varied and attractive promos). That doesn't mean a person can't recognize the challenges associated with selling newer games, such as competing with indie bundles. It was never suggested that these changes hindered their rate of releasing older games, either, and I don't think that's a relevant counterpoint to concerns about regional pricing.
I'm a never say never kind of guy. That's the healthy way to approach things - being adaptable. It's not that regional pricing -> DRM. It's not that regional pricing -> fewer old games. It's that introducing the former raises numerous questions about how it will be implemented, how it affects GOG's negotiating tools with publishers, etc. In other words, the concerns from people are that regional pricing -> regional pricing. GOG's marketing director has answered plenty of questions in the forum thread, particularly in this post.
Selling these new games with regional pricing could work out extremely well for GOG without creating any sort of trend for their existing or older titles. That's just as much a possible outcome and likely the most probable, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ponder other ramifications/possibilities.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
And I think what you're saying is reasonable, because yes, depending on implementation, or how far GOG allows themselves to be pushed, it could be reason for concern. But despite a couple of dumb decisions in the past, I think GOG knows that there's a line they simply can't cross. They're giving publishers a major concession here, but I really don't think they're going to suddenly compromise on DRM, because that would eliminate their only major advantage over other storefronts.
But again, there's no concern or claim that GOG will "suddenly compromise on DRM". It's about the long run for various things including DRM.
...
Just for posterity's sake, this is an email GOG sent to a user in response to an inquiry about why GOG rejected the upcoming game Mage's Initiation.
source
...
Just for posterity's sake, this is an email GOG sent to a user in response to an inquiry about why GOG rejected the upcoming game Mage's Initiation.
source
Minsc
Gold Member
I guess the hopeful side to all this is that getting additional higher profile DRM-free games (that are priced regionally) on GOG could potentially be used as ammo for getting another publisher to sign up DRM-free to help continue to build their catalog of older games. They've always said the more games they have the easier it is to sign others on to their site...
I completely agree. The obstacle to signing companies like Take Two or LucasArts has been DRM. If GOG can go to publishers like them and say, "Hey, look how well these other guys' games sold on our site," allaying LucasArts' or Disney's fears about ditching the DRM, it could provide a boost in the negotiations.
Yes, I'm not claiming otherwise. The problem is that regional pricing has both an effect I'd argue as good (being able to price items at affordable levels in poorer countries) and one I'd argue as bad (Europe, Australia often having to pay more than the US beyond the 'buying power' difference of the countries involved).
There's not really a loophole that allows you to have one without the other. And personally, I'm comfortable with paying a bit more so people in poorer countries can play legitimately at a price that works for them.
Mavromatis
Member
Regional pricing can benefit them but the negative effect of removing one of your core policies where your customers exist mostly to support those policies and not to buy your stuff, would be enormous.
GoG sells stuff because they are the anti-DRM, anti-"whatever the other DD platform does". They exist because they are not Steam, Origin, Uplay, etc. And they exist because Steam exist and they can put themselves at a niche market by contrasting whatever they do.
Now they are trying to be a DD platform like the others meaning they are giving up the niche market that created and fed them for years.
As far as I see Steam can annihilate any DD platform without big exclusive titles and if GoG leaves their niche spot, somebody else will take it and GoG will be stuck in limbo.
GoG sells stuff because they are the anti-DRM, anti-"whatever the other DD platform does". They exist because they are not Steam, Origin, Uplay, etc. And they exist because Steam exist and they can put themselves at a niche market by contrasting whatever they do.
Now they are trying to be a DD platform like the others meaning they are giving up the niche market that created and fed them for years.
As far as I see Steam can annihilate any DD platform without big exclusive titles and if GoG leaves their niche spot, somebody else will take it and GoG will be stuck in limbo.
I have no faith in regional pricing. Times I benefited by retailers embracing regional pricing - 0. Times I had to pay up to 33% more than before - always.
