I can't say I'm happy about this. On the one hand, I can't help but feel that this was almost inevitable. I've always suspected that, for some publishers, the flat pricing structure was arguably much more of a sticking point than DRM-free and thus didn't want to put their games on the service for that reason. And if I'm entirely frank, between DRM-free and flat pricing, I care much more about the former than I do about the latter; as someone who tends to buy games locally whenever possible, I'm used to paying a higher price. Overall, I can see GOG's point of view on this and why it might be necessary to allow for more DRM-free games to be released on the service.
On the other, though, I can't see this as anything other than a regressive step. Part of the reason why I dislike Steam is precisely the fact that it has all the downsides of a regular retailer and that includes the bullshit 1$=1€ policy (there's even a
website dedicated to fighting Steam's price discrimination). I saw GOG as a very progressive service and as "
digital distribution done right" precisely because it took advantage of the fact that it was on the
worldwide web and did things that a regular retailer can't do such as flat pricing, worldwide availability and no censorship. The fact that some of this is now being compromised is not only disheartening, but also makes the service much less attractive to people from regions that often get screwed on account of price discrimination. There's a reason why Steam isn't as popular in Europe as it is in places like North America.
On top of what I already mentioned, part of the reason why GOG gained so much popularity is precisely because it was such a stark contrast to its competitors; likewise, part of the reason many of the non-Steam DD services have become increasingly irrelevant is precisely because they became more and more like Steam. Not only does this move make GOG more similar to other DD services, like jamyskis said, it also undermines the confidence people have that GOG will actually stick to its principles. As they say, give them an inch and they'll take a mile; now that they've buckled under pressure in regards to regional pricing, publishers will become even bolder in their demands and will want stuff like DRM as well. I'm not saying they're certain to give up on those values, but now that GOG has given up on one, it'll have to prove that it's actually sticking to the others.
However, before I decide how to proceed in light of this, I would like to ask two questions and I hope someone from the GOG team will be willing to answer me:
- Does the introduction of regional pricing also mean the introduction of regional lockout? Meaning, are we going to start seeing things like games not being available for purchase in certain regions or only being available in censored form?
- Much like how GOG has been trying to offer complete games whenever possible in spite of the introduction of DLC, will GOG also try to negotiate for flat pricing whenever possible?
HGiles: Wait, limited DRM? This is the first time I've heard of that.
jorlin: Some games here already have limited DRM. Any required serial Number can be considered DRM by my standards. It may not be a copy protection, but it *is* DRM in it's most literal form.
Actually, you have that backwards. While serial numbers are most definitely copy protection, they arguably don't count as DRM due to the fact that it doesn't actually prevent you from doing anything you see fit with your copy of the game (for example, I can still sell my physical copy of StarCraft in spite of the fact that it uses a serial number; I can't do the same with my copy of StarCraft II since it uses online DRM). And no, I don't view copy protection and DRM as one and the same, even though the motivations behind the two are similar.