I’ve just watched Ross from accursedfarms stream and he said that basically you have waste their times for months promising that you will promote the stop killing games campaign in your newsletter then decided that it doesn’t give you enough public relation PR if you do that.

What an ugly move you did there! We are trying to save the games for everyone, you are the only marketplace that promotes this, what a disappointment from you not following to your promise to save games.

You are afraid that the big evil game corporations that are destroying the games will not give you games for the platform. That is the hard truth.

https://www.stopkillinggames.com/

Let's assume for a moment that this is true. No arguing the veracity of it for the sake if this discussion. Why wouldn't they cave to the publishers that are keeping the platform afloat? Should they voluntarily eat a bullet to appease your desires? To join a broken movement that fails to address DRM at all.

They don't need it, so why should the endorse it if it costs them business?

Not only fails to address it, but specifically states in the text of the initiative that it is "not a problem in itself".
AND also is basically just for games that are no longer legally available, so "abandonware" if you will, and therefore anything carried by any store falls outside the scope of the initiative.

In case GOG did actually promise to promote that, that's the one wrong move from them in this respect. Possibly made before they actually understood what it was really about.

They made that promise, Ross clearly explained this in his podcast on youtube. The sneaky wasting their times waiting for gog to promote the initiative, always getting promises of "next time" so the precious signature times will go away. Since neither Ross or his volunteer team know how the sneaky lobby groups work they got defeated. And the tool to defeat them was gog and Heineken Such nonsense, either you didn't took five seconds to read the link I've posted to understand what I'm talking about or worse you are here to insult the fight real gamers that love videogames are trying to fight.

That of having your game that you have paid working not randomly deleted at will so they can force you to buy something new because the game you paid and you were playing and enjoying is not available anymore.

If the game publisher want to add drm to protect their games from piracy fine, just don't delete the game I've paid for. SO what DRM has anything to do with this mate?

And GOG fully understood this fundamental problem same as Heineken did, that is not ok to destroy games which then destroy communities and it goes against the fundamental of democracy of not getting your stuff away at a whim by someone else.

But after gog understood that they did an 180 turn when they got contacted by the big evil corporations same like Heineken did.

So if they don't want to "take a bullet" then they should not waste the limited time that Ross and the volunteers working on this have. They kept them by the nose with fake promises so the time to get the signatures would go away.

And I should believe that or even look at the link because?

Yeah becausse after all this time Ross has accomplished alot. Look at the person mention its a business and games as a whole is complicated. At least GOG tries compared to steam where most old games don't even work. Yet gog spends resource's to make sure somethin iss preserved.

In the end even if both did go through it doubt much would happen.

So why any of you are doing here if you don't like games that you own forever after you buy them? Why you don't go to steam or epic or uplay where they can take your games away at whim? You are so hostiles that it really gets interesting. while not by himself It accomplished rallying along half a million european gamers to fight the planned destruction of videogames from platforms like uplay or steam, which I bet is something more important than anything you will ever accomplish in your life.

but the point what Ross does or does not will not change that gog acted against what they stand for and what the promise they made us. And if they are still around is because people like us buy here because they believe in this marketplace and what it represents. and if you don't care about this topic then why do you care about this topic?

I'm all for not killing games. I'm also all for DRM-free games and no online activation.

However, I think that in the end, the only way this is going to happen starts with the customer, not the publisher.

The publisher can only do what we let them get away with. Unfortunately, most gamers will buy their games no matter what the restrictions are, so the gamers are absolutely setting themselves up for this.

Stop buying DRM'd or online activated or online-only SP games. It's as simple as that. The only change will come when publishers' sales go down.

I think GOG has given up preservation entirely as they are continuing to delist games with little to no warning and without explanation.

GOG is not in a good spot right now to support ideas without consequences. It has to pick its battles for its own survival. If they're already having a hard time maintaining its own preservation program without playing around with ideas of subscriptions and tips, they definitely don't have the money to make Stop Killing Games a success with major financial backing.

Although I'm a fan of requiring developers to create offline versions of their online-only games once servers shut off, but this legal process will take years to manifest into actual legislation. And it doesn't automatically mean they'll distribute on GOG. They don't have trouble gaining freewill from most of people who've heard of it, so they don't have much to gain.

But they need any of the latest AA/AAA games here just to have a not negative year. And upsetting Ubisoft and other bigger guys could close that dialogue for further games to come here even if there's no chance they will. So they're definitely being cautious about it, although they should've never considered talking to the organizer if they weren't fully committed to it in the first place.

The decision of delisting games is not done by GOG, it is done by the publisher.

If you want to change the rules, ask Steam, they are the only one with sufficient power changing such a pretty strong rule; yet they are most likely not lending an open ear for it.

The politicians usually do the stuff whats best for the industry. If gamers might get very upset in a large quantity then it might be something to be evaluated but it does not seem to be the case, this is the issue. Games, delisted, discontinued all of a sudden, broken or whatever... are widely accepted in such a condition up to the point it actually happens. If it happens the customers simply moan and are then moving on toward the next "big hype", thats about it. So... it kinda is probably a lost case and GOG is unable to truly provide support here. In the end, GOG already got troubles making the publishers happy in many cases, because those publishers "got options" and the best option is anything ruling the market and dictating the customer base.

The industry simply does not want to become "ruled", however... fact is, Steam is not the incarnation of freedom, they may place pretty strict rules on any publisher... just not the ones they do not consider a benefit for their own goals.
Not necessarily Ubisoft, Ubisoft is a lost cause for GOG, sorry to say. Ubisoft and DRM free is in the new age like fire and ice... does not merge. Perhaps at some day... far far... into the future Ubisoft could change but it surely is not happening any time soon.

However... GOG is not looking out for any clashes toward the industry in general because they are in need of their support.

It is true... AA and AAA games are producing by far the best income and this kind of game is still provided in a rather limited amount on GOG. However... do not forget in order to "provide" them there can be high costs involved in the first place. If GOG is not able to make sufficient coins out of it, just because of a weak customer quantity, then not even the best AAA titles may be of much use... because they may need to pay more than what they actually could "get out of it". So, it is a two edged blade... the whole story.

I'm against a movement that wants to make LAWS to force creators to alter their creations because customers who knew it had a finite shelf life chose to spend money on it anyway. If you care about this, speak with your wallet and don't pay for games with prohibitive DRM, or games that are inherently online. You know they will go away, so the argument is disingenuous. You buy into a bad system knowing it's bad, and then complain when the things that make it bad occur.

Anything that forces creators to alter their works will be used like a cudgel and cause smaller studios or solo developers large problems. They don't necessarily have the budget to patch games in an extended timeline. Things like this will always dsienfranchise smaller creators before it does anything good to the megacorps people want to target. There are facets of the movement I REALLY like. Like the requirement to post and adhere to an end of life estimate with a suitable lead time for announcement. That's fire. Then people know EXACTLY what they're getting in to. But a lot of the provisions they want to try and create will damage smaller creators.

Edit: Sorry, forgot to quote you.

GOG doesn't make the decision to delist games from their catalogue. The publishers do.

I'm like 2 minuttes here and i can see what is the problem with Stop Killing Games.
Why would you enter to discuss on a topic if you are not going to read it?
because you think you know what's about it, isn't? i can see that's a problem, maybe you are confused by that dumb guy that was talking bs about the iniciative back then