GOG.com

[ValeVelKal]

I wouldn't worry about GOG :

- While the financials of 2018 were meh, H1 2019 was more profitable for GOG.com, with increase of sales (81M PLN to 64M PLN H1 '19 vs H1 '18), gross margin (24M vs 20M) and margin (0.6M PLN vs -1.1 MPLN). H2 is typically stronger for a video game company so 2020 should be nice,

- Even if the financials were not good, CDProjekt in its entirety has as of 30/06/2019 530M PLN in cash, cash equivalent or bank deposits (+100M in other liquid assets) to compare to … 170M PLN in debts and other non-equity liabilities.

=> The whole company has had 100M of operating expenses in H1 2019 PLN, so even without taking into account financial revenue and potential negative income tax, the whole CDProject group could run more than 2 years with absolutely NO revenue whatsoever, purely on its reserves.

Of course, CD Projekt could want to cut the loss of GOG.com if it was not profitable, but I would not worry much.

First, I am wondering whether they are not piloting GOG.com profit to be as close as possible to zero. I am not quite sure (it should be clearer when we have the 2019 full year) but they have an handful of leverages for that (in particular good old administrative cost allocation). As to why, it could be to make their main activity as appealing as possible, to make GOG.com looks like a company barely surviving to limit the pressure on share agreements less favorable to them, ...

Second, even if GOG.com was not profitable, CDProjekt is profitable enough and would want to preserve its reputation, so it would invest part of its war chest to protect is GOG.com community, and in any case would probably prefer to sell the whole activity for a meager price to anyone who would want to take it (for instance, you know, Epic) rather than face the drama and the potential lawsuits they could incur.

So, don't worry about your catalog.

 

[Melcar]

If they were to sell GOG and Epic buys it... holy fucking shit.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Getting a refund just because you didn't like the game or whatever is retarded.

Oh really, so I guess game development is a special case? So while you can return pretty much anything because you don't like it (at least in non-shithole countries), somehow that shouldn't be done for games because... what?

 

[racofer]

If they were to sell GOG and Epic buys it... holy fucking shit.

If that happens, then it's piracy from here on forever. Or until the next GOG.

 

[Infinitron]

Ooooooops

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...olicy-and-many-are-worried-it-could-be-abused

GOG didn't tell devs about its new refund policy - and many are worried it could be abused
"We're powerless, and that's super scary."

A few days ago, GOG announced it was changing its refund policy as part of a "declaration of trust" to consumers. Previously, refunds were given only if the game hadn't been downloaded and played, or if the game literally wouldn't run on a player's hardware: but now players will be able to request a refund at any point during a period of 30 days after purchase, no strings attached.

"Everyone at GOG believes in a 'gamers-first' approach," the blog post said. "The latest update to our voluntary Refund Policy adds another piece to this customer-friendly experience. And it all sums up in one sentence: starting now, you can get a full refund up to 30 days after purchasing a product, even if you downloaded, launched, and played it. That's it."

On the surface, it seems like a big win for consumers: you can test-drive any game, and if you're really not liking it for whatever reason, the refund process is painless and streamlined. The policy change also means GOG has effectively leapfrogged Steam's already-flexible refund policy, which allows players 14 days to request their money back - so long as they've played less than two hours of the game.

But in making it so consumer-friendly, does GOG's new refund policy risk hurting developers?

That's what many have been discussing on Twitter over the last few days, with devs expressing concerns over the extreme flexibility of the refund system, and highlighting it could be easily abused. More than anything, it seems there are still a lot of unknowns surrounding the new refund policy, and many are particularly annoyed that developers and publishers were unaware of the policy before it was publicly announced.

To dig into this in further detail, I got in touch with the devs to ask them about their concerns, and spoke to GOG to find out how it hopes to prevent refund abuse.

At first glance, the policy already seems quite lenient: but there's a further problem with the policy that stems from GOG's DRM-free focus, a major selling point for the storefront which is proving to be something of a double-edged sword. For those who haven't heard of it, DRM stands for digital rights management: a form of access control technology that prevents the sharing of copyrighted works, and video game piracy (although it often gets cracked rather quickly). Unfortunately, DRM systems have been known to hamper performance, or sometimes require players to connect to the internet even for single-player games - making it somewhat unpopular with consumers.

As such, GOG sells DRM-free games to give itself an edge in the market: but this is causing problems with the updated refund policy. A player could feasibly buy a DRM-free game, download and keep it, then request a refund - effectively getting the game for free. This also explains why GOG's refund eligibility previously ended at the point of download, but according to No More Robots founder Mike Rose (who contacted GOG about the policy change), GOG's reason for the new no-strings attached policy was because "users [had] been complaining about their previous policy... which was essentially 'no refunds'".

