Support NeoGAF

[Theonik]

They could just not offer preloads at all, all the while consumers suffer broken downloads. Would that be preferable?

That way they don't impale themselves upon the sword of hypocrisy attempting to make the result better for just about anybody.

Honestly, the argument that some are making is missing the forest for the trees.

This isn't about pre-loads it's about DRM in retail copies of the game in the form of a download.
Now I understand why the DRM is in place to prevent the game from leaking and I find it reasonable, that doesn't change this particular rhetoric though. (also it punishes early retail purchasers without internet connections)

 

[Three]

1) Being a loss leader can be considered anticompetitive practice. As it can be used to drive competitors out of business, which is harmful for competition in the long run. You bringing up Amazon and Wallmart are perfect illustrations of this point since they have used this exact same practice to drive competitors out of business. In Amazon's case we have seen them raising their prices over time as they have basically dominated the market. This is why in many countries this practice is considered illegal.

Loss leader is not illegal. What you're describing is called predatory pricing. It occurs when a dominant market leader drives smaller businesses out of the market. Selling a loss leader product is not predatory pricing. It is a way of attracting new customers in the hope that they buy other higher margin products.

 

[FairXchange]

I think GMG is in the right, here.

 

[xamidoxhua]

digital parallel imports. I see nothing wrong with this.

 

[Theonik]

Loss leader is not illegal. What you're describing is called predatory pricing. It occurs when a dominant market leader drives smaller businesses out of the market. Selling a loss leader product is not predatory pricing. It is a way of attracting new customers in the hope that they buy other higher margin products.

There is actually no defined distinction between the two pricing strategies and in many jurisdictions, selling at a loss alone has been used in legal cases as a test for whether a pricing strategy is predatory or not. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
It is a grey area.

 

[suddenlyissoon]

I guess it's just me but CDPR always seems shady and suspect to me for some reason. I can't help but think that this is a publisher conspiracy against 3rd party stores that offer discounts.

 

[MUnited83]

Steam version has steam drm, gog version is drm free aside from the day one small file download Required to play

Wrong. Steam version will only have Steam DRM of CDPR go out of their way to do so. Steam has several drm-free games in the store.

 

[Durante]

Inline with GoG and Steam price if you already have Witcher 1 and 2, seems pretty clear what the problem was in the first place, GMG undercutting everyone.

GMG undercutting other distributors is a feature of the vaunted "free market" -- one of the very rare times where it actually works for the customer -- not a bug.

Of course it needed to be stamped out.

 

[Green Wiggly]

Well this has been interesting to watch. If the current keys on GMG are indeed from CDPR, they played some serious hardball to get them!

 

[Corronchilejano]

EA is more consumer friendly than Valve.

In regards to refunds at least.

 

[Hamster Plugin]

Wait, the regular price of this is really €60? What the hell? I can pre-order a retail version for €40 right now.

I will never understand this European digital download tax, I really never will.

 

[danm999]

In regards to refunds at least.

Yeah and even there I'd really say they've got a long way to go given they only do Origin refunds for their own games.

That's more than Valve I suppose. But then, does Valve actually have many recent games left that would require a refund?

 

[Sijil]

GMG undercutting other distributors is a feature of the vaunted "free market" -- one of the very rare times where it actually works for the customer -- not a bug.

Of course it needed to be stamped out.

Not speaking against it as I'm a regular GMG customer, but it does appear to have presented a problem for CDPR. I said I understand CDPR's position because honestly I did the same thing, cutting business ties with someone undercutting me with my own product.

In regards to refunds at least.

And only for EA games, non EA games are exempt from the refund guarantee. If Valve were to implement such a feature then we'd only be guaranteed a refund option for Half-Life, Portal, Left 4 Dead and Counter Strike series.

 

[Corronchilejano]

But then, does Valve actually have many recent games left that would require a refund?

It doesn't matter if they're not recent (I mean, the release dates, not the purchases), you should be able to get refunds on games you purchase if you want during a certain time frame. In Europe they're even going against EU law for not allowing it.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

After almost a day of this news, I'm kind of left where I started. On the one hand, I don't think CDPR handled this situation very well as their statement did seem fairly damning of a site that at least has a reputation for only selling legitimate keys and had been a partner previously. On the other, I do think GMG should be more transparent about how they acquired the keys they're selling given how they advertise their own site.

 

[Tovarisc]

In Europe they're even going against EU law for not allowing it.

You can get refund from Steam in EU rather easily.

 

[YianGaruga]

It doesn't matter if they're not recent (I mean, the release dates, not the purchases), you should be able to get refunds on games you purchase if you want during a certain time frame. In Europe they're even going against EU law for not allowing it.

