I don't think there is anything else to discuss here with you. But to answer your questions:

I have answered this already in my previous post.

I have answered this already in my previous post.

EDIT: cut out the original conversation from the initial quote

Indeed. Your answer was that the person who wants everything should buy elsewhere. Woe to those that want to buy a specific version on GOG.

Are you being rude, or is it just my imagination?

Not on purpose, I assure you. But I have had the discussion of "GOG shouldn't be selling this, they are compromising their core values" many times in the past (Con Artist, The Witcher 2, Dragon Commander, SoTS: Gold etc).
I do believe that the customer should be able to buy the games they want, in the version they want, from the store they want. Saying that the store should only sell version A but not version B is something I personally find silly.

I don't give a damn on what you believe. But do not imply that I said one thing when I didn't.
I know what I wrote, do not mock me.

Allow me to quote you then:

And allow me to quote myself:
So, assuming I want the special edition of Gods Will be Watching, which includes the soundtrack, I won't be able to buy it from GOG. So you say that I can choose the (your words) not complete product on GOG, or the (not your words, but what you imply) complete product elsewhere. How is that not hurting GOG?

Listen pal, there's no point in discussing things with you. Just do not mock or twist my words and we'll stay in peace.

So even if I do use your quotes, I'm twisting your words... Ok...

I do want to see how the reasoning of others go, so I do offer my line of thought, and I do gladly admit to my errors, when they are pointed out. In the post I'm accused of twisting your words, I go by your quote, post my reasoning, and get accused of twisting your words.

What part of my reasoning is faulty then? That you think a game without its soundtrack is not a complete edition? That you don't want GOG to sell both a complete and an incomplete edition (what you consider to be complete/incomplete)? That if GOG doesn't sell the complete edition, people who want that edition will have to buy it elsewhere? That if people buy a game that's sold on GOG elsewhere due to the extras, GOG will be hurt?

Do educate me. I am not infallible, but I do try to not make the same mistake (reasoning or otherwise) twice, so anyone who corrects me is someone I admire and respect. But people who dismiss me with a "Bah, you know not what you are talking about" do get mocked until they engage in proper discussion and debate.

It's okay to have special versions. They can stay. Everyone can decide if they are worth the money. Most of the time they aren't anyway.

Then you basically don't want GOG to have new games then.

Because somehow you think GOG can negotiate brand new game + freebies at same price as game-only on Steam and other players.

Hence going back to my original comment of "I don't understand your mentality."

It's not like all the game publishers want to chop their games (and/or additional content) into pieces like in this specific case. Many of them still want to act fair. So , no , it wouldn't be the end of the world or end of the GOG, we would still have new games. Do not panic fellow GOGer!

Yes, that's what I believe. GOG isn't just some generic online store, it has principles. Those principles grant it a loyal userbase, and that gives it negotiating power. GOG should be using that negotiating power to make sure all game releases do not violate its principles, and it should outright refuse to sell the games it can't get acceptable terms on.

As for understanding my mentality, I can't really help with that, as I can't really understand the mentality of people who don't think the way I do on this issue. Still, the rest of this post might shed some light, so read on.

Now, JMich, the apparent main cause of this disagreement is your belief that having maximum options is best for customers, and maybe even for GOG. I'm convinced this is not true. While offering as much choices as possible might seem a good idea in each individual case, over the long term it has the drawback of allowing negative trends to set in and proliferate. Trends like DRM, regional prices, different versions for different regions, ultra hyper extra special extended edition cuts, retailer-specific pre-purchase content, rampant useless DLC that floods stores and makes it hard to both browse and search for actual games, and others I can't remember off the top of my head. If at least one retailer manages to offer a catalog that is free of such bad practices, and that catalog is at least decent in size (GOG's is beyond decent already), then it will become the gathering place of all the customers who are sick of those bad practices. With such a large customer base, that retailer will have enough weight to get new distribution deals on its own terms, thus increasing the size of its catalog, thus drawing in new customers, thus increasing its negotiating power, thus getting new deals, and so on. And so, customers eventually get most of the choices available elsewhere, but without all the bad practices.

