Actually, I just buy from here so I can put all the high-res shortcuts in one folder, make them large icons, so they look really pretty when I'm scrolling and deciding what game to play today.

I wouldn't pay anything extra, unless "no DRM" would allow me to run two household copies at the same time (according to national law I could do that anyway, but I want the publisher to be explicit about it).

I'm supporting GOG because they give me the chance of replaying the classics, but I don't view them as some premium service that I'm willing to pay extra for. I'll pay extra for content, no problem, but I don't accept paying more because other people will exploit "no DRM".

Having said that, I choose not to buy Ubisoft titles (and those similar) until they are on sale for approx $10. I relatively often buy new computers, and the Ubisoft DRM usually have a 5 times install limit (that also comes into effect when I upgrade a computer).

I'll pay full retail for no DRM... as for gog pricing old games to no DRM i find there prices fine, even for new titles: Witcher2:enhanced, Assassins Creed, Grimrock... so far im very pleased...

To clarify my point that the question should be the opposite, ie. "How much less would you pay for a DRM-game?".

When I see a game that I recognize, I have some idea how much I'd pay for it in retail (without online DRM). That's the default acceptable base price for me.

If it was available only with DRM, then I'd consider it only for some discounted price from that base price. And it depends on the DRM, for example for a Steam game (with no 3rd party DRM) I would probably settle for a smaller discount than e.g. an OnLive game, because I consider the latter more draconian DRM which severely restricts where and how I can play the game (e.g. right now I could not play any OnLive games, I'm currently behind a flaky mobile 3G connection)..

Paying even as low as $5 for an OnLive (or Steam game with 3rd party DRM) may feel excessive, if I later end up re-buying the same game DRM-free just because I felt the game was a keeper after all which I want to (re)play also in the future. So, the money I put into the DRM version might end up being totally wasted money, I could have just as well flushed the same $5 down the toilet.

Let's take for example the current Assassin's Creed + HOMM V promo. Since I don't already own either game, to me paying $10 for either does not sound that bad at all. It sounds a pretty good price to _own_ those games (not owning the copyright, but being in control how I access and play those games).

At the same time, I definitely wouldn't want to pay the same price for those games on Steam or OnLive. Maybe $5, or less. But as said, if I end up liking either game so much that I want to add it to my collection of keepers, then that money I spent on Steam/OnLive was pretty much wasted. On the other hand, if I find out I don't like either game that much (either finishing them or deciding to stop playing them for good), then I'd probably think that it was quite fine to buy the games with DRM for less money.

Umm, shouldn't the lack of DRM cost less? I mean, DRM solutions are licensed products, and every time You buy a game with, for example SecuROM, a percantage of the price goes to Sony.

Well, considering game with DRM has zero value for me I'd be willing to pay GOG prices for them ;-). If eg. Civilization V complete edition came here now, I'd be willing to even pay the highest price point here, that is 19.99$.

Then again, I'm rarely if ever willing to pay more than 20$ for any game, new or old. Oh and Steam pretty much would have to pay me for me to touch any of their games, so yes, I'm definately willing to pay more for DRM free games than Mallware (=DRM) infested one's.

In theory yes, maybe. Some of those things can cost a significant amount of money. An amount that should effect the selling price. But that cost is going to get offset by whatever number the bean counters think they will save by preventing (fending off) piracy. That number is some magic unknown number being put up against a real tangible one, but however a company has broken it down they have come to the conclusion that it will cost less money to pay for DRM than loose sales to piracy.

So I guess it depends on who you ask. A publisher is going to swear DRM-free is going to cost them money and in turn raise the price. Others will say DRM causes loss of sales and that pirates don't pay so you can't loose a sale to one.

Nothing! If the game is released with DRM then I'm just not buying it, or only with an huge discount. For DRM-contaminated Games I'm paying max. 2-3€ esp. on Steam and similars. Without DRM I would consider to buy them earlier if not at the release day or pre-order for the full price. So the publisher gets extra money already for that I buy the game at all.

The argument is that because DRM-free games will make it easier to make copies, they will sell a lower number of games. Upping the price of the game to compensate means that the paying customer is also paying for the games someone else are copying. Given the price elasticity, upping the price will also mean that even fewer people will buy the game, which in turn - given the flawed logic - should drive the price even higher. In the end no-one will buy the game.

To provide DRM-free games as an option, at a higher cost, would defy all possible logic. The pirates would easily copy the DRM-free games, so why would the publisher punish those who buy it legally?

I think most people don't have a problem paying, as long as they see the deal as relatively fair. Given the DRM of a game such as Anno 2070, the price will have to be cut by at least 80 pct before I'm interested.

I don't think this will happen so I guess zero. No game company is going to release a $60.00 game DRM free on GOG and sell it elsewhere for $50.00. Look at the Witcher 2 (a special case I know) it was cheaper here DRM Free on pre-release and release day. I think that when a title is DRM Free it will be so for all Digital Distribution sites and the pricing will be fairly stable across them all. Sales of course will lead to somewhat different pricing. Also remember Steam is a form of DRM in itself. My digital purchases will be on GOG and when the game hits the price point I am willing to pay it will be here. I have no problem with waiting.

I will not pay extra for no DRM in my games. If a company wants my business, then I expect fair pricing for drm-free games; especially depending on their age. I love GOG's pricing on older games especially when they have sales.

Along the same lines as CSXbot - this would probably mean up to 30-40 Euros. I had preordered Risen2 for about 40 pounds at Amazon.co.uk - at premium I would consider - but cancelled my preorder as soon as I learned that Steam was required.

I gave Steam one try, and it was so mindboggingly annoying with severe lack of stability ans sense of intrustion that I became firmly converted against DRM.

The furthest I go would be EA developer specific activation that is one time hassle, even if I do frown upon it nonetheless.

No? You can currently buy Assassin's Creed on GOG for $20, or you can buy Assassin's Creed 1 & 2 bundled for $10 on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Assassins-Creed-I-II-PC/dp/B005G4CXPK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333904978&sr=8-1

Would you pay $10 more to have it from GOG without the sequel, but with the soundtracks and no DRM?

Those are retail. Different market.

It depends on the game, the extras offered, and a whole range of other features. But to be blunt, if all I am paying for is no DRM then the answer is $0.00. If game publishers/developers can't treat me with respect as a customer, then I see no reason to support them by picking up their games.