"It's a tricky one, because I do personally agree that places should have refund policies," Rose told me. "But because GOG is DRM-free (as they love to shout about), it does mean that whatever refund policy they put in place, anyone can abuse it by simply downloading the game, getting a refund, and then keeping the game. So whatever they choose to do, there's always going to be some who abuse that."

The DRM-free aspect could also make things tricky for GOG to find a middle ground akin to Steam's two hour playtime limit, as the lack of DRM means GOG likely "cannot see if a player is playing a game, which means they can't track anything other than downloads", Rose explained.

GOG launched an initiative called 'FCK DRM' back in 2018, and it's played a large role in the storefront's branding.

Spoiler

That's already quite a window for abuse: but developers also feel GOG's new 30-day refund period is excessive, with Rose describing it as "ridiculous".

"Who needs 30 days to decide whether they like a thing?" Rose said. "You could play through an entire game multiple times in 30 days." Vlambeer co-founder Rami Ismail agreed on this point, saying he didn't believe there's "any game that needs 30 days of evaluation out there".

Yet the most disturbing thing for developers, it seems, is that they were given no warning about the policy change - and only found out when the blog post went live. When I contacted GOG, the storefront did not address my question about why devs were not informed - but Rose said GOG apologised to him for not telling devs in advance, telling him it "was a difficult decision for us to make, but we were prepared to shield our partners from all negative effects this new policy might have". Which is somewhat vague, to say the least.

"Whenever GOG or Steam make changes to their storefronts, we're not consulted", Red Thread Games founder Ragnar Tørnquist told me. "We learn about it shortly before takes effect... but in this particular case, there was no heads-up from GOG. I learned about the new refund policy when the world learned about the new refund policy. Which is scary!"

Ismail noted this was particularly alarming for developers because most game stores aren't exactly "stores" in the traditional sense. "They don't take the risk by taking stock - they're sales platforms on which the game developers run their stores, and thus take the risk of refunds," he explained.

"Some communication with devs before announcing things would've been nice."

When asked about potential improvements, Tørnquist said he didn't think personal taste should be a reason for refund. 'Saying 'I didn't like it' after playing through a game - I mean, sure, it would be great if that was the case with everything we buy, but that's not how it works', he added.

So, what does GOG have to say about this? How will it protect devs from customers who abuse the system? According to the refund policy FAQ, GOG is "monitoring the effects of the current update to make sure no one is using this policy to hurt the developers that put their time and heart into making great games", saying it "may refuse refunds in such individual cases". But does that mean automated moderation like Steam, or manual moderation?

To find out, I contacted GOG to ask them some questions about the policy, and received the following statement:

"The updated voluntary Refund Policy applies to all products available on GOG.COM. At the same time, it doesn't affect our existing agreements with partners and how the payments with them work.

"It's essential for us to make sure that all the hard work put into making the amazing games remains safe and the developers are being treated with the respect that they deserve. That's why with this update, we introduced additional measures to protect their games, including manual moderation of every refund request, the option to refuse refunds in individual cases, and more."

This means GOG is manually checking each and every refund request - which, frankly, sounds like a lot of work.

"I question how [much] time and effort that's going to cost them - [it] feels like out of everything, this would end up being the reason why they go back on the policy," Rose said.

With the refund system clearly open to abuse, and GOG's refund moderation system as-yet unproven, much of the risk to devs comes down to the likelihood of customers abusing the refund policy.

Thoughts on this appear to be mixed, with Dusk creator David Szymanski explaining on Twitter that the refund policy might not be as bad as expected, based on his past experience with Steam. Despite making narrative-focused walking sims that could be completed in under two hours, "the refund rates for my games [on Steam] have remained pretty low", he wrote. "The thing I've observed since is that a lot of gamers genuinely do want to support games and creators they like, even if the option to cheat the system is available." Ismail also said Vlambeer expected "the overwhelming part of the audience to support their favourite developers", but that it also expected "many to 'try' a few games by finishing them completely".

"I know when I was younger, I definitely would have," Ismail added.

Others, however, are clearly very worried about this - and there have indeed been past cases on Steam where the flexible refund policy ended up hurting indie developers (via DSOGaming). In 2016, Gamasutra consulted a number of indie devs and found one to seven per cent of their total Steam sales went to refunds, which is not an insignificant amount for small studios or indie developers.

