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

Please take a survey and tell us what you think!

Last week, we launched the first ever DLC on (for tactical-strategy game Omerta: City of Gangsters). The launch was a bit rushed on our end, and we did a bad job communicating what it was, and why we're adding it to the store. That was a screw-up on our part, and we're sorry. We've read all of your comments (and there were a lot!) and it's lead us to wonder about DLC and other new models of gaming that are happening right now. There's a survey at the bottom of this newspost, where we'd like to hear more about what you think should do in the future, but don't jump down there just yet.

First, we wanted to explain the reasoning behind offering DLC for sale. It boils down to this: the number of newer games that have DLC keeps growing every year. As publishers and developers look at ways to remain profitable--look at how many big studios have gone bankrupt in the last 3 years if you think that's not a challenge--they're exploring new things like DLC, episodic content, and so on. loves games, and we're committed to bringing the best games in history--classic or new--here to the site for you to enjoy. To sign some of these newer titles, however, we need to make a decision: do we sell DLC for these newer games, or do we not offer DLC and, increasingly, find that what we sell doesn't contain all of the content available for the game, content that hardcore fans of the game will probably enjoy?

We thought about it and decided that the best thing for us to do was to offer you the freedom to choose. We don't like telling you what to do with your games, whether it's how you want to back it up or how often you want to reinstall it, and it felt like refusing to sell DLC for new games was another instance where we were limiting your freedom. In our minds, if you don't like DLC, you're free to ignore it; if it represents a good value to price to you, then, you're free to buy it here--DRM-free, of course--from

For classic games, our goal always remains to bring you the definitive version of the game--with all expansion packs--at one price. Sometimes, for one reason or another, we don't get the expansion packs. At least, not right away (::coughcoughSidMeier'sAlienCrossfirecough::), but the goal remains that way and it won't change.

New games are different, though. Classic games aren't being actively developed, and they aren't being updated with new paid content, so it's easy to negotiate a single fixed price. For new games, that's not the case, and we can't promise a fixed price for all of the expanded content ever for a new game. We will try to get you all of the DLC that we can for free, but let's be realistic: developers release paid DLC because they want more money. Offering it for free is not always in the cards. Offering it for free 6 months, a year, or 18 months after the launch? That's more likely to be possible, and it's certainly something that we would love to be able to do for all of our games. We can't promise anything, but that's another goal for us.

So, as we mentioned above, we didn't do a very good job letting you guys know about this ahead of time, and as such your response was--unsurprisingly--pretty strong. To help determine what you want us to do in the future, we've prepared a short survey for you about DLC, episodic content, and other possible new areas of gaming that might venture into offering you. Please take a moment and answer the survey, and leave us a comment below. We'll pick 10 winners who comment below and give them any game from the catalog--even Omerta and its DLC, if you like. :)

tl;dr version: We're sorry about how we communicated to you during DLC launch. We hope you'll give us feedback on what new things might start selling in the future.

The survey is now closed. Thanks for your time and your insights, everyone. We'll take a close look at the outcome. This will surely help us in making an even better service custom-tailored to its users tastes and expectations. Again, thanks for your opinions!

As promised, we'll pick 10 posts from the comment thread and give their authors a game of their choice. We'll PM you to ask you what would you like to get.
Post edited March 15, 2013 by G-Doc
AlexY: As for multiplayer games requiring a key/registration, I don't see how this should pose a problem. Plain Sight is one such game that would fit nicely with the rest of the "new" games on GOG.
ThreeSon: Plain Sight is a good example of exactly the wrong sort of DRM-ed game to sell on GOG. That is a game that is primarily multiplayer, yes, but it also has a single-player skirmish mode with bots... that you have to be online to play! Worse yet was that you also have to sign up for an account with the publisher, with all the Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and EULA crap that came with it, and you are required to log in to that account with every play session.
I was under the impression you don't need to be online to play on your own with bots. Just to play multiplayer. (Even then, isn't there a LAN option?) I don't have it installed at the moment, but I do have it in my Steam library, so I guess I should double-check.