There was a long thread about it a while ago that I can't find anymore, but in short: No they aren't. There is legistlation that allows for digital purchases to be non-refundable (unless "defective" of course)

 

[danm999]

It doesn't matter if they're not recent (I mean, the release dates, not the purchases), you should be able to get refunds on games you purchase if you want during a certain time frame. In Europe they're even going against EU law for not allowing it.

Australia too. The ACCC which is the consumer watchdog agency brought a lawsuit against them last year for breaching consumer law.

 

[boskee]

After almost a day of this news, I'm kind of left where I started. On the one hand, I don't think CDPR handled this situation very well as their statement did seem fairly damning of a site that at least has a reputation for only selling legitimate keys and had been a partner previously. On the other, I do think GMG should be more transparent about how they acquired the keys they're selling given how they advertise their own site.

Amen. I don't think there's much more to add at this point unless either party speaks to the media again.

 

[Vicarious]

Not that part of what they said.
Specifically this...

Saying that without any proof is a manchild.

You should probably read it more carefully, they may have gotten money from the keys GMG was selling but they noticed they weren't receiving any money from GMG directly, which is why they warned they're fans. It pays to not jump to conclusions.

 

[Phanatic8390]

Interesting, I wonder if rather than being undercut CDPR decided to sell directly to GMG as long as they upped the price inline with their loyalty discount. Certainly would solve the issues they both seem to had with each other and allow both to come out OK.

Or GMG went with a heavy discount at first to generate buzz and then increased the price. Would generate traffic to the site where they can still have a low price.

This whole thing has been fascinating.

 

[TheSlySoul]

You should probably read it more carefully, they may have gotten money from the keys GMG was selling but they noticed they weren't receiving any money from GMG directly, which is why they warned they're fans. It pays to not jump to conclusions.

Either way it is not an issue anymore.
They completely took away the discount I assume because they are buying it directly from CDPR now.
Seems CDPR got exactly what they wanted.

People can see it from different ways, but I thought CDPR handled the whole thing poorly. Does not matter anyway since I am going on vacation when the game comes out. I will pick it up when it goes on sale.
GMG should have said the keys came from an authorized reseller during the promotion though since it is not their policy. That is the main thing they did wrong.

 

[Tovarisc]

GMG should have said the keys came from an authorized reseller during the promotion though since it is not their policy. That is the main thing they did wrong.

What GMG did wrong? They shouldn't have admitted that they are getting keys from 3rd party or they should have been more open about them getting keys from 3rd party even when it breaks their business policies?

 

[Joey Ravn]

After almost a day of this news, I'm kind of left where I started. On the one hand, I don't think CDPR handled this situation very well as their statement did seem fairly damning of a site that at least has a reputation for only selling legitimate keys and had been a partner previously. On the other, I do think GMG should be more transparent about how they acquired the keys they're selling given how they advertise their own site.

I agree. I don't know how to feel about this whole situation. It doesn't make much sense that CDPR says that GMG is a trustworthy partner and that they have worked together several times before, while denying them the right to sell the game on their storefront. If there were any issues between the two, CDPR could have simply said something in the lines of "we decided to not work with GMG this time because of business reasons" and be done with it. It would have been much clearer from the start and it would have left no room for speculation as to why the decision was made in the first place.

On the other hand, GMG's approach, while seemingly not illegal, does seem kinda sketchy. If you buy in GMG instead of G2A, Kinguin, etc. it's because you want to make sure that you're buying from an officially-sanctioned store. Even if the keys come from retail products purchased and resold legally, the whole affair does leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Right now, I'm thinking that neither of them is "the good guy". They both screwed up in the way they handled this situation. I wasn't a huge GMG customer before, but I did lose a ton of respect for CDPR. They could have communicated the issue in a much better way instead of using a very vague statement.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

Why would they reveal their supplier? U mad? The fact remains, keys they are selling are not illegal. Gamespot and CDPR are not good guys in this case, I think. Very messy altogether.

Why reveal their supplier? It's kind of in their company values that all keys are sold from relationships with the developer or publisher, and to not explain this to consumers goes against their own company values. Pretty simple really

 

[apieceofstrange]

"We don't know the origin of those keys and would advise our customers to hold off from buying them" == acting like manchildren.

Mmkay.

A mod on their official forum accused GMG of selling fraudulent keys, and CDPR's official response that followed did nothing to debunk that statement. I think that's what people are taking issue with. That they threw out slanderous accusations without proof.

