I hadn't been called a frog in a long time, Canuckler!

LOL

Well you can't have it both ways. You can't say 'I prefer if GoG was niche' but then have complaints on the forums on how game 'xyz' isn't being sold here. I'm sure there are plenty of users who would have no issue if GoG adhered to the original guidelines and basically only sold old games. The problem with that is GoG themselves have already said that is not a sustainable business model.

When GoG first started, the going theory was that they could show developers/publishers that DRM-Free could sell just as well as if it has DRM. If there is any battle that has been lost, it's this one. Because at the end of the day, even the developers that have joined GoG recently have only done so with concessions (whether it be regional pricing/Galaxy/etc.). I've seen users on these forums (and even GoG themselves) proclaim in the past that GoG was more of a curated small store vs a big box store (Steam). And as in the real world, GoG has learned that the curated small store doesn't keep you in business. So the challenge is how to stay relevant (in business) while not abandoning your main selling point.

Thanks for the link, and backing up my point earlier. I signed up back around that time as well, and remember how good GOG was then (still called Good Old Games too). It's not mere nostalgia either. It was simply better and more in line with my own interests and viewpoints. I care a great deal about DRM free and am worried about the mass surveillance society we live in, where privacy is largely a thing of the past. I don't want to live in a world like that, and it's quite worrying to see GOG move in that direction. It happened to Humble Bundle before. They once were good, and then became a steam key re-seller. GOG probably won't go that far, but they are chasing after them and replicating the same bastardised technology/client/phoning-home idiocy.

I am glad people see our viewpoint at least, when given the evidence of how it was in the past.

And as mentioned by others, it's been a slow and gradual move from that point to where we are now. I've not even heard about Gremlins Inc, but things like that are often called a "trial balloon". Lets test it out, and see what the reaction is like (pretty common in politics too). If the public is outraged, we claim it was a mistake of some sort, and temporarily retrace steps. Try again in the future. Many small steps like that has transformed GOG from what it once was to what it has become now.

I don't disagree with this, in principle. But I was just pointing out that things are slowly creeping to a place where GOG isn't even recognizable as the business it started out being. It's the 'slippery slope' argument. They've abandoned once-touted principles in order to grow their business. They've changed a number of things with regards to the user experience in order to grow their business. They've done some very odd/eyebrow raising things in order to grow their business. Etc. Etc. So if you hand-wave away every change as "That's necessary to grow their business, so just accept it", where is it going to end up?

All in the name of growing their business : and that's fine. But the argument that people should basically just shut up and take it when GOG starts abandoning many of the things that brought people here and helped make them a viable business in the first place... and the concern is that the one huge selling point they have left (for many of us) - DRM free - may be just as easily sacrificed on the altar of 'growing the business': that's disturbing.

*edit* For what it's worth, I don't prefer that GOG be niche. I want them to become mainstream. But what difference does it make if they become mainstream if they're just another Steam clone, selling DRM-ed games while the DRM-free customer-base is consistently marginalized until they're finally abandoned altogether?

uhm, the online parts of a game has been drmed before just saying.
Also, i dont quite understand why people are blaming gog for it either.
I mean its devs coice to not implement lan or drm free multiplayer.
not really gogs.
Gog can provide a client, they cant modify/add features in games made by other people unless they got permission to do so

I should probably specify that my problem with the game is less the existence of an online-only version and more the selling of DLC that only works with that particular version. Has GOG previously sold something that will become 100% useless the second a developer decides to shut down their game's servers?

There are apparently arguments out there about the various types of multiplayer and the inherent DRMiness of each, but I don't know about any of that stuff because of how little attention I've paid to multiplayer over the years. "Hotseat" sounds some kind of musical chairs variant. Obviously I lack the knowledge on the subject to argue about it, much less be upset about one type being included over another.

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/lists_games_that_need_galaxy_for_multiplayer_and_the_ones_that_dont/page1

I don't know. Their rationale was probably that the DLC are utterly inconsequential to gameplay, so it wouldn't matter. (Maybe GOG would refund people the cost of the now-unusable DLC they'd purchased if the game's servers get shut down within the next few years? I'd like to think so; I'm sure they'd at least stop selling those DLC.) Viewed this way, I suppose I can see your concern.

My main concern with regards to Gremlins, Inc. is that the description on the store page is a giant (though admittedly well-presented) wall of text that you have to read through to get the necessary info; the text GOG put above the "add to cart" button, while a good idea, could be worded better, since it doesn't make clear that the "companion product" Gremlins vs. Automatons is actually the separate, offline-only version of the same single-player mode that's in the main game. They're sort of shooting themselves in the foot there.
Actually, looking at it now, the BIG problem is that there doesn't seem to be any mention on the base game's page (I'm just skimming that wall of text) that the three game-related DLC only work with the main, online-only game; one has to visit the product page for each DLC (which, to be fair, have the disclaimer in that same hard-to-miss spot right above the "add to cart" button). While people should always check a title's product page before purchasing, obviously that doesn't always happen, especially with DLC.
But this still only makes a case for not selling [url=https://www.gog.com/game/gremlins_inc_uninvited_guests]three DLC here; the base game's fine (even if the store page could use a bit of cleanup).

All this DLC business is another leap down that slippery slope as well. If GOG included DLC in the proper product instead of agreed to chopping up the games, this would be a smaller problem.

If I came to GOG now instead of 6 years ago, I'm not sure I would register and spend any money.