We all know why regional pricing exists, let's not kid ourselves. It just happen that some of us are on that side from which benefits to publishers come. They wouldn't bother with regional pricing if not us, sad but true (><)
That said, I liked gog exactly because they never embraced regional pricing.
We all know why regional pricing exists, let's not kid ourselves. It just happen that some of us are on that side from which benefits to publishers come. They wouldn't bother with regional pricing if not us, sad but true (><)
That said, I liked gog exactly because they never embraced regional pricing.
Krusenstern
Banned
Say goodbye! They removed that page.
Guess even principles have their price.
Guess even principles have their price.
charlequin
Banned
I think there's a huge difference between something that a service advertises and promotes and a core value. (And yes, I know that they listed it as one -- but I don't think that was true then either.)
I don't think anything related to pricing could possibly be a core value for GOG in part because they've never made an effort to provide particularly low prices for their content. It's certainly never been the major distinguishing feature for the store, and it's not a big driver of loyalty -- people who worry heavily about local region pricing are going to already have a tendency to flit around between stores to take advantage of low price options, and despite GOG offering this "one price" for so long it was very rarely brought up in discussions of GOG's benefits.
When you get down to it, a company can only really put so much into the basket of "core principles" that don't get bent. You can even see this in the regional-pricing announcement: they could've forgone these games and avoided this issue, but when it came down to a conflict between releasing DRM-free games and avoiding regional pricing, they went with DRM-free because that's the true core principle that they don't want to bend.
This doesn't actually make sense though. GOG has a very dedicated base of fans, but they offer pretty close to nothing over other options besides that single ideal of DRM-free software. Almost all of their customer loyalty, their ability to claim a unique niche in comparison to an (overall much better) service like Steam, comes down to their DRM-free offerings. What exactly are they sacrificing DRM-free for in this imagined scenario of yours?
Which is why I think it's extremely unlikely that GOG will be moving away from DRM-free releases.
Regional pricing is definitely stupid.
This.
I rarely buy from Steam for the very reason of regional pricing being fudged, and no, it isn't because the UK can afford to pay the prices. It was worked out that UK actually has to work more hours to pay for some of the games than even Australia.
Fortunately, it isn't all bad, UK does have the benefit of retail games dropping like a bomb really quick, so I will just have to continue embracing that.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Man, the reactions over on GOG's forum have reached GameFAQs levels of childishness. You just can't win when gamers are involved.
Well, anyway, I do wonder if this will have a positive effect on getting Japanese publishers on board.
Well, anyway, I do wonder if this will have a positive effect on getting Japanese publishers on board.
Did someone expect a win or positive feedback when the message is that you have to pay 20-40% more from now on?
I don't know if it's a regional thing (particularly with Europeans who now have to pay more compared to everyone else) but among my friends, fair pricing was THE core value GOG had. DRM free was nice but not deal breaker. We've now lost Humble store and GOG within a week. You can argue that we haven't lost anything yet because Humble widgets have fair pricing (side note: a lot of Humble store games don't have that widget at all, wonder why) and it's not like the whole GOG catalog is suddenly regionally priced, but these are the first steps and they are the hardest steps. These two were also among the few stores that still had fair worldwide pricing, the last resistance is failing. It's now much easier to expand regional pricing. As their marketing director said, they will have to re-negotiate all contracts eventually and it won't take a genius to guess that at that point, publishers have an easy decision to make regarding regional pricing.
SteveWinwood
Member
Say goodbye! They removed that page.
Guess even principles have their price.
Part of the problem is that even $1 isn't fair to everyone, in countries where you make substantially less than another country. This is at it's core what regional pricing is supposed to fix, so that people can actually buy your products and you get money and sales that would have otherwise been pirated as the percentage of paycheck you'd have to spend to buy the game would be obscene otherwise.
At the end of the day regional pricing should be embraced as it allows everyone to buy games and enjoy them, publishers get more sales, everyone wins. The problem is on the initial implementation of it anyone caught in the fringes suffers as importing becomes restricted and if you're not one of the specifically targeted areas, you have unfair pricing.
