BKGaming: If I told you 10 years ago that I only sell apples & I tell you now that I sell apples and oranges... am I suppose to not sell oranges because I told you 10 years ago my store was an apple store that only sold you apples?
mqstout: If you had developed your business entirely for apples, always advertised "I only sell apples!" and cultivated a customer base of people who allergic to the presence of oranges? When your advertisements always said oranges are terrible and your customers agreed? Only then does your metaphor start to make sense.
Incorrect analogy. The people on here aren't allergic to oranges they just don't like them. So why would you not want others to enjoy them? Because he originally advertised apples only? Give me a break! I've seen all of the arguments here and they make no sense.
This reminds me of something I once heard. People don't disappoint us for what they are but for a picture we created of them that never matched what they were. Everyone complaining here over GoG abandoning their core value are complaining over a false image they created of it.
GoG may have had a one price policy but I don't think they ever had it as a core value. It might have been one of your values but it wasn't one of theirs. That policy changed, and for the better imho. Regional pricing is the reason many games made it on here. It's also not a bad thing. Many people who couldn't afford to buy some games now can. Honestly I don't see how anyone can see that as a bad thing. It's not like you are paying more but some others are paying less (in you currency only). Anyone who complains against that seems selfish to me.
Same with Galaxy. I am yet to find a game on here where it is forced apart from Gwent which is a multiplayer game. It happens to be responsible for some games making it on here. Don't get me wrong here. I do think multiplayer games should not be limited to an official server and that is where my money will go.
It seems to me there are people on here who have decided that GoG should only host specific games. But who decides what games should be hosted and which ones not? That is probably why they ditched the "good old" part as it gave the wrong impression. I don't have a problem with them hosting any game as long as it's not DRM. But then I am against DRM period so it's not surprising. I would personally welcome some more games on here. There's some good locally developed games I would like on here and it's not like they didn't apply for it. GoG rejected then but hosts half baked shit like Hello Neighbour. Clearly there is no curating process any more so we might as well let go of the pretense and accept all games.
One thing I know for sure is that it won't be places like GoG or anybody that destroys good "old" gaming but rather toxic communities. I mean is this what we've become? A place where people act in a childish manner and downvote every post a person makes just so someone can come along and upvote it again? If so then I say good riddance altogether.
amok: Like everything else, depends completely on how it is implemented (and cost...). Yes, there are some very bad examples out there, but also good ones. Take Witcher 3, for example, who released... how many?... free micro transaction thingies (like a new beard(!)) , and it was DRM free... and free...
vulchor: I think you're confusing micro-transactions with small bits of DLC. They are not the same. Microtransactions involve spending money in order to advance your progress in-game. Go watch the video of the CEO of EA talking about it earlier in this thread. It really is the worst of the worst because of how purposefully exploatitive it is.
Microtransactions are small bits of DLC. Nothing more and nothing less. It's therefor illogical to say it requires DRM as GoG could have easily said "here are the packs you can download if you bought them, we trust you won't break copyright and keep it fair". What you are describing is typically pay to win but not always though.
PromZA: Wrong. If his reasons is to support the developer then in his mind he's making a donation. Buying a product is just the way it's achieved. If I played and really liked Gwent I might have done the same. And he does have control over the price. He can choose make in game purchases for less or buy this bundle for more.
Skargoth: A donation is a gift and that means that there is no expectation of getting something in return. He already admitted that he does expect something in return so you are factually wrong. It doesn't matter what you want to pretend it is. He does have control over how much he wants to spend, but not the price. Don't reply to me again with any of this nonsense.
NO. People regularly buy stuff they don't need or don't want for charity. He didn't admit to expecting anything in return but rather that he already got something in the game and want to support the developer for it. And he does control both the price and his spend, maybe not up to the cent but he does. That last bit is a real copout.
richlind33: What it comes down to is this: the microtransaction model, in and of itself, is DRM, and is being adopted by every major publisher.
"Online functionality" is really just a euphemism for "online-gaming", and as bad as single-player gaming is now, it's going to get a whole lot worse in the very near future.
That is nonsense. Both the part about it being DRM and about everyone adopting it. Online RPGs is a new thing and with it came microtransactions. Of course people will take advantage of it but at the same time there's never been as many regular titles as well. Single player gaming has never been as good as it is now.
