The least they could have done was bring titles they've only dumped off on Steam thus far to GOG to lessen the kick in the nards of the price hike.

Apparently expecting them to run the company sanely is asking a bit much of them.

Ignorance at its best. Just because my region is also poorer and has a lot more problems (though I'm starting to wonder about that with Trump) doesn't mean a lot of us aren't also interested in playing games.

Actually you're wrong if we look at the original intent of copyright.

This has been explained to you but I'll lay it out a bit more verbose. We are not all poor or broke here but we do have less to spend than some people in other parts of the world. For instance we can't afford to pay the prices you do for a Big Mac but that doesn't mean we should live on bread and water alone. Macdonalds knows this so they charge the equivalent of half a Mac for one. This works because in a poorer region the ingredients are also cheaper and the expectation of remuneration is less so they can pay their workers less. Unfortunately the principle doesn't work so well for cross border digital goods based in one currency. But some publishers do take this into account and implement regional pricing with downloadable goods as they do with physical ones.

And don't forget that this is the company that still has a law suit hanging over them for not paying the rights to another company so it's a bit rich to talk about "entitlement" here.

/shrugs
We've tried to explain it to you but you either don't get it or don't want to get it. My region is only poorer by YOUR standards. By our standards I am not poor but I won't be able to make due in your region. There are people who live on 1000th of what you consider minimum wage where you would literally starve with that. We are talking relative perceptions here and not affordability since it's clear we can afford the games but just don't consider them worth the price by which you judge them. That is not what was suggested. The original intent of copyright is "advancement of science and the arts". It is clear if you read that statement there is actually no right to make money from copyright and the right falls squarely of the population to have access to it. Copyright was seen as a necessary evil to encourage people to advance and if you make money from it as a side effect then so be it. Unfortunately you and so many others have fallen for the modern idea that it gives someone a sole right to decide if something is distributed (a copy "right") where with the original intent if you tried to pull that crap your copyright would be revoked. Again nothing to do with what I can afford or not. I can afford the same things you can in my region as you can in yours. It's only if I spend my money in your region that I can't. For everything else I save up the same as you do. That is the implication if we enforce your standard. It's only because my standard is enforced I can eat Big Macs, if I wanted to. ;)

This all started because of complaints about discounts not being large enough and prices not being low enough. Maybe you can afford what you want but the people complaining have a problem with those things. Complaining that a discount is 60% instead of 90% seems stupid to me. I'm sure everyone would love a 90% discount on everything all the time but the vendors have to make money. We're just going in circles, so we'll have to agree to disagree. Not much you can do if someone refuses to pay for something. They'll have to do without.

Some people, just not capable of understanding an explanation.

deleted