Regional pricing was changed because of the realities of the industry. The alternative is literally nothing new being sold here and GoG just selling games that are 10+ years old which they themselves have said in so many words wasn't a viable enough business for them. And despite all that, they still are trying to help you out by giving you a credit, something that most other stores probably would never do.

The two main ones that I know of was DRM-Free and regional pricing. I don't specifically remember them saying that every game they sell here will have extra's (and if they did it's a ridiculous claim since GoG usually isn't the one that controls what comes with a game, it's the publisher).
Show me the GoG bylaws where they say they never would sell games with microtransactions.

How do you think those microtransactions are going to be processed?

Quoted froom the front page...

"DRM-free means no copy protection, on-line checks, or any other annoyances. It’s all about just you and your games and movies. You should feel you own the products that you buy - just like a book, or a DVD.

On GOG.com, no matter if you are online or offline, you will never be locked away from your purchases."

Notice it says "no...on-line checks", if there's no on-line checks how do they process the payment?

PS And don't forget "no...other annoyances", I believe many people would consider microtransactions annoyances.

Probably the same as multiplayer now, where sometimes you need a key or Galaxy for multiplayer. There's no ongoing checks or requirement to log in every few days. I can see something similar being used for microtransaction games, where regular play requires no online stuff but if you want to do multiplayer or buy a card pack or whatever you have to go online for that transaction.

If GOG is upfront and says "You need X for Y feature, but everything else will work", OK. I know what I'm getting and there is no program tracking what I'm playing, messing with my computer or making me check back in.

In an ideal world we wouldn't have microtransactions, DRM or developers who sacrifice DRM-free gamers to focus on Steam. But we live in this world, not that one, and I respect GOG more for trying to negotiate the world as it is instead of throwing a childish tantrum and refusing to engage with the market.

Have they changed specifics of what they do? Yes. Have they lost their principles? No. Regionally priced games get a store credit. DLC is managed without DRM. The client handles multiplayer but isn't required to install games. Newer games have come here, but all are DRM-free. GOG has changed, but not all change is bad, and the while I'm not happy about some of the changes I can see that GOG is trying to become a strong enough voice to effect real change.

It works the same as multi-player as in are microtransactions necessary to play the game. If the answer is no, then it's not DRM. On-line check as it's being used in that statement is using online to verify that you own a game. They may be annoyances to you but is anyone forcing you to buy them.

It never ceases to amaze me how the general public has redefined DRM to mean about 50 million different things than what it actually means, with the average person's definition really meaning "This game or game company does something I really don't like" whether or not it has anything to do with protecting digital rights whatsoever... and then a 50,000 post argument over what DRM is ensues with nobody ever changing their mind on what they think DRM means.

Totally popcorn worthy every time. :)

By their own definition an annoyance is not DRM-free, it doesn't matter whether or not anyone is forcing me to buy them.

We don't know if it will just be multi-player games, there are many single-player games out there that use microtransactions. They could easily slip one in later on.

It seems now, that they started down the "slippery slope" of turning their backs on their values, it's getting easier for them and thier defenders to justify changing what brought them success in the first place.

I suppose I never properly considered that. I kind of assumed brand/store loyalty was a thing of the past.
...or, more specifically, the money they made off of those customers.

I'm ok with gog.com selling movies and selling soundtracks.

Microtransactions being sold on gog.com for video games is what I will never be ok with being sold on gog.com.

I think it goes beyond even that. There are a good number of users on here that have their own pre-defined notions of what GoG is and how they are supposed to conduct their business. Basically this imaginary white knight crusader of the common folk who will not do or sell anything in which constitutes in their mind what DRM means.

Yeah, I agree with that but at the same time while sometimes some people can be vocal in that regard, I think also that such somewhat extreme opinions/ideologies are an extreme minority view in the large picture of things no matter how vocal they may sometimes seem. Such discussions often take up a very highly heated debate and often become very hostile if not downright toxic. While there are usually people that engage with opposing viewpoints in various degrees I think the majority of people simply steer clear of such discussions to avoid the toxicity even though they too have a view on it that they're simply choosing to not express. So I think often what happens is that such discussions are dominated not by popular opinion that is representative of the whole userbase but by a minority view being expressed with highly charged religious fervour.

It's always best to try to detect these kinds of discussions and steer clear no matter what one's opinion might be. Sometimes one may even express an opinion in such a discussion without realizing it is that kind of discussion and end up possibly getting sucked in too, or hopefully realizing it and exiting abruptly to greener pastures. :)

I agree, in fact I think someone from GoG did say once that the GoG forum users make up a small vocal minority of the userbase as a whole.