Likewise, I would not go so far to equate a multiplayer game requiring a key to anything like always-online DRM. An MP game needs either p2p or servers to be played - it's not the same as playing a game singleplayer that's passing through checks with a nanny server, like the issue is with the new SimCity.
Neurus_Ex: 2) I didn't really liked the options in the survey, as its questions were TERRIBLY biased towards "yes":
I kinda felt the same way, and I think the voodoo worked on me. I'm not entirely sure at this point what a "Season Pass" is, but I voted for it because I would like to see GOG be relevant as a DRM-free provider of more current games.

If it is what I think it is I'm not sure I personally like the concept, but if its part of the flow of modern gaming I'm not going to take any kind of principled stance against it.

I will say I don't know what alpha testing has to with GOG, or why it would need it, or exactly how that translates into more games. I'm saying leave that one out.
You think GOG is a charity?

Some people really like GOG, and want to get newer stuff on GOG DRM-free.

Assassin's Creed 2 had a persistent DRM that completely sucked. I don't know if they removed it or not, I just know that it sucked and that I didn't buy it. I'm not good at pirating, and there are plenty of fish in the sea, so I never played it.
If it came out on GOG I would probably get it DRM-free. It had DLC's as well, if I had the money I would consider getting them DRM-free as well.

I don't buy directly from Steam because I don't support what they are doing. The end result is that I've kind of given up on getting "new" games. If GOG started adding them, I would get them here.

GOG is a business, a business makes money, some businesses are more cutthroat than others, and given the short history that I've had with GOG, I'd say they're among the group of less scumbaggy businesses.
No one is going to want GOG to sell their stuff if GOG gives it away for free. If you want to offer a service that entails you buying bucketloads of video games and all of their DLCs so that you can offer it to random people on the internet, go ahead. As it is, GOG looks for ways to make money using their friendly customer service and DRM-free motto.

If you don't like new games, then don't get them. It's not like GOG is going to completely give up on what draws most of their customers in the first place. Most of us come here for the old games, true, but having newer ones is a bonus many of us would like to have as well. If you're not satisfied with a game full of DLC until a complete version comes out, then wait, but don't force other people to wait because you would rather do so.
If you're going to offer newer games that have DLC, then you really need to sell the DLC too. I know DLC annoys a lot of people (myself included), but simply not selling the DLC would mean many would just buy elsewhere so they at least had the option of getting the DLC later. I think you made the right call leaving the decision to purchase or not to us. While I am no fan of DLC in general, DRM-free DLC is better.

That said, personally I'd rather you waited a little and sold the usual "Gold edition" or equivalent that had all the DLC bundled instead. In my experience this is the version a number of people wait for anyway.

As far as season passes and online checks go, they're a bit more anti-consumer. To me online checks are against the spirit of "DRM free" so I'd rather GOG did not sell them full stop. I'd view checks for online multiplayer as a valid exception, but nothing else. Part of the appeal of GOG is that we can come here and buy without having to look at the fine print or spending time researching on the internet to find exactly what limitations a game may have. I think it's better for both sides to retain that.

As far as season passes go there's little yet to show they're anything but a fad. Rather than giving the idea support, I'd prefer a wait-and-see approach. Right now all it would take is for one high profile piece of DLC for a popular game to be cancelled and season passes could quickly lose the public's favour.
Post edited March 15, 2013 by mirumu
ShadowWulfe: Assassin's Creed 2 had a persistent DRM that completely sucked. I don't know if they removed it or not, I just know that it sucked and that I didn't buy it.
It's removed, you can play it offline. There are some online-only things for it (some skins, a quite small map, and a belt-upgrade I think), but they ain't needed.
avatar Please take a survey and tell us what you think!

tl;dr version: We're sorry about how we communicated to you during DLC launch. We hope you'll give us feedback on what new things might start selling in the future.
ERISS: This survey is useless, a joke. I understand nothing. So I answered the worse for fear. "Offer" you mean given for free? Maybe yes for you say "Sell" in following questions. There are many other trapping things.
Please make a better one. But I believe it was intended, to then tell what you want with our answers. Disgusting.
Hey GOG what's happening with all this? you're about to bankrupt? or your shareholders want to take to much money from you?
What is your problem with the survey?. Its a survey for all GOG customers to fill in if they wish. They want feedback on what services the customers want or not want. They want to see peoples opinions.
Page 1

1. Offer DLC so we can offer you more, newer games on the site
Tough question. I wouldn't want to deny anybody their options, but since you asked for my opinion I'll answer no. I like the way that the games you sell are the complete package, with no missing pieces to hunt down and buy separately. Eventually most games collect all their DLC into a complete/GOTY/whatever version. I can wait.

