I can only assume HZD was a mistake, or idea by someone just joining, I.e. why not try other stores and see what happens. I don’t think it was ever going to be a stream of titles. I also wonder if there is any staff left to do any negotiation, I imagine the process being quite resource intensive for large titles.
That’s a tad unfair. Sony are a console developer first off, so that is their focus. The pc market is secondary. Compare this with the likes of M$ who are windows, and yet lock games to their console secondary market (forsa horizon 1,2,3 for example), and even on pc cripple their games with GFWDead or Windows Store. To me Sony are at least doing what they were built for and expanding their user base by allowing pc users access to exclusives. I don’t know about nintendo, but I don’t see many of their games on pc (same setup as Sony)?

That's true, but I'm not exactly praising Microsoft and Nintendo either, and I feel the same way about them. If my choice is between buying from any of the above or from a studio/publisher who normally put their games on PC, I want to reward the latter by buying their game instead of the former.
Oh we all know it's coming ...

I doubt PlayStation would distribute any of their titles here anymore. They didn't publish Days gone, so God Of War has next to no chance of being published here.

It's all about getting users here in the first place, EPIC know this, you gamers should know this.. GOG doesn't have the money to do what EPIC does, and the fact is selling old games that will likely be on a sale before they sell since a number of peeps already have them elsewhere... yeah thats not really doing much for GOG.

If they had the AAA Games here, they would get the full % of that price that people would pay because it's new (well aslong as it isn't a buggymess), thats more than what they will ever get selling an old game on sale.


And i ain't talking about multiplayer focused games with a side of single player tacked on... those can't be made DRM-free unless they want to infest the servers with cheaters.
I don't see GOG sticking around towards the future... i don't, there are legit DRM-Free games on Steam and EPIC that they do not have here.

It's saying alot.



I hate DRM more than anyone here, but i'd rather deal with it for a few years than have it completely unlocked after say 5 years than not have it at all, how about you lot?

Yes, I think the whole novelty of gog, it being good old games, and the drm free part has had its day. If it was a choice of buy drm’d games here or someone else no matter what promises are made, I wouldn’t bother. Just pick up dirt cheap keys, freebies, bundles etc. and get games elsewhere. 5 months is a long time in business let alone 5 years.

Personally don't care for any God of War game, I just find comment expressing such subjective opinion kinda pointless. Also, I fail to see how any game beside the first in the trilogy can be called "revolutionary", and that doesn't apply just to the God of War.

Yes its about getting consumers into the store in the first place but that doesnt mean become Steam-lite. Playing the chase AAA titles game is a losing strategy for GOG. Why should AAA studios choose GOG when they can just release it on Steam (far bigger userbase) or Epic (far better rates and exclusivity contracts)?

GOG cant pull steam-heads because they want all of their games on steam. GOG doesnt have the finances to do what Epic is doing by attracting AAA-games and exclusives with better rates and exclusivity contracts. This is a game for Epic to win in the long-run (as long as they have enough money to recruit new PC players away from steam and lose their sunk-cost investment in steam due to their huge game libraries there) and getting in this battle will lead to an early knockout for GOG.

And people do wait for games to be released. Steam-heads complain and declare they are waiting for Epic-exclusives to be released on Steam because they want all of their games in one storefront. Knowing that Epic exclusives are timed, they are willing to wait and insult Epic because so-and-so game is not releasing on steam (hell users even attack publishers for choosing to go exclusive with Epic). If users are willing to wait who knows how long for a game to be released on steam for a unified library, users who know the value of DRM-free are likely to wait for games to be released on GOG.

For GOG to survive, it needs to focus on its niche (DRM-free games), accept that it will never be the monopoly storefront like Steam, and raise greater awareness on the benefits of DRM-free. The best thing for GOG would be for several major games to become literally unplayable due to DRM (GTA online shutting down, Fortnite shutting down, Hitman becoming unplayable, etc.) or a DRM-storefront to shut down (such as Ubisoft storefront shutting down and making user games unplayable). This would be a clear concrete example of the cost of DRM and why users should avoid it, demanding Steam to go DRM-free (lol) or choose to leave.

GOG guarantees DRM-free (there is nothing preventing Epic or Steam adding a patch to upload DRM into games after release) and offers offline installers. In terms of preserving and reinstalling the game, it is far easier to do through GOG than its main competitors.

GOG could still close down because users just dont care and that would be a very sad result but they isnt much GOG can do to prevent that then. It would mean that the demand for DRM just isnt there and consumers are fine not owning games.