Thanks; I'm still wildly uncomfortable with the subject, but can at least kind of see the problem now.

Possibly, but that's a bit too close to ye olde "Steam will patch the client out of all the games if they ever go out of business" argument for my tastes. The idea of relying on the random charity of a for-profit business seems dicey, even if GOG is more likely than most to offer it.

Not to mention, it's laughably naive to think that a company that's going under is going to have - let alone be willing to allocate - the manpower to perform this benevolent service. They'll have far bigger issues on their hands than worrying about refunding monies paid for DLCs (or even games) that no longer function when the service shuts down due to financial insolvency.

That last post of mine should read: No "it's not that" (was accidentally left in after some editing). But I see now that we meant the exact same thing.

Haven't forgotten your question, just didn't have time to do the digging yet.



^ So much this; +1.

I would like provide my 2 cents to this... people can take from it whatever they want, but I'm NOT going to argue over it. Just want to share my observations:

On the other hand, however, what difference does it make then if they didn't focus on Galaxy and instead carried on with their so called "principles"? Sure old time user may remain happy... for awhile. But there is a strong argument to be made that this would eventually lead to a number of potential issues with no growth. There are of course two sides to every coin.

So you argument is don't become Steam but you also don't want them to remain niche? Let's remember they have spent roughly 6 or 7 years before Galaxy never managing to arguably break out of the less than 10% total of PC sales while Steam overwhelmingly controls the vast majority. There may have been a few outliers in that time but generally this does seem to be the case. It can also be argued it wasn't until Galaxy and the Witcher 3 that they started to see more higher profile releases.

I find it a bit comical in a sense that people want to criticize GOG who arguably may have made a few missteps here and there, but overall has still remained very pro-gamer and pro-consumer compared to anyone else in the industry selling games.

Yes a user may have preferred one world, one price... I get it. But GOG made a very acceptable compromise to a) to move their business forward which was arguably needed and b) tried to appease those who provided feedback to this decision with the fair price policy at the expense of their own profit margins I might add.

Yes a user may have preferred the time before Galaxy, but then fail to take into account that GOG will likely get games because of the tools provided by Galaxy. So the result is that even non-Galaxy users will benefit by Galaxy, not directly perhaps but indirectly for sure.

People complained about re-buying games on GOG that are already owned on Steam, and again at the expense of their own profit margins in potential lost sales they made GOG Connect. Instead of being thankful for any game in which a user gets for free from GOG, now people post "please add to GOG connect" or ""why isn't this on GOG connect" during any high profile release like GOG has some obligation to now do so.

They get accused by long time GOG users nearly every day of abandoning DRM Free when compared to the time before Galaxy... nothing major has really changed. Games had gimped, controlled via third party accounts, or even missing online MP before Galaxy, and that still happens now with Galaxy. GOG arguably before Galaxy always had a goal of single player DRM-Freeness, and after Galaxy GOG still has the goal of keeping single player DRM Free. But yet this narrative remains.

GOG wants to bundle Galaxy with installers to simplify a service they offer for all involved, making it a checkbox that you can opt-out off (which I always said wasn't a good idea) but long time users lose their minds like GOG just committed a mortal sin, going as far as to claim their going back to Steam or worse consoles... vastly more restricted systems regardless of this arguably small change that really doesn't impact your ability to install and/or play without Galaxy. Doesn't make much sense. Inconvenience for some yes, GOG is now DRM... no.

IF you are still reading at this point... congrats. This is where we currently are today in GOG land. But GOG's current actions have NOT any any way indicated they are not still pro-gamer or pro-consumer. They indicate a company that wants to be more than want said company started out as. They indicate a company that will make compromises or even redesign their stated principles to achieve their long term goals. People don't even keep the same principles for years on end, but somehow people a expect a company that lives in a changing market will. Let's be real.

I contest GOG's main problem is they are trying to appease two very separate set of users now, those who like Galaxy or those who like what Steam provides, but perhaps not fully how Valve provides it vs users who want nothing to do with any of that. In the end they will probably, maybe even likely fail at both.

GOG will probably at some point need to clarify just what they want to be now, in today's market. What they still stand for, if anything... if for no other reason than to provide those who seek GOG to remain as it was can now realize GOG is no longer the store for them.

- I strongly believe Galaxy is a priority for GOG going forward.
- I strongly believe standalone installers aren't going anywhere and/or GOG will always provide some method for game preservation.
- I strongly believe DRM-Free remains a priority for GOG, but what GOG sees as DRM-Free is largely different that what some people strongly want them to see it as.
- I strongly believe GOG will take an old school approach to DRM, if the game has a system like Denuvo or SecuROM it will be considered containing DRM and wont be allowed, but GOG will not penalize devs from releasing on GOG who design with an online first mentality as this is a design choice unless that online connection is specifically used to enforce ownership. They will instead likely allow the free market decide if those games have a place here.
- I strongly believe people overreact around here with no real basis or knowledge as to what is to come and GOG will do well to tune that out and focus on providing a good service and games.

Again just my 2 cents. I have no grand allusions that one day GOG (like Steam) may disappoint me, hell it's probably even likely. But right now GOG has remained and continues to remain, for me, what made them great. A place I can buy games where I a) don't have to worry about 3rd party DRM (or single player DRM), b) can purchase older games that work on newer systems and c) can preserve my games for when GOG dies.

As long as these three points remain, everything else shall remain fluff...

Haha, it sure is a difficult concept to put into words. :D