It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionBoycotting DRM and Game Censorship on GOG, 2021-2022(5216 posts) (5216 posts) 
(5216 posts) 
Pages:
1
75
150
210
211
212
213
214
300
348
This is my favourite topic
Posted October 05, 2021
low rated
I'm not sure if taking down an ad hominin with a long logical post was a good idea or not. It could be....but the insults and aggression didn't help, at all. I think you'd have been better served with:

Thanks for your opinion on the OP, I'll give it to the man in this forum who asked as soon as he shows up. Now would you like to discuss the actual point? Or did you just come here to shit on the OP and run off?

I've settled on a boycott being a bad idea, but as a poster said in a different thread, a dedicated pressure. Keep 1-staring DRM based games as the non-functional false advertising they are, and the keep reminding people that making a game lose functionality or performance for nothing but purchase verification is a technical failure. Make it clear what the market is, and give GoG a reason to surrender.

And yes, I am posting this to keep going with that, because I don't plan to just quietly go away.
Post edited October 05, 2021 by mastyer-kenobi
Posted October 05, 2021
low rated
Just a random thing I thought about just a bit ago.

The odd update misconception, with offline launchers and installers, and sometimes updates, is not a GoG problem, it happens on steam to. Steam is sometimes out of date with GoG versions, epic versions, standalone launchers, etc. This is a developer issue and there's no getting around it once you pass incredibly niche market. Not every developer is on top of things and not all of them are competent AND free of managerial rushes. It happened in both directions once for Pathfinder Kingmaker, and on steam's side for a lot of older games. I can't blame GoG for that all too much, they can only manage so much.
Posted October 05, 2021
avatar
mastyer-kenobi: Just a random thing I thought about just a bit ago.

The odd update misconception, with offline launchers and installers, and sometimes updates, is not a GoG problem, it happens on steam to. Steam is sometimes out of date with GoG versions, epic versions, standalone launchers, etc. This is a developer issue and there's no getting around it once you pass incredibly niche market. Not every developer is on top of things and not all of them are competent AND free of managerial rushes. It happened in both directions once for Pathfinder Kingmaker, and on steam's side for a lot of older games. I can't blame GoG for that all too much, they can only manage so much.
Not exactly correct. The issue often cited here as another reason to boycott is how the Offline installers are sometimes kept outdated despite the developer supplying Gog with updated files that are immediately integrated into Galaxy. The dev/publisher has no role to perform in the creation of the Offline installers. That's all on Gog.

As for the issue you are focusing on, yeah sometimes a developer forgets or deliberately ignores a store as a whole. It sucks for its customers indeed.
Posted October 05, 2021
I have updated the first post to include everyone who joined over the past few days. Thanks and welcome aboard! I have also updated it to mention Hitman (2016) specifically as a game that needs to be addressed.

avatar
joppo: Not exactly correct. The issue often cited here as another reason to boycott is how the Offline installers are sometimes kept outdated despite the developer supplying Gog with updated files that are immediately integrated into Galaxy. The dev/publisher has no role to perform in the creation of the Offline installers. That's all on Gog.
This is correct. The issue being highlighted is the frequent discrepancy between updates for Galaxy and for the offline installers. If GOG gets the same updated files from the developer, then both versions should be updated at exactly the same time. It is unacceptable for offline installers to be treated as an afterthought.
Posted October 05, 2021
low rated
avatar
mastyer-kenobi: Just a random thing I thought about just a bit ago.

The odd update misconception, with offline launchers and installers, and sometimes updates, is not a GoG problem, it happens on steam to. Steam is sometimes out of date with GoG versions, epic versions, standalone launchers, etc. This is a developer issue and there's no getting around it once you pass incredibly niche market. Not every developer is on top of things and not all of them are competent AND free of managerial rushes. It happened in both directions once for Pathfinder Kingmaker, and on steam's side for a lot of older games. I can't blame GoG for that all too much, they can only manage so much.
avatar
joppo: Not exactly correct. The issue often cited here as another reason to boycott is how the Offline installers are sometimes kept outdated despite the developer supplying Gog with updated files that are immediately integrated into Galaxy. The dev/publisher has no role to perform in the creation of the Offline installers. That's all on Gog.

As for the issue you are focusing on, yeah sometimes a developer forgets or deliberately ignores a store as a whole. It sucks for its customers indeed.
No, that's the developers. They're two different programs. They may be similar but there -are- differences. You can argue GoG should make it so both installers must update simultaneously, but that's a moderation standard at worst, and even then I do get it. I remember the first newcom(new Xcom) game updated the teleport glitch to be worse. I'd totally get behind "we let them rush a fix for that because it's kind of urgent."

