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

×
Pretty deadly little thing.

Captain, I have some new information regarding "The Aristocrats". No, they're still laying low after their last heist, so low that we haven't seen Don or Freddie since the meeting with "The Boss". Someone might've hid them underground but we won't know for sure just now. Anyway, there's a new girl that was seen with Rick Fermione. She from outta town, don know exactly where. Seems a member of the borguise. It's bourgeoisie? Don't know sir, some fancy stuff I don't get--pearls, caviars, and champagnes, sir. Yes, one of my boys is following her. Yes, I know this is very delicate matter. Oh, the mayor... no, of course, no, I mean I'll talk to... Yes sir. No one seen. The report, yes. The last thing, sir--and this is a little bit unexpected--it looks like "The Aristocrats" are planning to move to a new district, any moment now. Can't tell for sure, but my bet is Connecticut Ave. We'll see. Will do, sir. Goodbye.

Omerta: City of Gangsters, an organized crime simulation you have been playing for the last couple of weeks just got bigger with The Con Artist DLC. There's a new henchman to recruit, new weapon, and a new district up for grabs. Experience "the greatest con of all time" in this action-packed expansion for only $4.99 on GOG.com.

Requires the base game Omerta: City of Gangsters on GOG in order to play.
avatar
serpantino: People wanted GOG to release new games DRM free, they've done that, however DLC & micro transactions are a major factor in the games industry at the moment. GOG can't offer the complete version from the get go when it's not even available. OK maybe GOG could incorporate the cost of a 'season pass' into the base price but dlc can be sub par, not everyone will want it and it'll raise the base price beyond what many will be willing to pay. At least this way you still have the option.

GOG's problem is that their mantra for complete versions etc was made when they exclusively sold OLD games and, for me, so long as they strive to maintain that for old game releases I will be happy. If there's issues like there has been with addons for games like Alpha Centauri etc I expect them to fight to get the rights and release it for free (or put the price up to $9.99 and give it to free for those who already own it, if the Publisher is an arse). So far they've done this and Alpha Centauri along with some others are now complete and at no extra cost which deserves some real praise on GOG's part.
Exactly and well said.
avatar
grviper: Just what Omerta needs. A DLC. Because the people who bought it, didn't feel they wasted quite enough money.
avatar
Alfie3000: Appropriately named "Con Artist" DLC.
Indeed.
On an unrelated note, this thread now has more comments than System Shock 2. :)
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: Howdy, guys. I'm on vacation in Paris with family, so apologies for my slow response. This is a sensitive topic, so I don't blame Judas for leaving this up to me to answer. :)

As many of you have noted: GOG.com's move into new gaming nearly a year ago--which many of you guys have supported with your wallets--more or less required that we start selling DLC. As game explore new business models--such as DLC--we are required to adapt to match these new models or else avoid offering these games at all. Since games such as Omerta offer a lot to classic gamers who want to try something new, we have decided to start offering DLC for those gamers who would like to purchase it.

You are, of course, free to "vote with your wallets". If we see that games with DLC do noticeably worse than games without, we're probably not going to sign games with plans to release downloadable content in the future.

There are some catches, though. One of which is when great games that we've signed end up developing DLC after they've found their game is very successful. One example of this is something like Legend of Grimrock, which did excellently on GOG.com, and which the devs eventually talked about making an expansion for until they decided to break it out inro a whole new sequel. if they'd decided to add an expansion pack as a DLC, would you rather that we never add it? That we only add it after a year or two? We can't add DLC at our own costs, or else GOG.com quickly finds ourself no longer a business, but instead a charity where we give you all of our profits to maks sure that your DLCs remain free.

In order to justify the fact that we're taking your money for new games--games that have launched new on GOG.com as well as other stores--we need to offer DLC that these developers have created as soon as we can, or else we'll be offering inferior games for sale. Which, as I'm sure you can imagine, will make no one happy. :)

Of course, we're going to listen to you on how you think we should present these games to make it clear to you that there's more to it than the base purchase. And--of course--we will continue to do everything that we can to make your purchase feel special and loaded with goodies and customer love.

It's been a long time since we established our core values as "DRM-Free, Fair Prices, and Customer Love." We don't have any intent of abandoning this in the near future--or ever--so we hope you're willing to be part of this experiment (as one of many that we're trying out this year) to see if signing new games with DLC works for us.