"I don't know what the impact of this policy will be," Tørnquist told me. "It might not have a tangible impact on our business, although we make the kinds of games that are most heavily affected by return policies: short single-player games that can be completed in days, and once they're done, there's little reason to return to them.

"When Steam changed its return policy, we saw a huge uptick in refunds: up to three times what we saw before. That's something we have to build into our budgets, and our budgets are tight as it is. This makes it even worse.

"There's no question this policy affects smaller studios more than it does the bigger ones. Our margins are very tight. We make games that can be completed quicker. We don't have the wealth of content that keeps players engaged for months like the Assassin's Creeds of the world. If you played Draugen, our latest game, and finished it in a couple of evenings, and you felt like the game was a bit short or you didn't like the ending, what's stopping you from just asking for a refund? If the marketplaces open up for that, no questions asked, it may benefit the consumers, but it does not benefit the people who make games for a living."

According to Rose, GOG told him it wasn't too concerned about the policy change, informing him it had run internal tests in which the refund rate went up from 0.49 per cent to 0.51 per cent with the new policy. "There's a massive difference between doing a small test, and unleashing a new public policy on an entire storefront," Rose noted. "So that 0.51 per cent number is useless really - the coming weeks will tell whether it actually makes a difference."

So, as ever, we'll have to see how this refund policy pans out. In the meantime, the policy change is certainly causing developers a lot of stress, and GOG's DRM-free pledge leaves the storefront without an easy solution middle ground for their refund policy.

"Our livelihoods [are] in the hands of two actors: Valve with Steam, and GOG," Tørnquist concluded. "I think it's fair to say at least 90 per cent of our business comes from Steam, which is why we're supportive of alternative marketplaces like GOG. But GOG's move makes it a less attractive storefront for us to work with, which means we're left with just Steam. Which is bad.

"To me the biggest issue is that we don't have a say in this. We don't get to vote. We make the games, we take the risks, and we put the games on these storefronts because we don't have a choice. Whatever happens next, we're in the dark. There's no way for us smaller developers to have a conversation with the marketplaces to discuss how our games are sold, marketed, featured, removed or abused. We're powerless. And that's super scary."

 

[DalekFlay]

I think the only risk of abuse is people who would pirate morally but are chronic rule-followers and can't bring themselves to do it. Now they can get free shit "officially." That has to be a small minority of people though, and GOG say they'll step in to prevent frequent abuses. Still... shitty they didn't tell the developers.

 

[FeelTheRads]

How much can you abuse this? I'm guessing you won't be able to go and refund a game every day or something like that.

Of course there will always be those who will try to abuse it (for whatever retarded reason in this case since in legal terms it's the same as pirating and less convenient so what's the point?) and of course there will always be developers crying while they will continue to sell and make money.

 

[DalekFlay]

and of course there will always be developers crying while they will continue to sell and make money.

Given the flood of indie games nowadays and how quickly they go into deep sales, I believe developers when they say they're operating on super small margins. I don't blame them for being worried and pissed they weren't told. One guy in the article talks about how 90% or more of their sales come from Steam, so maybe he won't even bother with GOG now. That's not a future I want. Hopefully GOG follows through on preventing abuse and reassures these devs.

 

[Boleskine]

This could be a clever move by GOG.

3 months from now: "The response to our new refund policy was overwhelming!"

6 months from now: "Due to some rampant abuse, we will now only issue refunds for games whose playtime is tracked via the Galaxy client."

9 months from now: "Playtime for refund-eligible games will be limited to 3 hours, and the refund period will shorten from 30 days to 14 days."

12 months from now: "Guys, we don't like DRM but in an evolving marketplace we want to continue offering you the best games with the best customer service. Which leads us to our new exciting announcement..."

 

[racofer]

This could be a clever move by GOG.

3 months from now: "The response to our new refund policy was overwhelming!"

6 months from now: "Due to some rampant abuse, we will now only issue refunds for games whose playtime is tracked via the Galaxy client."

9 months from now: "Playtime for refund-eligible games will be limited to 3 hours, and the refund period will shorten from 30 days to 14 days."

12 months from now: "Guys, we don't like DRM but in an evolving marketplace we want to continue offering you the best games with the best customer service. Which leads us to our new exciting announcement..."

... all refunds are now eligible for up to 60 days."

 

[DalekFlay]

From what I've read the vast majority of GOG customers use Galaxy (oddly), so they probably could have made refunds "Galaxy download only" without much media hassle. Their forum would go apeshit though.

