The news that GOG is looking to also release DRM-free new games after the Witcher 2 is music to my ears.

Games are timeless treasures for me, much like art. All art eventually becomes old just as all games eventually be old.

Skyrim is all the rage right now, but look at Morrowind. Morrowind was insanely popular when it came out. There was actually a LINE outside the local game store when it was released. Now most people shrug and don't even give Morrowind a 2nd glance let alone play it. However, I still see it in the glory that I first saw it in.

Just like Morrowind; Witcher 2 and Skyrim will be "old games" eventually. If GOG stays true to their name, they will always have the titles they sell available which is more than can be said for ANY other publishers... Well, I think Steam will probably keep all of their games up for grabs, but I don't like their system for single player games.

The biggest reason BY FAR that I signed up to GOG was the DRM-free promise. Platform compatibility would be next, but the stance on DRM was what set them apart from everyone.

When I first heard the announcement about Good Old Games, I remember being absolutely ecstatic that someone was actually doing this, but also very worried that if it failed, no one would be willing to attempt another DRM-free game store. I encouraged people I knew to support it in its early days, no matter what growing pains it might have, to help ensure it would be here to stay. As it turned out, I needn't have worried -- thanks to the obvious hard work by the fine folks behind it, it seems to me that it's been a hit from day one! (Maybe a niche hit compared to the really big players, but a hit never the less.)

The focus on older games was fine (I've been gaming since the 8-bit micro days), and it seemed like a good way for GOG to distinguish itself, but only having old games certainly wasn't any kind of bonus -- the more good compatible DRM-free games available, the better!

So bring on the newer games, and long live GOG.com -- the best digital game distributor on the planet :)

With respect to releasing old games, I would think it takes time and money to bring old games back to life. If GOG.com can make more profit selling newer games, that surely will provide them with the resources they need to keep doing the former.

And more money means they can fix things like the wishlist, etc.

Maybe I'm being a conspiracy theorist but my biggest fear is that some companies might deliberatly want old games in their catalogues to die because they might feel that re-releasing them on GOG.com will threaten sales of their new games. At some point GOG.com is going to run into a brick wall. So why not broaden their focus now?


- - -


GOG may stand for Good old Games, but with a bit of creativity I'm sure they'll find a way to keep the name and broaden their focus. Here are a couple of ideas:
- Good on Gaming
- GO Gamer
- Galaxy of Games
- Generations of Games

With enough people applying their minds to this, I'm sure GOG.com will come up with a catchy alternative.


- - -


I'd rather spend my money at GOG.com and buy games rather than rent them from other digital distributors. Yes I'm one of those rabid anti-DRM people. I'll probably never play Skyrim until Bethesda stands up to Steam and says "Right, we've given you exclusive rights for x years, now it's time to look after our other fans". I'm prepared to wait...


- - -


Keep going GOG.com. You're doing a great job!

As long as GOG keeps releasing old games in the rate is has been, I don't mind seeing some newer games on GOG.
But if GOG decides to release newer games, it would probably be wise to stick to high quality Indie games instead of high profile big titles.
First of all because these games are often reminiscent of old(er) games. I'm thinking of the humble indie bundle games for instance. These kind of Indie games also do not require the latest in hardware which is a reason a lot of people like GOG (based on many of the reactions in this forum at least).
Second of all releasing high profile games could mean that member of GOG would no longer be able to resist the temptation of putting the games on p2p sites. That would ruin the reputation of GOG and could possibly be the end of GOG. Also the prices for these titles would have to be higher than the standard $ 5,99 / $ 9,99 and these low prices are another reason people love GOG (I'm guessing I'm not the only one who loves the weekend sales). So my advice would be to choose wisely. If GOG releases too little old games and instead focusses on releasing new and more expensive games you could loose a lot of your good old members.
The only exception I can think of is if those new releases tie in with old releases already on GOG. That would make sense and would also be interesting for the publisher because people who love the newer game could also be interested in trying out the previous game(s). And vice versa people that love a certain old game would be interested in trying out a recent sequel.