You make a number of very valid points in your opinion, it was nice to read even though I don't 100% agree with everything you've said. I think all too often people sometimes take extreme hardline stances on some of these things without taking a step back to look at the bigger picture. If we don't all make some kinds of compromises, not just with say GOG ideologies but life in general then we can end up in a situation where we throw the baby out with the bathwater and instead of having some of the things we want in the perfect world we end up with absolutely nothing. I mean if we take an all or nothing view on things, it stands to reason that we're probably going to more often end up with "nothing" than routinely getting "all".

There are certain things I think are major decisions that GOG needs to ultimately make the call on as a whole for their business perhaps as a hardline stance, and there are other things that I think some folks may not be keen on overall or even loathe the idea of but which are arguably rather harmless to people unless they decide to spend money and buy in to the thing they don't personally like. It might be a particular game, or it might be certain types of elements that people don't like. DLC is one of those things for example. Some folks had and likely even still have a hardline anti-DLC stance.

There is good DLC and bad DLC though, and a hardline stance against it throws all of it out regardless of what it is, while a soft stance allows the good to exist with the hardliner's stance being that that also allows the bad to exist. If that's agreed upon though ultimately - so what? I'd rather some games show up with DLC that I have no interest in and am not in any way forced to buy if it means that say... The Witcher 3 expansion packs can exist here now too, as well as other games that have decent fair priced additional content sold as DLC. If there happens to be shitty DLC as well, hopefully GOG keeps the worst offenders out of the store but if there are some that show up - so what. Don't buy them and support it, vote with one's wallet so to speak, it causes no harm to anything else, and eradicating all DLC because of it causes harm because the good stuff out there never shows up here not to mention some entire games wouldn't show up here simply due to being unable to also sell their DLC. So for something like that even though I hate probably 90% of DLC I peruse on Steam lets say and I think it is mostly a money grabbing nickel and diming ripoff, there is some good stuff and GOG seems to curate that quite well. For that I don't want, I simply don't buy and no harm is done to me because it happens to exist. Not only that, if others like it and buy it, GOG is more profitable and thus more powerful as a market force to negotiate with bigger publishers for bigger games which in turn means we win more of what we want - simply by making a compromise that wont affect anyone that doesn't opt in as an individual to buying things they have fundamental differences with.

I just cherry picked DLC, but similar scenarios exist with many hot topics that have come up over time including Galaxy client, in-dev, and many more topics. While I'm not a fan of a number of the things that have come up either, I try to have a balanced view where if the given thing shows up and I'm not forced to buy it then it doesn't really harm me, and if it has side effects that can bring other things I actually want here then I benefit indirectly from it in a way. Side effects can be simply GOG being more profitable, or they could be particular new features added to the storefront or Galaxy or whatever that attract more developers and games due to the platform sprouting more modern features. At the end of the day anyone who hates such developments can always stick to playing 90s games from standalone installers downloaded with a batch file and wget if they want, but the store can still expand, grow and evolve and take on new customers that want more than that.

We have to learn to make compromises and "meet together in the aisle" more to have a better overall experience for everyone and not be so harsh on things that we don't care for but are fully capable of simply opting out to individually rather than demanding GOG opt everyone out of it at the store level because we personally don't like it. At the same time I think there are certain things that shouldn't be compromised upon also, however there are debates on some of those things from time to time as well. So far I think GOG has done a good balanced job of managing these decisions even though some of them could have went better. In my eyes GOG doesn't have to be flawless to be a good company, they just have to be better than everyone else and to do a good job of trying to keep that momentum well balancing complex and often difficult to make decisions to please as much of their customer base as possible while compromising as little of their foundation and principles as possible.

Yeah, I think it isn't always that obvious to us forum dwellers but I think the percentage of customers as a whole that use the forums is probably incredibly small overall, and that of those the number who do so regularly is probably much smaller. We never see everyone else that is a customer in the larger sense and so our views on what everyone thinks and wants have a natural bias that leans towards people who tend to be more vocal and communicative to one degree or another. I think there may be inherent bias in some views expressed that do not hold true necessarily when the scope is stretched to include every customer, but there's no way to know for sure because the wider base of opinions are simply undisclosed in large. So sometimes vocal minorities can have a larger effect on decisions than a viewpoint on a given topic might reflect across all customers, and it might not always end up being for the greater good overall. While at other times the vocal minority might make things better for everyone simply because others don't speak up for what is best or can't see it too. It's complex. :)