Kakihara: When I say something I assume that other people assume that it's my opinion. Because I'm saying it. People shouldn't have to go around putting "in my opinion" in front of everything they say.
Now when you say "like the rest of us", yeah, you're trying to speak for everyone.

cogadh: The thing that everyone seems to be assuming is that this new higher price point is only going to be applied to single games. In the interview I read, while it did mention a higher price point to get somewhat newer (but still old) games on the site, it also mentioned something very key: game collections. Would something like the entire Ultima series for $15 or $20 be worth it? I think so (even if I am personally not interested in the games). Adding this higher price point (whatever it is) will allow GOG the flexibility to do things like that on a regular basis, instead of just occasionally during a weekend sale. That can only be a good thing, both for GOG and for us.

Weclock: That's what I'm saying, he's speaking for everyone, and when I said "like the rest of us" I mean, just giving opinions, and not saying that "it'd be good for gog" or "bad for gog" just saying what we feel about it. I'd pay more than $10 for a game if it meant the difference between playing it and not playing it.

Namur: C'mon Wec, do we really need to put IMO before every statement we make ?
Had he said 'IMO, it woud be a bad step in the wrong direction for gog.' would that make any difference ?
Obviously people are stating their opinions here, no one is claiming to have the holly grail of truth.
I don't flat out know if it's a bad move for gog, no one can claim to know one way or the other, but i do question if it's a good one, at least at this time.
And i also would pay more than $10 for many games were they here already. But that's us, and as such, from a personnal point of view, you and me, we'd benefit from such a move, 'cause that would mean more games on catalogue at a price we're both willing to pay. But that doesn't mean that the majority of users feel that way, or that such move would/will be a good move for gog in the long run.

Tarm: Would you buy a new game with standard price for new games if it was available on GOG with all the usual GOG things like no DRM?
I asked myself this and if it's a new game I want now the answer is a YES! The service GOG give is that important for me.

Weclock: he's saying in his opinion, it'd be bad for gog, because everyone or the majority of users wouldn't like it, he can't speak for the majority of users.

Kakihara: This makes very little sense and I definitely did not indicate I was speaking for a majority of users.

Kakihara: But what if there's a new game without DRM and without compatibility because, well, it's a new frikkin' game?
What's the point of GOG? It would just be every other Digital Distribution site.

Weclock: then what exactly did you mean when you said you felt it'd be bad for GOG, how would it be bad for GOG? just because it would spurn your business?

Kakihara: But what if there's a new game without DRM and without compatibility because, well, it's a new frikkin' game?
What's the point of GOG? It would just be every other Digital Distribution site.

Kakihara: Why not just lower the prices of the individual games so when bought together they total at 15 or 20 bucks? Why want higher price points when lower price points can just be used individually?

cogadh: Because a package deal is better marketing and leads to better sales. Why do you think publishers already put things like the "Starcraft Warchest" out on their own? It's greater value for the dollar, plus it encourages larger sales. Even though GOG is a business that holds the customer's needs as a high priority, it is still a business and selling something like the entire Ultima series for $20 does have a higher profit margin than offering the individual games separately at a lower price point. Even with that, it is still a really good deal for the consumer. Its a win-win scenario.