I did not expect to see GoW here either, as mentioned, if Sony were going to do that, it seems far more likely that they would bring them over as they became less profitable on other storefronts, which means Days Gone would almost certainly appear here before any other games.

No.

I don't think GOG will survive with it's current focus... not enough people even care about DRM-Free games, especially with the way the industry is going.

And for me the games are just as easy to preserve from Steam.


Besides all GOG is doing is becoming Steam.. the Galaxy app, adult games galore, and they don't even bother with a filter for it, the only fact is it's just DRM-Free and it's not like they ain't DRM-Free on Steam anyway.


Becoming Steam.. it's a funny one that considering Steam was really the first gaming storefront before everyone else followed suit.

I would rather not have it at all. After all, you are talking to someone who had previously left PC gaming entirely due to my outright disgust at how Scheme DRM had taken over. Leaving aside my own feelings, may I say that with all due respect, I'm not sure you have fully thought through the logistics of how this policy would play out if it were implemented? Namely, what are the consequences if devs/pubs don't follow through on this 5 year type of deal? Say that for example a game comes here with DRM, the 5 years elapse, then the dev/pub never gets around to fixing it to be DRM-free, or even outright says "screw you, I'm not fixing it," to GOG? After all, we see with DRM-free games here already that sometimes they lag behind in updates. In some cases, the games are indeed removed from sale, presumably as a consequence due to the dev/pub refusing to provide update parity or further such support.

However, removal from sale after being up for a while is a relatively toothless consequence for a dev/pub ("so what if you removed my game? I still got all these sales in the meantime" ...for a smaller timescale example see Hitman Lame of the Year Edition which remained on the store for weeks despite its heinous DRM and intense customer outcry; presumably during that span some people still bought it so the dev/pub made an amount of money greater than "zero" making it arguably worth their while. In fact, I would imagine the bigger/more "AAA" a game, the more likely it would be to have people purchasing it, even with lack of update parity or even if it included outright DRM). The only way I see around such a problem would be if the dev/pub provided an unlocker to GOG at the start of the deal (which GOG would then have to hang on to until the time elapsed), but I doubt they would do such a thing.

In other words, what is to stop a dev/pub from simply never fixing the game and leaving it on GOG in a permanently DRMed state? The "best case" if they did so, would be for GOG to remove the game, but at that point many customers would have already given the dev/pub the money, and customers are then left with what (imo) is a faulty product. If you think these devs/pubs can be trusted, I fear we will not have further to discuss as such unfounded trust would be on the level of something like "sure, Scheme's games are DRMed, but if they were to ever go out of business, of course they'll allow you to download them all DRM-free (citations: absent)." Additional food for thought: if GOG's policy were to allow some games as "5 years DRMed, but then they're unlocked," and the dev/pub refused to unlock them, would customers then be able to get a refund from GOG? Hell, would they then in that hypothetical be able to sue GOG?

If GOG goes out of business, Zoom-Platform will "rise up", I imagine.

Also I think GOG is putting Galaxy on the backburner after losing millions of dollars last year. And I think they'll implement some feature to allow people to hide games they don't want to see, including of course games they find offensive.

GOG would basically be the DRM, as Steam is for their games, as with Steam you can literally insert a text file for some games and have it launcher free, (others being more complex)

Scroll your GOG library and look for steam_appid.txt

The only other major DRM is Denuvo and basically the Origin & uplay apps... outside of those games that require a connection to the internet, which ain't that many when it comes to Single Player games, the DRM is simply Steam.



They could simply have an update that they would implement later on in the games lifetime to basically make it DRM-Free... it isn't some major brainstorm really, it's not overly hard to do.

Thats fair. The first game was pretty revolutionary though given the fact that it spawned a ton of clones (Dante's inferno, Enslaved, Splatterhouse). Canera has always been an issue with action games but its a huge issue with Dad of War though and the solution (warning arrows) is a poor solution.

I don't see why. Just because a game is part of a series doesn't mean it has to be a carbon copy of the previous games. It can be wildly different and therefore revolutionise the series. For example, Heroes of Migh and Magic 4, for good or ill, revolutionised the series, with a new setting, far reaching changes to almost all mechanics, and a brand look.

Nor does a game being part of a series preclude it from introducing new ideas, or more simply new trends, revolutionary in broader sense if they prove influential enough. Call of Duty Modern Warfare, again whether for good or ill, was not just a huge departure from previous games in the series, but was also greatly influential in terms of FPS games in general, mostly other hugely popular military shooters like MoH and Battlefield.