GOG has already made quite some progress towards that goal. But success is not guaranteed, as there is always the strong temptation to compromise on principles in exchange for short-term gains. This has been demonstrated numerous times, and it's the job of the GOG userbase to remind the staff that integrity is vital.

If GOG, or any such hypothetical site based on principles, were to go ahead and try to offer maximum choices regardless of the terms, it would simply be throwing away its unique selling point while getting a benefit to an element everyone else has - catalog size. Basically, it'd be making itself redundant.

To summarize - nobody comes to GOG to get maximum choices. People come here for the principles.

Is it truly in GOG's best interest to take a stand on optional goodies of all things? Many would like to see other titles published by Devolver Digital here, wouldn't telling them to shove it over an optional OST and comic edition make it difficult to negotiate with them in the future?

There are numerous reasons to refuse titles, but is optional extras really one of those? GOG is going to have a really tough sell to publishers if they start lumping policies regarding extras on top of things.

Opinion, not fact. Quite a few people come on GOG because they offer a DRM-Free copy of a game that they either can't get elsewhere DRM-Free (DRM or DRM-Free choice), they can get elsewhere DRM-Free but without the goodies (Goodies or no Goodies choice), they can get it cheaper here (cheaper or more expensive choice), for the support of GOG (Retailer support or developer support) or just because the game is sold on GOG (collecting or not collecting choice). So not everyone is here for the principles, some people are here for other reasons (games, community, loyalty).

If a customer can choose between 10 different stores to get the product he needs, he is much better than having to choose between 2 stores, or only having the product available on one. Doesn't matter what that store is, choices are always better for the customer. Being able to further customize the product is even better, no matter if it's on one store or multiple.
Whether that's good for the store is a different issue though.

But what about people who like different versions (German Flatout has Crash Test Dummies instead of humans, and it does seem to be the superior one for example), DLCs (Sword of the Stars and Divinity for example) or any other "bad" practices? Should GOG only go for those who are sick of the practices, or attract newer customers as well?
If Wasteland 2 was not sold on GOG, doesn't that mean that those willing to buy the game would move elsewhere out of necessity? Even if they are sick of the "bad" practices, and Wasteland 2 doesn't have any of those, if GOG doesn't sell it, GOG doesn't make money.

"We are willing to offer product X"
"Sorry, we are only willing to get product Y"
"No deal, sorry"

Which one has the power in the above dialogue? The first one or the second? Which of those is the distributor, and which one the rights holder?

No matter how large your customer base may be, if the rights holder doesn't want to play ball, you got nothing. See Steam and EA. Steam has a huge customer base, but EA is no longer willing to play ball. So steam can't sell EA games. Is that a loss for Steam or EA?


Yes. Success is not guaranteed. The only guarantee is that staying put will lead to stagnation. New people must be attracted, so new stuff must be added. Whether that new stuff is a new publisher, different editions, brand new games, multiplayer games and servers, physical goodies or whatever else, it's up to GOG to test it and see how it goes. We may offer suggestions, and we do vote with our wallets.


So the problem is always to balance what you give and what you take. GOG tries to get quality games here, though there are quite a lot that people consider crap. GOG claims no DRM on their games, though some people believe that GOG games had DRM on them from day 1 (Sacrifice requires a CD-Key for multiplayer and some people consider CD-Keys to be DRM). Regional pricing was first introduced in 2011 with The Witcher 2, Day 1 releases were also introduced then, store exclusive content was here from Day 1, "ultra hyper extra special extended edition cuts" were also here quite early, and those that weren't were asked to become the "definitive" edition, and add-ons were requested by people from 2011 as well, if not sooner.

So, what exactly is GOG's "Unique Selling Point" that it must not compromise on? DRM-Free? Quality Games? Niche market (what niche?)? Staff that cares? Support that works?
And how is giving me, the consumer, the choice of how I get my game hurting me?


P.S. Not sure how coherent the post is. And do use the "reply" button since it sends a notification, makes it easier for me to answer you.