Edit: If you're argument is alongside "they should always be updated simultaneously" then that's fine, but it does come with problems of it's own. Did the offline installing have a glitch or break? Guess the online one gets force rolled back. Is the issue urgent enough to justify separating the production? Sucks for the playerbase. I'm not saying it's a bad standard, but it's not all "GoG bad, no one else at fault"
Post edited October 05, 2021 by mastyer-kenobi
Posted October 06, 2021
high rated
avatar
joppo: Not exactly correct. The issue often cited here as another reason to boycott is how the Offline installers are sometimes kept outdated despite the developer supplying Gog with updated files that are immediately integrated into Galaxy. The dev/publisher has no role to perform in the creation of the Offline installers. That's all on Gog.

As for the issue you are focusing on, yeah sometimes a developer forgets or deliberately ignores a store as a whole. It sucks for its customers indeed.
avatar
mastyer-kenobi: No, that's the developers. They're two different programs. They may be similar but there -are- differences. You can argue GoG should make it so both installers must update simultaneously, but that's a moderation standard at worst, and even then I do get it. I remember the first newcom(new Xcom) game updated the teleport glitch to be worse. I'd totally get behind "we let them rush a fix for that because it's kind of urgent."

Edit: If you're argument is alongside "they should always be updated simultaneously" then that's fine, but it does come with problems of it's own. Did the offline installing have a glitch or break? Guess the online one gets force rolled back. Is the issue urgent enough to justify separating the production? Sucks for the playerbase. I'm not saying it's a bad standard, but it's not all "GoG bad, no one else at fault"
And in the cases where the updated files have already been submitted? That's on the developers? That's like taking your car to the mechanic, and he doesn't fix it. That's your fault somehow, not his.
Posted October 06, 2021
GOG-s offline installer updates were always late, in comparison to e.g. Steam and we accepted that, because they were carefully made by GOG with Tender Loving Care, not "injected" by developers like e.g. Steam and we wanted it done right.

But, since, GOG Galaxy, developers can "inject" their updates directly to GOG Galaxy like they could on Steam for years.

And, so "old" GOG crew (like many of us boycotting now) who use only offline installers, not Galaxy (especially since forced 2.0 update) are left with obsolete offline installers (some for weeks, months or more) and without even a date, reason or announcement why.

But, we know why, because GOG doesn't care anymore!
Posted October 06, 2021
Put me down for a full boycott. This store has gone to shit and this community is full of troglodytes so I don't expect anything to improve
Posted October 06, 2021
I use Galaxy, and I would like to be considered sympathetic to this cause.
Just because I use Galaxy doesn't mean I don't want the OPTION to go fully client/launcher free.
I remember the days when I just installed a game with an EXE and a KEY, no account or registration, and everyone hated Steam.
I don't like the "17 launchers" approach, the DRM always running in the background for a game and a launcher.
I enjoy Galaxy, I think the "unified launcher" idea would be amazing, if it completely rids me of launching the other launchers (like Rockstar launcher, when you launch a Rockstar game, it has to open ON TOP of the current launcher, good grief).
launcher to launch a launcher to verify the DRM of the launchers launching a launcher's game. What Da!?
Posted October 06, 2021
I don't at all mind people holding GOG:s feet to the fire because that will keep them vigilant and entice them to become more responsive to their customers but, having said that, I don't see much point in an all-out boycott over a few ambiguous instances of DRM. As long as these instances are exceptions to the rule–and not the rule–GOG will remain the platform of choice for anyone looking for a hassle-free experience with DRM-free purchases. If for no other reason then because of the simple fact that it's still the only game in town when it comes to having a large DRM-free library (excluding a few niche alternatives). I guess I'm just not as emotionally invested in GOG as some to view every little transgression or inconsistency of theirs as a personal betrayal. I don't hold any illusions about their motives–they are a business after all and they are in the business of making money–but as long as I can relatively effortlessly find DRM-free titles here, I'll keep using their platform. If and when that becomes too much of a hassle, I'll simply stop using their platform, download my entire DRM-free library and move on. In fact, as I slowly approach the 2k mark of GOG titles owned, if anything has the potential to bother me to the point of not wanting to use their platform anymore, it's far more their lack of basic sorting and filtering options than their dubious inclusion of limited DRM features in Hitman and a handful of other easily shunnable titles. Though, I agree that GOG needs to be much clearer and more upfront about these instances when they occur in order to avoid unnecessary controversy. Again, something that could easily be addressed simply by introducing better and more advanced sorting and filtering options...
Post edited October 06, 2021 by retrorealms
Posted October 06, 2021
high rated
avatar
retrorealms: I don't at all mind people holding GOG:s feet to the fire because that will keep them vigilant and entice them to become more responsive to their customers but, having said that, I don't see much point in an all-out boycott over a few ambiguous instances of DRM. As long as these instances are exceptions to the rule–and not the rule–GOG will remain the platform of choice for anyone looking for a hassle-free experience with DRM-free purchases. If for no other reason then because of the simple fact that it's still the only game in town when it comes to having a large DRM-free library (excluding a few niche alternatives). I guess I'm just not as emotionally invested in GOG as some to view every little transgression or inconsistency of theirs as a personal betrayal. I don't hold any illusions about their motives–they are a business after all and they are in the business of making money–but as long as I can relatively effortlessly find DRM-free titles here, I'll keep using their platform. If and when that becomes too much of a hassle, I'll simply stop using their platform, download my entire DRM-free library and move on. In fact, as I slowly approach the 2k mark of GOG titles owned, if anything has the potential to bother me to the point of not wanting to use their platform anymore, it's far more their lack of basic sorting and filtering options than their dubious inclusion of limited DRM features in Hitman and a handful of other easily shunnable titles. Though, I agree that GOG needs to be much clearer and more upfront about these instances when they occur in order to avoid unnecessary controversy. Again, something that could easily be addressed simply by introducing better and more advanced sorting and filtering options...
Filters aren't a solution since games with drm shouldn't be on the store in the first place.
Posted October 07, 2021
low rated
avatar
retrorealms: I don't at all mind people holding GOG:s feet to the fire because that will keep them vigilant and entice them to become more responsive to their customers but, having said that, I don't see much point in an all-out boycott over a few ambiguous instances of DRM. As long as these instances are exceptions to the rule–and not the rule–GOG will remain the platform of choice for anyone looking for a hassle-free experience with DRM-free purchases. If for no other reason then because of the simple fact that it's still the only game in town when it comes to having a large DRM-free library (excluding a few niche alternatives). I guess I'm just not as emotionally invested in GOG as some to view every little transgression or inconsistency of theirs as a personal betrayal. I don't hold any illusions about their motives–they are a business after all and they are in the business of making money–but as long as I can relatively effortlessly find DRM-free titles here, I'll keep using their platform. If and when that becomes too much of a hassle, I'll simply stop using their platform, download my entire DRM-free library and move on. In fact, as I slowly approach the 2k mark of GOG titles owned, if anything has the potential to bother me to the point of not wanting to use their platform anymore, it's far more their lack of basic sorting and filtering options than their dubious inclusion of limited DRM features in Hitman and a handful of other easily shunnable titles. Though, I agree that GOG needs to be much clearer and more upfront about these instances when they occur in order to avoid unnecessary controversy. Again, something that could easily be addressed simply by introducing better and more advanced sorting and filtering options...
I'd rather not open the slipper slope. I'm not like the people missing the point and attacking multiplayer games or a centralized server log-in for multiplayer and user-content. But, I'd rather not say it's okay to outright have DRM, which Hitman has, on the basis it's entirely safe to have only a small amount of it. Having any amount makes the store less trustworthy.