2. Offer Season Passes for DLC so we can offer you more, newer games on the site
Not sure about this one. I'll say no for now.

3. Offer episodic content for uncompleted "seasons" of games so we can offer you more, newer games on the site
You mean sell complete seasons before all the episodes in a season are complete. Maybe... I wouldn't complain if you did, but episodic series can get abandoned before completion (*valve* - pardon me, just clearing my throat) so you risk cluttering your catalogue with half-done seasons. Mild no to this question.

4. Offer Season Passes of episodic content for uncompleted "seasons" of games so we can offer you more, newer games on the site
I have no idea - it sounds like a repeat of the previous question.

Page 2

This is something that Desura is built around and good at with its Alpha Funding section, update system with changelogs, and excellent lines of communication with devs. I think it might be better for you to focus on your own strengths instead. But if you feel confident about a particular game's potential and your own ability to handle providing in-development access to customers then I trust your judgement. I'm on the fence but leaning yeswards to both of these questions.

Page 3

7. Sell games that are primarily multiplayer focused (*not MMOs*), but which require unique serial keys to play online?
Define "online" and "require". I'd like to be able to use official servers if they still exist, and getting keys for those is wonderful. But if I have no way of playing over the Internet except through those servers then not good. If GOG releases come with the ability to host and play Internet games independently of officially-hosted - by entering direct IP addresses at the very least - servers that's ideal.

Official servers can do whatever they want as long as we're not absolutely reliant on them. If games hosted by a GOG version relies on multiplayer keys then the most it should check for is that no more than one player is using any one key on a single server host.

It's also very important for me that I can play on a LAN without Internet connection available - that's why I come here for multiplayer games. I'm having a LAN party tomorrow and there won't be Internet available. This happens often.

Have a look at how you handled UT2004 - I think you struck a good balance there.

I'm going to say no under the strictest interpretation of the question, but in practice I'd be willing to accept quite a lot up to a point.

8. Sell games that are primarily multiplayer focused (*not MMOs*), but which have persistent online features which are tracked on the developer's end (matchmaking, statistics, achievements, etc) and which require 3rd party accounts (i.e. a login for the developer's online service)?
You mean I can't play unless I log into a 3rd-party account? Definitely not. If it's something benign like World of Goo where you can optionally connect to a service that shares your high scores and let's others see your tower in the background of the World of Goo Corporation level then that's fine. Unepic's airmail delivery system that contacts the dev's server is also OK. As long as it's only the tracking features and other very-optional things that may be nice in their own right but don't impact the game if they should go missing then no problem. The question reads like it encompasses more then that so I'll say no but there certainly is an extent to which it would be acceptable or even welcome.
Post edited March 15, 2013 by Barefoot_Monkey
As there are quite a few new games that would be great addition to the site, and new games are impossible to completely extricate from their DLC, I'm not against the concept as a whole. To me though, the idea behind this site would either be best served by waiting until DLC is fully released (which would make the games not quite OLD per say, but not NEW either), or use the season pass concept so there is just one up front cost. It may mean more expense to purchase a new game right off the bat, but would at least be holding somewhat to the concepts which originally drew me and many others to the site.
*my* view to fulfil *my* requirements. :)

I don't care about new games. I can wait years until the original devs go belly up, then later you can rip off the rights owner just like you do for *years* with old games. Then I'm looking forward for the most complete pack available. :)

I don't really mind if you start selling new games and DLCs separately (properly marked so I don't buy the original game by accident, when it's not final full archive), I just don't want to buy it, but maybe others will.

