Many of us buy GOG versions of games precisely for the offline installers regardless of whatever the new fad or trend is for "games as a service innovation" AAA's. Whether content is unavailable because it's a Ubisoft game with 4x layers of DRM, or whether content is unavailable because it's "defined" by some as "Totally Not DRM (tm)" yet still gated behind an online server exactly like DRM, in both cases there is zero practical difference for the end GOG users using offline installers to replay the game in 10-20 years with that online content now missing due to game specific servers getting closed over time, and any "distinctions" are as completely worthless as arguing over whether "main vs bonus content" in games formerly sold on Games For Windows Live or bonus tracks vs main music albums formerly sold on the Zune Marketplace are "real" DRM or not. If you can't install and play it 100% offline, it simply doesn't matter what labels or "definitions" people stick on it when it'll end up breaking exactly the same DRM'd way a few years down the line...

Exactly. I really don't care about social media ego-p*ssing contest crap like leaderboards or multi-player games like Fortnite (that are absolutely rife with cheaters) missing here when that obviously makes no sense offline anyway. Half the stuff that's been gated online here though in recent single player game releases whether it's cosmetic skins, game maps or playable content that could easily be included offline but isn't for absolutely 100% fake restrictions in claiming to "need" to be online in the first place, and GOG are definitely heading in the wrong direction with this junk.

Theoretically the game could install hentai porn and spyware on your computer and erase every file on your hard drive.

If the features require you to be connected to the a company's servers and the company issues a new patch, then you will need to download it to stay connected. Whether the game will auto-update, or whether you will get a prompt, that is a different story.

Sadly most of that "innovative" content is complete junk that benefits publishers more than gamers:-

Devs : "Hey guys, all our post 2018 games now come with innovative online features!"

Gamers : "Cool. Features like what?"

Devs : "Well let's see, we invented lootboxes, pay2win, in-app-purchase for mobile games like buying fake coins whilst playing to unlock equally fake timers, and you should see the new stuff we patented for next gen games screwing with your gameplay in real time to steer you towards buying more pay2win purchases"

Gamers : "Uh, that reminds me I've gotta go clean my shoe. I just stepped in something equally 'innovative' a dog left behind on the pavement..."

People can tolerate it on Steam, Epic, uPlay, etc, if they want, but we don't need to "tolerate" it at all on a DRM-Free store. In fact I don't recall GOG ever asking us we wanted to replace DRM-Free games with this service based crap. I'm quite happy to "miss out" on the garbage side of the AAA industry just to get away from it and stick with higher quality Indie's. If GOG does the same they'll get my money. If they don't, they won't.

To be fair, all those except the last one and the Gogmixes one were not maintainable in the long term to begin with and I don't think Gog really had any choice on the matter.

When Gog started they were in a niche, not only DRM-free but also exclusively old games. As nobody cared at all about this niche it was easy for them to force their own policies on devs (i.e. fixed flat worldwide prices, complete games, etc...) and devs accepted them because the only alternative was not selling those games at all and it didn't required them any extra work.

But all that stopped once devs discovered that there was actually a market for those games and Steam started opening the gate and allowing them to sell anything. It's one thing to ask dev to remove or not put DRM on the Gog build, it's another thing altogether to have them accept all the other Gog "limitation" especially when money was involved and their biggest competitor that represent 90%+ of the market doesn't have said limitation.

I'm naturally inclined to present opposing viewpoints, too; if more than one person say "A", I naturally say "but what about B?".

But in this case, I think we should resists the temptation. If GOG have an explanation, they can just tell us themselves. If they choose radio silence, that's their loss.

As has been discussed in many other threads, multiplayer features do not inherently require the use of a server controlled by the developer. Many games support LAN/direct IP connections, or even allow users to set up and run their own servers. These are far better options that allow for true DRM-free multiplayer.

If there is a prevailing trend for newer AAA games to all be designed in such a way that they blur the single-player mode with always-online, massively multiplayer features (which are not optional), then those games do not belong on GOG.com. Period. In exactly the same way that MMORPGs do not belong here (and have never been sold here).

The whole reason for GOG's existence in the first place was to provide an alternative to such pernicious industry trends.