I'm fairly tempted to do something as stupid as boycott, to teach all retailers and distributors the lesson. I know it's impossible to do on such a grand scale, but I feel that we are way too tame, and don't even try.
When I first saw UK prices in PSN store, I was at a loss why there is no riot, nobody even complains about it, unless not on regular basis.
With all later developments and even Humble and gog embracing such policies, it's clear that everybody is certain that we will humbly accept anything, just because we had where to run from those unfair policies, as to gog for example, we never tried to fight back, but we should. Because soon will be nowhere to retreat anymore, no?
When I first saw UK prices in PSN store, I was at a loss why there is no riot, nobody even complains about it, unless not on regular basis.
With all later developments and even Humble and gog embracing such policies, it's clear that everybody is certain that we will humbly accept anything, just because we had where to run from those unfair policies, as to gog for example, we never tried to fight back, but we should. Because soon will be nowhere to retreat anymore, no?
Tizoc
Member
Could someone provide examples of where region pricing caused the price of say a humble bundle, for example, to be more expensive than its US Dollar counterpart?
i'M just asking out of curiosity, because see $6 is app. 4 Pounds or 5 Euros for example. If the prices are close to each other, then at least in that situation it shouldn't be a big issue?
i'M just asking out of curiosity, because see $6 is app. 4 Pounds or 5 Euros for example. If the prices are close to each other, then at least in that situation it shouldn't be a big issue?
So regional pricing is game-specific? Am I reading this right?
I suppose it's possible that this will only affect specific games, but now that the precedent has been set it might push other publishers towards regional pricing.
I'm new to GOG, so I'm also wondering if they found it necessary to remain competitive. I assume that they started introducing indie games because maintaining a constant stream of popular classic games was becoming more difficult.
I suppose it's possible that this will only affect specific games, but now that the precedent has been set it might push other publishers towards regional pricing.
I'm new to GOG, so I'm also wondering if they found it necessary to remain competitive. I assume that they started introducing indie games because maintaining a constant stream of popular classic games was becoming more difficult.
Regional pricing works when you have different products, shipping costs, taxes, etc. In other words, it's reasonable and works when you're talking about physical goods.
Treating your consumers equally is a good principle, charging more because of your IP address is bullshit.
According to your reasoning, companies should charge cars differently in tollbooths based on the average income in the city where the license plate is registered. Does that sound right to you?
Spirit of Jazz
Banned
On principle I don't want to buy from a site which acknowledges that they're performing unfair business practices.
That's what most people believe, that regional pricing is needed for those that can't afford full price, but that's not how economy works, any economy unless we talk about
charity or non-profit organizations. If you sell something at a loss, you have to make up for a loss in other areas, meaning you take from someone and give it to another. And there is no way around it. Now that wouldn't be unfair, if richer countries paid a little more than they supposed to and poor ones got their games little cheaper. But that's not the case. Eastern Europe by large aren't nowhere near rich, and they all pay more. How is that fair? Or small countries, that nobody cares about, these have no real impact on sales or profits, they don't have even region attached usually, just buy in nearest bigger economic zone. Who cares about how poor they are? nobody.
Do they get cheaper cars? Or computers? or anything at all? Besides what produced internally.
We aren't talking fair, we are talking about rippoff, that's how I see it. Fair? It doesn't exist, not at large and not in economics, if it existed we wouldn't have poor people, would we? If it doesn't exist in any branch of human life, I don't see how it can exist in gaming.
Shortly, regional pricing is ripoff, plain and simple.
A good amount of people complain about pricing on the UK PSN, however, it fell on deaf ears, and now I think it's just gotten to the point of not really even considering it as a place to buy retail releases. At least, I don't even consider it when I'm going to buy a game. Same for Xbox Live, and also Nintendo's E-Shop.