If any devs want to cash me trough GOG, then I have a message to them. It's possible, but difficult. I want cheap, DRM-free, and full game. If you can't use that to pay the budget, maybe you should do smaller (in total budget) games, I can enjoy good game even when it doesn't look on par with the giant's production.
Post edited March 15, 2013 by ped7g
Another +1 for the post & apology. I hadn't noticed that you guys started selling DLC separately, but it's good that you're making that clear. I personally am cool with it since it's DRM-Free (biggest stickler for me) and optional. Out of everything you asked I was cool with all of them except for the idea of offering games that come with DRM like Uplay. Maybe I just read it wrong, but I'd rather wait to buy a game and get it without all of those shackles.
I like that you guys are keen to keep to your core vaules of giving gamers what they are after
ERISS: This survey is useless, a joke. I understand nothing. So I answered the worse for fear. "Offer" you mean given for free? Maybe yes for you say "Sell" in following questions. There are many other trapping things.
Please make a better one. But I believe it was intended, to then tell what you want with our answers. Disgusting.
Hey GOG what's happening with all this? you're about to bankrupt? or your shareholders want to take to much money from you?
These are simple questions regarding DLC, Season Passes, alpha/beta hosting, and multiplayer either through serial key or 3rd party services. You simply answer Yes or No to each of these questions. How is this hard to understand?
Post edited March 15, 2013 by RayRay13000
DLC is ok as long as it stays DRM and Online-Check-Free as the other games sold here. The price should be taken care of and not taking 15 Dollars for 2 mediocre hours of gameplay like some developers seem to get used to..

Even getting alpha- and beta-versions are ok for people who want to support the games they will probably like, especially if they come from indie-developers who surely could need the extra-money. But they should be marked with ALPHA or BETA so that people know what they are buying at the first look of the page for the game.

What is definitely not what stands for are always-online-modes like in the new Sim-City. I would rather see that games such as this get an offline-patch and no account-binding for their release here even if there is multiplayer that used to require it. Then i would be ok for me to release games like the Mass Effect series or Sim City on this platform.

Best regards and much success to my personal platform of choice for buying games.
tfishell: It has no meaning ... NO MEANING.
amok: gargantuan offshore goldstack?
NO MEANING. It's meaningless. (I actually like to think of this place as "Good Old Games and more", but I suspect even that irritates those that really want to see new titles on here.)

StingingVelvet: Don't listen to the crazies GOG, of course you should sell DLC and such for main games you sell.

As for multiplayer... no, I think not. It really goes against what the site is about to me.
No no GOG, THIS guy is the crazy one! Avoid DLC and bring on the multiplayer!!!

GOG: "Well, I guess I'll just have to shoot both of you in the leg until I can figure out who is who."
If I want to connect to a game companies game server then a cd key is ok (two worlds is doing this here), but not for lan play it should be drm free. With gog you know you are getting a hassle free experience. For a not required to play connecting to server so statistics can be sent to game company if I am online and i accept to do it is fine. As for pure multiplayer games with no lan or self hosting possibility, well those games shouldn't be on gog.

The push for dlc should be the game publisher adding dlc so more people buy the game on gog. Everyone that owns the games gets is for free. This is very different from steam or really any other company but I think that is what would set gog apart and keep it's purity. Just charge the same as other places for game+season-pass together, dropping the price as time goes on as the base game gets cheaper. New game developers/publishers should be in contract to release the dlc on gog for free to be included as a new game on gog, or else tell them call back when they have their GOTY edition ready. We are not asking for a free ride just show the money upfront. Half games are not gog's style. We accept that it's hard to get old multiple person licensed expansions but for a new game you are in control.

For episode games if done like tales of monkey island it's dumb to buy separately. Released separately sure but each gog buy should stand on it's own. This should be a judgement call for gog. An example would be if the second episode could be fun without playing the 1st and 3rd then it's ok. You can play the Ultima's without starting on #1. Is this like the 4th harry potter book or am I getting the 4th book in enciclopedia Britannica.

In all honesty this survey kinda scared me. 1. Do you think drm is sometimes ok for a gog game to play it at all?? 2. Do you think we should sell games at less then the full experience?? i get that they are new games but this is a step too far.

I expect some day a compromise of drm but with a patch contractually written in to remove it in X amount of time, as a possibility. But this is too far.