 

[impact]

Anyone think if this thread was EA vs. GMG it would have been really one sided in favor of GMG?

 

[Wereroku]

A mod on their official forum accused GMG of selling fraudulent keys, and CDPR's official response that followed did nothing to debunk that statement. I think that's what people are taking issue with. That they threw out slanderous accusations without proof.

Except they didn't mods are volunteers. CDPR never made a statement that could be considered slanderous. People are literally putting other peoples words into CDPR's mouth. All they stated is that they did not know where GMG was getting their keys.

Anyone think if this thread was EA vs. GMG it would have been really one sided in favor of GMG?

If EA made a statement saying that GMG was selling keys from an unknown source I would be just as inclined to listen to them. People are defending GMG more than CDPR in this thread so I am not sure your thought experiment works well in this case.

 

[Serrato]

It was a Mod on a gaming Forum not an official speaker/PR/marketing/business/high placed dude(tte). I'm pretty sure the reason the thread was deleted in the first place was because a CDPR forum Mod said stupid things or unjust accusation.

Would not be really surprised if that Mod isn't a Mod anymore...

 

[Tovarisc]

A mod on their official forum accused GMG of selling fraudulent keys, and CDPR's official response that followed did nothing to debunk that statement. I think that's what people are taking issue with. That they threw out slanderous accusations without proof.

Volunteer mods don't represent company in official capacity for which they moderate forums. What they say can reflect on company and I'm surprised if those mods haven't been asked to have a chat with CDP employee.

Anyone think if this thread was EA vs. GMG it would have been really one sided in favor of GMG?

Isn't this thread for most part one sided in favor of GMG?

 

[Lalalandia]

Have to say I'm on CDPR side here, they chose not to work with GMG, GMG tried an end run and CDPR called them out, end of. I also have a hard time believing GMG would choose to absorb the kind of losses they'd be seeing as a retailer at a good 20-30% cheaper than the competition.

 

[Kintaro]

Lovely. I guess they either reached a deal or GMG buckled. Or something. You know what? After all this, I think I'll keep my money in my pocket for awhile. I'm not hurting for things to play.

 

[boskee]

CDPR knows they like to put up loss leaders and cut out a relatively small player because of it. They also run their own digital distro.

Then how come this is a thing This is another player that has worked with CDPR since TW2.

 

[Ayt]

Not that part of what they said.
Specifically this...

Earlier today, CD Projekt RED told GameSpot it was getting "zero" revenue from these sales.

Saying that without any proof is a manchild.

Note that the only word in quotations is "zero." The sentence overall is an editorialized quote from the dipshit who wrote the article.

 

[Waxwing]

Not sure what to think here, myself. All of the macroeconomic courses I took focused on competition on prices between companies but did not delve much into the specifics of the items being competed on. I always had the impression that companies were competing over commodities rather than individual IPs. I would think that CDPR deserves a fair amount of control, but I am open to other thoughts.

And did we ever figure out the source of these keys? The region key re-selling seems to me at least immoral if that is what is/was going to happen.

Either way, still beyond excited for the game (though I bought it over a year ago at this point).

 

[gatti-man]

A mod on their official forum accused GMG of selling fraudulent keys, and CDPR's official response that followed did nothing to debunk that statement. I think that's what people are taking issue with. That they threw out slanderous accusations without proof.

That's my issue right there.

Except they didn't mods are volunteers. CDPR never made a statement that could be considered slanderous. People are literally putting other peoples words into CDPR's mouth. All they stated is that they did not know where GMG was getting their keys.



If EA made a statement saying that GMG was selling keys from an unknown source I would be just as inclined to listen to them. People are defending GMG more than CDPR in this thread so I am not sure your thought experiment works well in this case.

Mods are still representatives of cdpr and they made a slanderous claim. It is on CDPR to address that claim and publicly say either we apologize or that was not a statement from us and the mod has been spoken to not to make rash statements again. If you moderate an official forum you are a spokesman for that company. Especially when you can close threads and make a final statement in such a huge topic in said thread.

 

[TheSlySoul]

What GMG did wrong? They shouldn't have admitted that they are getting keys from 3rd party or they should have been more open about them getting keys from 3rd party even when it breaks their business policies?

That one. They could link it to a PR statement about the reason why they are going against the policy for one time.

 

[MrFortyFive]

After almost a day of this news, I'm kind of left where I started. On the one hand, I don't think CDPR handled this situation very well as their statement did seem fairly damning of a site that at least has a reputation for only selling legitimate keys and had been a partner previously. On the other, I do think GMG should be more transparent about how they acquired the keys they're selling given how they advertise their own site.