Oh and I'm going to challenge that fallacy about profit right now. Business is not the corpus cult from warframe. The point of a business is the distributrion of a product or service in the best way feasably possible, to allow people to specialize in that provision of service and product. Profit it means to an end, not an end. We call people who see profit as the end greedy and selfish for a reason, because it isn't some acceptable norm.
Posted October 07, 2021
avatar
retrorealms: I don't at all mind people holding GOG:s feet to the fire because that will keep them vigilant and entice them to become more responsive to their customers but, having said that, I don't see much point in an all-out boycott over a few ambiguous instances of DRM. As long as these instances are exceptions to the rule–and not the rule–GOG will remain the platform of choice for anyone looking for a hassle-free experience with DRM-free purchases.
They're exceptions to the rule until they're accepted. Then they become the rule.
Post edited October 07, 2021 by paladin181
Posted October 07, 2021
avatar
Truth007: Filters aren't a solution since games with drm shouldn't be on the store in the first place.
This. GOG markets their store as 'DRM-free' (which is also the basis on which the store has been built). In my book, that means 'free of DRM'.

Otherwise, it's analogous to going into a cosmetics store that says their products are 'free of all animal testing', to find there is a section labeled 'products that involve animal testing'.
Posted October 07, 2021
OK so here's another neat idea for GOG: just claim that everybody gets the "DRM-free" phrasing wrong.

It is not "free from DRM", never was. It is "DRM? Free!", as in "you are getting all the DRMed content for free: it's only non-DRMed content you are paying for". Sure, it could be, say, $50 for two wallpapers without DRM. One can say $50 is too pricey for a couple of jpegs, — but it is freedom that we value here, don't we? Isn't this freedom worth the money?

And don't forget that you're getting THE WHOLE GAME for free! What a nice freebie we are having here! Of course it's DRMed up to its throat, but it doesn't cost you anything, so why the long face? You're supporting a good cause, getting what you are paying for, AND also a nice shiny game on top of that as a gift! We at GOG keep our word, and the word is "DRM? Free!"

It just never was supposed to mean "free from DRM". And it was never supposed to mean "old games" or even "good games", as some confused ignorant whining people use to say. It has always been "GOG: DRM? Free! Gaming". Oh, and by the way, Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
Post edited October 07, 2021 by beresk_let
Pages:
1
75
150
210
211
212
213
214
300
348
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionBoycotting DRM and Game Censorship on GOG, 2021-2022(5216 posts) (5216 posts) 
(5216 posts)