I never say I boycott things, but, I don't buy games at silly prices, so I suppose I do boycott in a certain sense. Even if it means buying a retail copy and using uplay/origin or something, I'll do it if it means getting the game at a reasonable price compared to steams £40.
Mavromatis
Member
Pushing cheaper products to a specific country is generally done to prevent said country to produce its own product. In the concept of digital distribution there is also enlarging the userbase issue which may or may not help with sales in future. I think video games as a product can't be easily replicated as a substitute of another one, except the mobile quickies. So preventing entry to the market is not the point here. Generating a userbase is useful but not to the producer/publisher of the game but to the DD platform and since this change is pushed by producer/publisher I guess this one is off too. Also GoG already created a userbase by doing the opposite. So why are they doing regional pricing and giving some countries cheaper products and others more expensive?
My assumption is that GoG has reached an age limit. They published lots of good old games with licenses easy to get. Imagine GoG delivering only 10 year old games constantly. They'll be fine with games from 2000-2004 which had easily removable DRM or no DRM at all. Things will work great for before 2000 since DRM wasn't a real issue back then. But getting to the games after 2004 they need the large titles, the AAAs and there is more and more DRMed stuff. If they want to publish newer stuff they need to work with larger companies which hold their licenses tight. Getting these titles means they have to give more principles everyday. They might keep the DRM at bay for now but if they want newer games they'll have to give up sooner or later.
you might be right, but who expects new games from gog, isn't it good old games? DRM is an issue for newer games, that's true, but even bigger retailers still sell new DRM free games, granted these usually are indies or games of smaller publishers, but market is till here.
Now AAA games, I don't know why gog would want those, at least new, they can't seriously assume they can compete with steam or even uplay and origin, last two I assume aren't thriving too.
Well, may be gog has no other way, I don't know. But it's not only gog, it's gotten quite massive lately, moving to regional pricing, I mean and that's alarming.
Now AAA games, I don't know why gog would want those, at least new, they can't seriously assume they can compete with steam or even uplay and origin, last two I assume aren't thriving too.
Well, may be gog has no other way, I don't know. But it's not only gog, it's gotten quite massive lately, moving to regional pricing, I mean and that's alarming.
AcceptableGhost
Member
As long as they stay DRM-free then GOG has a worthwhile place as a video game marketplace. It is kind of a bummer to see them back pedal on stuff though.
Mavromatis
Member
The problem is a 10 year old game of last year was a game from 2003 and a 10 year old game of this year will be from 2004. They can still keep on selling good old games, and I hope hey'll do, but we can't deny the fact that old games of this year has a lot more DRM and publisher meddling than the old games of yesteryear. I don't know what will they do when they reach the years with Steam/Origin only games, or games with online activation which is already dead, hardware based activation limits, etc.
I guess they added this recently. They are doing all they can to distance themselves from the regional pricing and attaching the blame to the publishers.GoG said:
Minsc
Gold Member
I feel GOG has gotten big enough that one could essentially shop from GOG exclusively and still have a never-ending backlog of games to play, if they had a wide range of taste in game genres. I mean it's not like Steam with 1000s of games, but they generally hit 7 releases a week now on average, which is certainly enough to keep most people with more content than they can play, personal tastes aside.
I don't see myself getting too worked up over the pricing, because most of the games on GOG are still in the under $20 range, which if you wait for sales is like $5 or less ($20 > $5, $6 > $2).
I don't see myself getting too worked up over the pricing, because most of the games on GOG are still in the under $20 range, which if you wait for sales is like $5 or less ($20 > $5, $6 > $2).
crazyrabbits
Banned
In regards to digital distribution, I don't believe that for a second. It's sympatomatic of an industry that is growing increasingly bloated with each passing year.
We just saw the same issue with GMG - people in certain European regions have seen the prices they would normally pay jump up by $5-20 arbitrarily. It doesn't solve the issue, either - people will either go elsewhere, use a VPN to bypass the restriction or pirate.
- Status