And for you.
Would you mind telling me how say the Linux version of The Book Of Unwritten Tales is different from Omerta's DLC. By not offering this DLC you would be selling an inferior product, this is your stated argument for starting to offer DLC and this is a reason that I think is valid and I agree with. But how does the same argument not apply to Linux versions? Your version of certain games are inferior to those of other digital distribution stores since GOG's version lacks the Linux port/client.
Post edited March 10, 2013 by Kristian
low rated
avatar
Roman5: Damn right I'm going to complain about it

Not only should this be included for free with the Original game but this also creates unnecessary clutter in the GOG catalogue

The publisher should add the DLC to the Game to maintain it's price and keep providing value for it's product, if the publisher does not do that then it should reduce the price of the main game, but surprise surprise, no prices were reduced for this

Kalypso wants to Have their cake and eat it too, and GOG seems to be fine with this

Well I'm not
avatar
langurmonkey: There goes Roman5 with his big balls again. You are usually always the first to speak up. I respect you for that. Not many people have such big balls nowadays. Most people nowadays have raisin sized balls. If every gamer turned into a Roman5 clone, there would be a 2nd golden age of gaming because then every gamer would stand up against this kind of DLC bullshit. The stuff in this $5 DLC would be included into the game for free considering the price of this Omerta game and how empty the game is if the people behind this game weren't looking to rip off people. So obviously they are just looking to screw people who have a weakness for gangster games out of their hard earned money. I also find it disturbing that GOG supports this(I still love GOG though but if they stop being DRM free, the love will go away).
That's right, even if I don't always agree with him, I respect him for his stature as someone who both thinks and voices his opinions. I also totally agree with him this time.
Post edited March 10, 2013 by Tsugirai
avatar
Kristian: Would you mind telling me how say the Linux version of The Book Of Unwritten Tales is different from Omerta's DLC. By not offering this DLC you would be selling an inferior product, this is your stated agreement for starting to offer DLC and this is a reason that I think is valid and I agree with. But how does the same argument not apply to Linux versions? Your version of certain games are inferior to those of other digital distribution stores since GOG's version lacks the Linux port/client.
They don't support Linux (at least not yet), the Linux version of Book of Unwritten Tales is running on... well you guessed it : Linux. On the other side they support Windows and the DLC of Omerta is running on Windows. That's the difference.
avatar
Kristian: Would you mind telling me how say the Linux version of The Book Of Unwritten Tales is different from Omerta's DLC. By not offering this DLC you would be selling an inferior product, this is your stated agreement for starting to offer DLC and this is a reason that I think is valid and I agree with. But how does the same argument not apply to Linux versions? Your version of certain games are inferior to those of other digital distribution stores since GOG's version lacks the Linux port/client.
avatar
Gersen: They don't support Linux (at least not yet), the Linux version of Book of Unwritten Tales is running on... well you guessed it : Linux. On the other side they support Windows and the DLC of Omerta is running on Windows. That's the difference.
Before this they didn't support DLC either. The rationale that lead to them to support DLC releases also works for adding support for Linux as a platform.
avatar
Kristian: Before this they didn't support DLC either. The rationale that lead to them to support DLC releases also works for adding support for Linux as a platform.
Apple and Oranges; there is a huge difference between adding something "extra" to an already supported OS (which in the end doesn't really requires any special extra work as the DLC uses the same kind of installer than any other games) and supporting a whole new OS
avatar
Kristian: Before this they didn't support DLC either. The rationale that lead to them to support DLC releases also works for adding support for Linux as a platform.
avatar
Gersen: Apple and Oranges; there is a huge difference between adding something "extra" to an already supported OS (which in the end doesn't really requires any special extra work as the DLC uses the same kind of installer than any other games) and supporting a whole new OS
There is a a zero difference. This required the uploading of the DLC's provided by Omerta's developer/publisher to GOG's servers. While the Linux version of say The Book Of Unwritten Tales would just require the Linux port/client provided by the developer/publisher be uploaded to GOG's servers. There is no difference. it is all just bits and bytes.
avatar
Kristian: There is a a zero difference. This required the uploading of the DLC's provided by Omerta's developer/publisher to GOG's servers. While the Linux version of say The Book Of Unwritten Tales would just require the Linux port/client provided by the developer/publisher be uploaded to GOG's servers. There is no difference. it is all just bits and bytes.
"Support"....in case you missed it the key word here is support.

It's not just a question of "uploading" stuff and forget about them (otherwise they would have been selling Linux version for quite sometime), if GoG starts releasing Linux games they will also have to offer support for them, and that is neither something easy nor cheap, especially for an OS like Linux.
Post edited March 10, 2013 by Gersen
avatar
Kristian: There is a a zero difference. This required the uploading of the DLC's provided by Omerta's developer/publisher to GOG's servers. While the Linux version of say The Book Of Unwritten Tales would just require the Linux port/client provided by the developer/publisher be uploaded to GOG's servers. There is no difference. it is all just bits and bytes.
avatar
Gersen: "Support"....in case you missed it the key word here is support.