I hope a new site springs up somewhere that focuses on working on compatibility of old games on new systems. I suppose rights issues will make it hard to sell that service legally, like gog has. I know of Abandonia, but I'd rather pay someone to get some of those games running. My computer skills are average at best and I can do it given enough time, but time is money. Maybe I'm just lazy though.


I wish gog.com the best. I'm very excited about the prospect. I will start buying new mainstream pc games again if they're successful in making deals to sell new games drm-free.

But then again, if they're successful at showing that drm doesn't work (at least not in the way the game industry wants us to think it works), maybe more games will start to be released physically again without drm attached and I'll probably just buy those instead. Or buy games drm-free from the game developer's website if they don't insist on a client.


As for still releasing classics on gog.com, we'll see. I'm not very optimistic about the focus and quality in the future that will be given to those classics. I'm not saying that gog.com won't be successful, but it will most likely change and it might not be for the better. Wal-Mart originally had a focus of being a retailer for American-made products. That's hardly true today and look at how huge that chain has gotten. It's been very profitable for the owners. However, some people see Wal-Mart as a blight on the land.

I love this news. :D I suppose there is a danger that the catalog of truly good Old games may suffer when there are still some great games to add, or expansions to acquire. I'm hoping, though, that they could expand their release team so that this doesn't have to happen.

The "core values" mentioned in the OP are pretty close to what draws me to GoG. However, I agree with Sorrowshade89: Compatibility is also a major part of what makes GoG GoG. Next time you're writing down the Pillars of GoG;) please don't forget that one.

Someone else said on the RPS article that they wouldn't buy games from anywhere but GOG, if only GOG carried all games. I agree with that. And while I realize we're far from a world in which GOG does sell all games, I'm always glad to see it get another step closer.

Agreed. Something to use to check for & apply updates - but that I don't need or want to run otherwise - is what I'd want out of a GoG client going forward. (Currently, i've never even downloaded the client, but I can imagine it being more useful if more than just one game that is still being updated gets added to the catalog.)

Just don't take the site down without warning next time. :p

I don't know how many I'd re-buy, but there are ones I don't yet have, and I'm sure there are people just discovering them all the time. And I'd love to buy any games, including indies, on GoG going forward.

I think this is my favorite re-branding suggestion yet. ;)

This would certainly be nice. But I'll admit that the fee on mine is small enough that I'm not about to eschew a GoG purchase because of it.

I should hope CD keys won't be required to play anything, or else GoG will have abandoned their "no DRM" stance.

Though, if GoG signs companies who are willing to remove such DRM from the game itself, I suppose there might be some circumstances where a CD key would still be desirable in order to register it on forums, register the game on other services, etc., so still, good point.

I'm very happy that GoG.com is about to expand; they've promised they'll be DRM-Free in everything they sell & their 'old' games will still be either $9.99 or $5.99 (except when on discount!), thus we should all be happy. I would think that once these 'newer' games are available here, they'll be releasing 3 games a week instead of the standard 2 games/week. And really, there's only so many good old games out there, as PC gaming has only been a booming business since the 90s; only so many games from the 90s & stuff they can release that's considered 'good.' And even when the 'newer' games come, they'll surely still be doing what they can regarding the games that've started their profitable business here, improving it like how they do now & then (ie- getting a new manual, soundtrack, or ways to better run the games etc.).

I don't believe that companies want old games to die to clear way for their newer titles. Only paranoid company leaders who know their new products are shit will feel that way. Really, while I'm someone who isn't bigtime interested in most recent games, I'm in the minority of those who buy PC games; the vast majority of gamers, including shoppers here on GoG.com, are also bigtime interested in recent titles. Also, you're forgetting a major point: GoG.com can't open this new venture without other companies wanting their new titles on GoG.com here! Not only does such a thing provide more revenue for GoG.com, but smart company leaders can see which way the wind is blowing; GoG.com's DRM-Free way has more substance AND grit than the fools actively loving DRM on their games, and thus know that GoG.com's DRM-Free way of doing things is eventually gonna win in ALL areas of PC gaming! So they gotta get on board now!