Any piece of proprietary software could be coded to do literally anything behind the scenes, without your knowledge. It could be mining your data, stealing contacts, bank account details. This is why I sandbox any piece of proprietary software that I run. However, that (telemetry) is a different issue than DRM.

there are many games that make extensive use of community features but won't lock you out if you are offline and everything that is possible offline is still available offline (sometimes even including partially community based features that can be updated in the meantime without the need for constant access)


let's use two games as an example (note: both are DRM-ed anyway and that's awful, but we're talking online play now)
Forza Horizon 4 shows other players on the map and you can challenge them, when your connection goes down it's like "uh, oh, can't contact servers, switching to offline", if you are offline for extended periods of time you won't get community challenges and seasons changes but that's it
NFS 2015 makes you see other players and allows to challenge them, but when your connection goes down it's like "oh, I guess I'll die" and exits to menu

surely the game in question isn't doing the NFS, but it isn't the FH4 either, it cuts off a lot of offline-possible content and that's the issue

Exactly, and your (BrianSim) post is very well-stated. I notice a lot of these DRM schemes are euphemized with other terms, when in effect this is nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig, and my apologies to pigs for that comparison. "It's not a lootbox! It's a surprise mechanic". "It's not DRMed content! It's an innovative new way to design a game". What may be actually innovative and surprising to these companies is that I will just leave gaming again instead of buying new stuff coming out if the new stuff is, via having DRM or connection requirements etc, defective by design.

In these coming weeks I hope you reflect on what your company's brand actually is.

Even though Hitman doesn't have DRM we as customers buy into GoG to pay for software without the restrictions that is harmful to consumers.

We aren't only interested in getting games that are playable. We are interested in having a gameplay experience that respects the fact that features that were clearly available with an offline experience shouldn't have been forced into becoming an online component.

Changes like these are unreasonable and we expect Gog to support the ability to restore games to the way they should be played or just simply not offer them on the store at all if the publisher won't make any changes.

Please pass this along to your coworkers.

coughbullshitcough

It's not often that I agree with Gersen's posts but this is definitely the odd exception. He's right that several stuff that Gog did in the past just couldn't stay that way indefinitely.

Specifically on the price points, they were alright when all Gog was selling were old games. But they soon realized that they had to diversify before that market dried out. (And it was the right choice, because when Steam also started selling old games a Good Old Games store would be very soon dead.)

So, eventually Gog had to sell new games as well. Sorry, but $5.99 and $9.99 just wouldn't cut it anymore for several upper level indies, and absolutely not for any AA or AAA games.

Similarly, the abundance of extras wasn't hard in the beginning when they were selling games that were kinda long forgotten. But once Gog got into newer games the option just wasn't there anymore. By that point every developer/publisher was realizing that selling all that stuff as DLC makes them an extra buck. And when Steam offered that content that way how much clout do you think Gog did have to push back?

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Yeah, that is bad in and of itself, but doesn't that also mean that - ignoring the issue of "server go down, content go poof" for a minute - in order to have a working copy of your game, you are or could be forced into using a specific version of it?

It's probably moot since most people here consider the always online part to be DRM to begin with. I was just thinking of a scenario where, for example, the developer could remove licensed music from the game and you'd get the choice to either keep the content or the online functionality.

To be fair, I agree, and I even wrote more or less the same thing in the two lines following the list in the post you quote.

I would now suggest that GOG has decided that DRM-free was no longer maintainable, at least not in a sense that some people here think of DRM-free. They might or might not address the Hitman issue, but the writing is on the wall. It has been there for a while now and it's clearly progressing, so the next test case is not far ahead.

See my reply to Gersen. I never said that all of these should have been maintained. I, in fact, implied the opposite. I was just answering the user who wanted more examples of things GOG were once proud of and then cancelled. That's all.

Some of the things I chose, I did so intentionally in order to show that these were clearly part of GOG's principles a long time ago, but are no longer seen as such now, to outline the way DRM-free is going. Like I said elsewhere, in 6 years' time, people will write here why DRM-free was "unmaintainable".

As you can see above (let me know if you need links), there are already some GOG users who are quick to explain why DRM-free (in your or my terms) is no longer tenable.