 

[FeelTheRads]

and of course there will always be developers crying while they will continue to sell and make money.

Given the flood of indie games nowadays and how quickly they go into deep sales, I believe developers when they say they're operating on super small margins. I don't blame them for being worried and pissed they weren't told. One guy in the article talks about how 90% or more of their sales come from Steam, so maybe he won't even bother with GOG now. That's not a future I want. Hopefully GOG follows through on preventing abuse and reassures these devs.

You're paying too much attention to their whining. If you pay attention to this you might as well pay attention to those who cry that every pirated download is a lost sale.
And if customer service is enough to kill them then maybe they deserve to die.

Finally, there's way too many developers, of all kinds, not just indies, so really it would be no big loss if some went away. But the fact that there are so many and we are swimming in shovelware should tell you that they're doing fine. And this policy won't change any of that.
Oh what, not all of them make a lot of money and some just survive? Well, fuck me, such a shame, game development is maybe not the perfect get rich quick scheme they thought it is then. Turns out it's an industry like any other and you need to compete and you don't deserve money just for existing despite what game journalists tell you.

 

[DalekFlay]

I mean, I agree with all that in general. I just think when you're operating in that environment a 30 day return policy might turn you off selling on that store. Especially when it has like 5-10% market share.

 

[Comte]

So should I start archiving my essential gog games since this is the beginning of the end?

 

[cvv]

Just a thought - I was browsing the GOG catalogue the other day, thinking "schweet, now I can download what I want, play it for a month and return it".

To my surprise I didn't find a single goddamn game I wanted to use like this. I realised everything I want to play I also want to own in my library, for some reason. And if I don't feel the need to own something, I don't really want to spend time with it.

 

[Mark Richard]

While I understand the Codex's trepidation towards GOG's decision (this forum gave up on humanity a long time ago), it's puzzling so many others, including GOG's own user base, also assume hordes of bad faith gamers are waiting for a chance to strike through this roundabout method of obtaining free games. They could just pirate them. It's not like GOG copy protects the files, which is incidentally another argument that has been used to question GOG's viability as a business since its inception.

GOG conduct business under the belief that their customers are friends rather than foes. Why is it so unfathomable that such a positive relationship can survive?

 

[FeelTheRads]

Because it has been ingrained into everyone's mind by developers and publishers and game journalists that the customers are evil... and entitled and everything that's bad in the world and anyone else involved is their victims, because poor developers they're just nice people trying to make you happy.

Using this as some roundabout piracy is just retarded and it won't happen.

Assuming this will kill GOG when actual piracy didn't is also just retarded. What, everyone was waiting for a more inconvenient way to pirate games or what?

 

[Empary]

Why even bother abusing it

 

[Hobo Elf]

Too many people have a hard time understanding that some customers genuinely feel fine giving developers money for providing them with a game that they absolutely enjoy. I certainly do, especially if it means that I might get more of the good stuff down the line. Maybe it's a lack of empathy.

 

[cvv]

Too many people have a hard time understanding that some customers genuinely feel fine giving developers money for providing them with a game that they absolutely enjoy.

Because since gaming went mainstream most people buy games like they buy groceries - without giving a shit about the producers or the brands.

I actually stopped "buying games" many, many years ago. Instead, I've been supporting developers. Big difference. That's why I quite often buy a game on D1, at full price, even though I then wait months, even years, to play it. Sure, I could wait for it to be -85% off but if everyone did that we wouldn't have any more mid-size games, the meat and potatoes of the industry. Only triple A dross and stupid pixelartsy indies would be left.

 

[Comte]

Dudes is rimworld any good?

 

[Fronzel Neekburm]

Just in case there is even a single person on the Codex who doesn't own these yet: The Thief series* is available for 99 Cents each until March 7th:
Thief Gold
Thief 2
Thief Deadly Shadows




*(also the Hitman series and a bunch of other stuff)

 

[pOcHa]

Dudes is rimworld any good?

 

[Theodora]

Too many people have a hard time understanding that some customers genuinely feel fine giving developers money for providing them with a game that they absolutely enjoy. I certainly do, especially if it means that I might get more of the good stuff down the line. Maybe it's a lack of empathy.

Yeah, it feels kinda shitty to spend like 3 USD on a game if I care about it(/s development) and it's already really niche to begin with. Found myself overpaying for a bunch of roguelikes around winter because the sales were sometimes just too much to feel okay about.

(And not rich, far from it.)

 

[Removal]

GoG got their hands on Mark of Chaos and Mordheim
https://af.gog.com/promo/warhammer_week?as=1649904300