It's not just a question of "uploading" stuff and forget about them (otherwise they would have been selling Linux version for quite sometime), if GoG starts releasing Linux games they will also have to offer support for them, and that is neither something easy nor cheap, especially for an OS like Linux.
Ignore my use of the word "support" they won't have to do that at all. But TET's argument for uploading DLC can be used almost verbatim(only replacing the word DLC with "Linux version") for uploading Linux ports/clients.

Edit:

Starting to release Linux versions and starting to release DLC are both changing to GOG policy, both involve uploading more stuff to GOG's servers and both are done so that GOG doesn't have inferior versions of a game. But it seems GOG has a blindspot when it comes to Linux. They allow bad arguments(Like TET previously thinking FreeBSD was a Linux distro) to get in the way of them adding Linux versions.
Post edited March 10, 2013 by Kristian
avatar
ZivilSword: Also it's the only way, because DLC has inherent store binding (whereas earlier expansion sets didn't have it).
avatar
timppu: Which expansion sets do you mean? In GOG, retail, or what?
No, just expansions sets like in former years. The classical way, you know? ;) Buying a disc, then buying another disc with the expansion set some months later. Today they are called DLCs (even if it does not necessarily mean to be a full expansion, but expansions come as DLCs …)

avatar
ZivilSword: 1. GOG starts selling newer games with DLC, both DRM-free, but the DLC has store binding, i.e. you can only use it with the base version of the game bought from GOG. This is already the same thing other stores like Steam do: if you want to buy and use a DLC from Steam, you need to have bought the base game also on Steam.
So in my eyes, you can replace DRM by DLC and it goes the same way.
avatar
timppu: That doesn't really have anything to do with the DRM, it just means the Steam and GOG versions of the game are incompatible with each other. Just like many US and EU versions of retail PC games were incompatible, ie. you couldn't use EU updates or expansion packs on the US version, and vice versa.
That is correct, but it doesn’t change my statement: it is a store binding. In times before downloading games (AKA buying CDs) you could buy the base game in one store and the expansions in other stores. No store ever checked if you have bought the base game also there. Of course you are right, you need to have the same version, but who in Europe would buy an expansion for the US version? That’s a silly argument.

Now we have DLCs with store binding (or vendor-lockin, name it as you want). I admit that this is not quite the case, because GOG’s DLC is only a DLC for the non-DRM version of the base game, but since GOG is the only store selling these, it’s a de facto store binding, no matter how you look at it. Steam does it, Origin does it, now GOG does it, too. The same customer-annoying business model. That’s quite sad.

I mean, GOG didn’t want DRM, they stood against the big publishers when starting to release newer games. They made a point. Result? We have a growing number of quite good and new games without DRM. Very fine. :) I hope they will do so in similar way with DLCs, so that in some years we don’t have they same (crappy) DLC business model with vendor-lockin as now also on GOG, but a different, a better one.

How should this better one look like? I don’t know, that is up to GOG. But for me this DLC practice has many disadvantage, and I don’t want to be tightened to a specific store, even if it’s so a nice one like GOG. For instance when I bought a game on Steam, because there was a sale or even because it was not being sold here and I wanted to play it. Then some months later it is sold on GOG, a DLC comes out, and GOG has a sale for it. Now I can’t use it. I need to buy the DLC on Steam if I’m interested.
The other way round it works the same way. No offense to both stores, they want to make (more) money with this DLC store binding strategy. It’s just not quite fair to the customer, not as fair as years ago, in the disc age.
avatar
Kristian: Ignore my use of the word "support" they won't have to do that at all.
Actually they do, they cannot just say : "we sell Linux version of some of our games, but if you buy them then you are on your own we won't offer any support for them", if (when?) they start selling Linux version of games they will have to offer some sort of support.

Yes TET's argument can be used for anything, from Linux version to even Android or iOS versions, but you have to take into account the "context" (for the lack of a better word); adding DLC only requires minimum "investments" from their part (as it's handled like any other game) while adding Linux version of games(or any other new OSes) will/would be something a lot more costly.
avatar
ZivilSword: Now we have DLCs with store binding (or vendor-lockin, name it as you want). I admit that this is not quite the case, because GOG’s DLC is only a DLC for the non-DRM version of the base game, but since GOG is the only store selling these, it’s a de facto store binding, no matter how you look at it.
Actually, are we sure that GOG's version can't be used with Steam's? If it doesn't modify the executable (and no reason to suspect it might), then it is quite possible that it will be usable with any standard installation of the game. Possible installation problem would be if the installer expects to find a specific executable, which was the case with the US/UK expansions as well.
Hm, that would indeed change a lot.