I'd be willing to bet a hundred bucks, that no matter what they say, that some day there will be DRM on GOG.com. I personally don't care. DRM has never bothered me. I don't know why some gamers are so concerned about it. A year ago one of the GOG.com guys was interviewed on the PC Gamer Podcast, and he said that they didn't want any games newer than five years old, that's not happening. Clearly they can change their minds. Like I said, I honestly don't care. GOG.com is actually one of my favorite websites, and my favorite place to buy games. I'd like to see them have a client like Steam has.

Really, the most important thing I'd like to see is more of my favorite classics being brought back. I still want to see Westwood's Blade Runner, some game I played a long time ago called Timelapse, and other games that I forgot existed, or that I never heard about.

I will buy DRMed games depending on the DRM, it's not a complete no-no. However, it's a real headache to have to determine what DRM is on the game, read up on it, and so on... GoG is my favorite store because I can go on it, look at buying a game, and only have to worry about the game and the purchase price - I know I don't have to worry about the DRM. That is why I hope they don't ever relax their no DRM policy. It's about a keeping the store a convenient place for me to shop, even moreso than any kind of principled stand.

Update to my list :

the complete Stardock games catalogue
To the Moon ( make it GOG exclusive )
SPAZ
Clones
the complete Eschalon series

Let me expand a little on my "fear". We've only got so many hours in the day to devote to gaming. So the consiracy theory is: game publishers would rather have gamers spending $30 to play a modern game, than $10 playing an older game - and this is ignoring the trend that older games generally last longer than modern games (I'm talking about single player games specifically!). So if a publisher thinks they'll lose sales of two new games because I'm spending that time playing one Good Old Game, they might be worried.

So let me put their fears at rest and categorically state: I would happily spend $40 right now buying Skyrim DRM-free from GOG.com; ignoring the fact that I'd probably have to wait for two years before I can get the bandwidth to actually download the game ;-)

It seems that opinion is very much divided here, on the one hand you have those who want to see new games on GOG with the promise of them being DRM free, and the others who wish GOG to remain for older games only, but a diffrent way to achieve both goals could be to set up a sister site (GNG?) and sell the new DRM free games there and keep GOG about all those classics we know and love.
How does that sound?

I really don't see the point of the sister site idea.

If the concern is that game releases will be affected, the nature of the front end doesn't change anything. It's still going to be the same folks at the GoG offices, who will still have to figure out how to budget their team's time.

If the concern is that the forums specifically will attract an undesirable element... well, all I can do is roll my eyes. Maybe setting up an "Old Games/Old Timers" general forum might be a good idea, but that's just one more forum. No sister site needed.

Not up to a lengthy essay, but I'll pitch in my opinion in brief:

I'm here because GOG is DRM-free (and also for complete packages including expansions and the latest official patches). Not for "old" games. Not for the "community" here. Those things are nice, sure, but DRM-free is what defines GOG (for me, at least). The news that GOG is planning to host newer games DRM-free is a glimmer of hope in the losing battle against online DRM, so I say: Go GOG! That's the best gaming news I've heard in a long while.

A sister site for new games is unnecessary. After all, aside from publisher willingness to sell a game for $5.99 or $9.99, how would you go about deciding when a game has become old enough to transfer from one site to the other? And would that hassle (both to users and the GOG team itself) be worth pandering to those who want it? Keep it all unified here, I say.

I seriously doubt that I'll be buying "new" games off of GOG.com. Why?

1. I already have 20+ games on steam, and they offer much better community options/tools/service.

2. Eventhough new AAA games tend to be expensive through steam, they have daily and holiday sales of games that often are 50-75% off.

3. I have never cared, and never will care, about DRM as long as it doesn't intrude on my privacy or has me jumping through loops in order to play the games that I want to play.

4. I visit GOG.com because they offer Good Old Games for a fair price, and makes them playable on newer systems. Newer games being DRM free is a very weak selling point in my eyes; the games would have to be offered at a very low price in order to make me choose GOG.com over any other online supplier.

That being said, I sincerely hope that GOG.com continues to offer Good Old Games at a fair price since there are a huge amount of gog's that haven't been released here as of yet.