I'm apt to agree with this. Poor handling of the situation on both sides.

 

[ghibli99]

I feel like that Geico "living under a rock" guy realizing that GOG is owned by CDPR.

As for reselling keys, if it's a legit source, wouldn't CDPR get a cut from that initial batch?

 

[Chilled_Eskim01]

I don't undertsand why everyone is mad by the statement from CDPR. All they stated was that GMG was selling codes at a steep discount, and CDPR had not provided the codes. For all we know, they were unaware of the 3rd parties selling the codes to GMG, and so they were to assume they weren't getting any revenue from any GMG transactions.

We now know (sorta kinda) what happened, although we still don't know where GMG got the codes, other than their statement that they were "approved retailers" of CDPR.

Calling CDPR 'man children' is silly and pretty knee-jerk, and saying they were in the wrong seems rather short sighted and accusatory.

I love me some CDPR, and I love me some GMG. It sucks watching them have differences, but it's just business. CDPR is still a great dev that does much more for the consumer than any other 'big' dev that I know, and claiming they are worse than EA or Valve is rediculous and stupid.

If any of my info is wrong, tell me; I'd be happy to know where all this anger is coming from.

 

[diablos991]

I feel like that Geico "living under a rock" guy realizing that GOG is owned by CDPR.

As for reselling keys, if it's a legit source, wouldn't CDPR get a cut from that initial batch?

Sure CDPR would get a cut, but it may not be the appropriate cut. It is possible the key reseller is exploiting regional pricing and exchange rates to get keys cheaper so they can do a bigger sale. That would cause CDPR to lose money compared to selling the keys in the intended region.

 

[Wereroku]

Mods are still representatives of cdpr and they made a slanderous claim. It is on CDPR to address that claim and publicly say either we apologize or that was not a statement from us and the mod has been spoken to not to make rash statements again. If you moderate an official forum you are a spokesman for that company. Especially when you can close threads and make a final statement in such a huge topic in said thread.

It's really not the same legally though. They are not employees or affiliates of CDPR they are simply volunteers. They do not speak for CDPR.

Sure CDPR would get a cut, but it may not be the appropriate cut. It is possible the key reseller is exploiting regional pricing and exchange rates to get keys cheaper so they can do a bigger sale. That would cause CDPR to lose money compared to selling the keys in the intended region.

Also if that was a statement from them it depends on how it was worded. If they simply stated that they have received no money from GMG for the keys then it is truthful. We would have to see the full statement that was given to the Gamespot writer.

 

[hamchan]

The price going back up to match the other stores tells me that they reached an agreement, and that GMG now has to follow the price CDPR wants the game to be, instead of having the freedom to price it themselves.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I bought something from GMG once, but the code didn't work. It got resolved pretty quick via support but that struck me as extremely fucking shady and I haven't used their service since.

 

[Lucumo]

not having the complete game on disk pretty much is a form of DRM.

its not active like most DRM solutions but the disk you receive is not a complete product.

as Klossen says this does fly in the face of their "no drm" policy. It's a very mild form of drm that imposes a small restriction (requires internet to set up) but it is drm.

They don't have the complete game on disk? Meh...

 

[GRIMREEFZ]

This is interesting. Great OT

 

[Tovarisc]

They have it. Only some copies given out for reviews need to download a little file, or at least this is what I understood. Day 1 copies won't need any files.

All day 1 copies are missing some, small, key files that needs to be downloaded from GOG servers.

 

[gatti-man]

It's really not the same legally though. They are not employees or affiliates of CDPR they are simply volunteers. They do not speak for CDPR.



Also if that was a statement from them it depends on how it was worded. If they simply stated that they have received no money from GMG for the keys then it is truthful. We would have to see the full statement that was given to the Gamespot writer.

Pretty sure it is the same legally actually. If you make slanderous claims as a mod on an official forum of cdpr you are a representative of cdpr. That claim echoed through the Internet for hours without response and caused damage to GMG's reputation. CDPR should have responded in my opinion.

 

[Shin]

The whole thing got handled in a very amateurish way IMO, could have easily and sensibly handled it behind closed doors. Now shit has escalated and they tarnished the reputation of said site.

 

[cartographer]

The price going back up to match the other stores tells me that they reached an agreement, and that GMG now has to follow the price CDPR wants the game to be, instead of having the freedom to price it themselves.

If it wasn't clear before it's even clearer now this was the likely issue. GMG's discounts undercut the price fixing.

As long as GMG was getting region appropriate copies then I wish they would have held strong instead of (what appears to be) caving.