Elenarie: I love it how you say that you had to pick between EITHER "DRM-Free" or regional pricing. This is a brilliant gem, because we all know that DRM is tied to having non-regional pricing, right, right?
TheEnigmaticT: The phrasing may have been a little bit inelegant. It was that we could either sign these games and bring them DRM-free (I don't see any other digital distributor who's our size trying to sign AAA content DRM-free, do you?), or else stay with flat regional pricing and then not have the games.
GOG.com will remain DRM-Free, certainly. The games that we're bringing you guys? If they're not DRM-free here, I don't see them being DRM-Free anywhere.
I have some kind of questions TET, but they're kind of rambling thoughts. Whatever they are, I'd be interested in your views on them. All of these questions come from what I believe is a valid assumption, which is that you believe fully that this is the right thing to do both for GOG and its users.
I've probably been here longer than most here nowadays, certainly long enough to remember the beta days, and the early GOG press anouncements and quotes like "When it comes to games, we like it cheap and unprotected". There were many announcements back then about how you guys believed in keeping the cost down, and believed in one price for everyone. With this announcement, as well as the previous abandonment of your low prices, do you regret having these goals in the first place? I mean, your credibility with us right now is looking pretty poor, you've sold out on all but one policy.
I don't think you do regret having the goals, I suspect your answer will be along the lines of "We'd love to meet all of these, but this is necessary for GOGs future". I'll continue on this assumption. If so, then I suppose it makes me wonder if you feel you would have been better off not trying for these other things in the first place? DRM-free was always your top dog, do you feel you could have moved faster, grown faster, and brought more games to us faster if you'd only run with that policy, and caved on the others earlier, or never even had them?
This brings me to wonder, if you feel that the policies were never particularly valuable, do you feel GOG has marketted itself badly? Which I suppose would fall squarely at your door. There were many people who were swayed by these "side policies" into supporting GOG, and energetically prompting others to do so, have you mis-sold to them in terms of brand loyalty?
Perhaps you feel that these things were necessary then, but as GOG grows they're not. If that's the case, have you "used" those of us that do consider these things to be a reason we supported you so fully? I can believe many supporters of these other "side policies" would feel like stepping stones right now, there to get you through the quiet days and shout your name across the net, but no longer appreciated now you've got the presence.
I'd appreciate your, and everyone elses (constructive) thoughts on this.