I think the biggest problem I'm seeing with all this is one I haven't seen anyone really mention. One price worldwide is fair in theory, but the way it was executed by GOG is problematic in one regard: They're using a singular, non-globalized currency, USD.

Here's a hypothetical situation, and keep in mind I'm no economist, nationally or internationally, this is just how I understand it. Say you live in Finland and you pay for things in euros. You can look up on Google how much 1 euro is worth in US dollars (at this moment, $1.37), but who decides that number? Some people behind a desk? If the value of a euro increased, that's just benefiting those who use euros -- people in North America, South America, Asia, or anywhere that doesn't use the euro, gets to watch as games suddenly become cheaper for you (albeit marginally), but not for them. Is that fair?

Someone in this thread asked... No, but how would you feel if they charged different customers based on their neighbor's income? Is that any more or less fair?

The same person mentioned this, too: This is the reason regional pricing exists in the first place. Every economy is different in this world. Just because 1 euro is worth 1.37 USD doesn't necessarily mean they're within the same economy - they are in the same economic network, but they aren't the same economy. The reason games are 70-80 dollars or more in Australia is because that's what people are willing to pay there. It's not GOG's fault. Every economy is fueled by two parties, the "1%", and normal consumers (AKA in regards to video games and other digital goods, stupid people).

My point is, until we have a globally unified currency, particularly for online, digitally sold goods, I believe no side is right in this argument. Maybe cryptocurrencies will one day solve this issue, but who knows.

sure they were already able to ask for games to be $40

but how fair is it if GoGGers in certain regions have to spend the equivalent of 60 or 80 dollars for the exact same game

Yes, One world, one price was one of their "Core values" just like "no DRM"

For several reasons:

- It's the simplest system with the least bueraucratic overhead.

- It ensures least total prices for all on average because regional pricing is to maximize profits, so absencse of regional prices decreases the average price.

- It doesn't discriminate people for their origin. After all if a person from country X is treated differently from a person from country Y just because of the location of the country, this could be seen as bad, unwanted discrimination. Some of these forms of discrimination like after sex or race are already forbidden. Country of origin could be included - at least it should be debated.

- If there would be different prices, some people would feel ripped off (as in GOG.com old video, where they explain that this guys doesn't work there anymore). Why should two people pay different although they are both gamers and both peers (in a way).

- It avoids fragmentation of the market, enables gifting worldwide, avoids awkward question like what happens to your game when you move from one region to another....

- It avoids that poor guys in rich regions are the losers and rich guys in poor regions are the beneficiaries.

I hope I convinced you that there are many pros to worldwide prices. I even believe they outweight the pros of regional prices by far.

Regional prices don't have the goal of being more fair. The aim or regional prices is to maximize profit. If it happens at all, becoming more fair is a side effect. But it could be as well that prices aren't lower anymore but higher somewhere so we all and each of us pays more in every single case. That is possible.

Don't know how some people conclude that just because prices are lower in one region than in another region it means that worldwide prices cannot be even lower. Bigger market = more competition.