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

×
When the fall of civilization comes, everything might seem lost. But even in such grim circumstances, a small hope for a better future remains.

You can try to find it with Weekly Sale on GOG.COM featuring some very memorable post-apo games up to 90% off.

Dying Light: The Following - Enhanced Edition (-70%) is a survival game set in a vast open world. Roam a city devastated by the plague and flesh-hungry enemies.

Frostpunk (-60%) is a strategy simulation game set in a frozen world, where people develop steam-powered technology to oppose the overwhelming cold.

Wasteland 2 Director's Cut Digital Deluxe Edition (-60%) is a sequel to the classic RPG from 1988. Join Desert Rangers and try to restore order in post-war America.

That’s not all – check out more of the discounted post-apo games, like This War of Mine: Soundtrack Edition (-75%) or Shardlight (-70%). This Weekly Sale on GOG.COM will last until 10th February 2020, 2 PM UTC.
avatar
tfishell: I guess the Fallout games would fit in this sale, wouldn't they. I know many here probably hate "Creation Club Credits" but if GOG implementing the option to buy them into their site meant that Fallout 4 GOTY Ed. could come here, maybe it would be worth it (assuming of course the game is DRM-free; an option to log into a Beth account or whatever, but not forced to).
avatar
rjbuffchix: Wouldn't that weaken GOG's negotiation position with other big games/publishers? In other words, Skyrim is nearly a decade old game and Bethesda still won't put even an old version of it on GOG. If GOG were to accept Skyrim/Fallout 4 under the terms you propose, why wouldn't every other big publisher going forward demand similar unfavorable terms from GOG right from the start?
Sorry, you'll have to explain yourself further. Folks can buy "Creation Club Credits" on the Steam page, which made me wonder if GOG let you buy them on the GOG page, if doing so would be worth it to let Fallout 4 come here. Would that weaken GOG's negotiation position by having to go extra steps to bring the games here?
avatar
rjbuffchix: Wouldn't that weaken GOG's negotiation position with other big games/publishers? In other words, Skyrim is nearly a decade old game and Bethesda still won't put even an old version of it on GOG. If GOG were to accept Skyrim/Fallout 4 under the terms you propose, why wouldn't every other big publisher going forward demand similar unfavorable terms from GOG right from the start?
avatar
tfishell: Sorry, you'll have to explain yourself further. Folks can buy "Creation Club Credits" on the Steam page, which made me wonder if GOG let you buy them on the GOG page, if doing so would be worth it to let Fallout 4 come here. Would that weaken GOG's negotiation position by having to go extra steps to bring the games here?
In short, yes.

Longer explanation:
Allowing Creation Club Credits in order to get Fallout 4 on this store would weaken GOG's negotiation position going forward for all other big publisher games that have some form of microtransactions or other consumer-unfriendly practices (of which Creation Club is only one example). As much as I think Skyrim and Fallout 4 belong here, I'm trying to look towards how GOG making that type of concession would look in the longer view for more games. And the way I see it looks to be a big negative for GOG and GOG consumers:

If GOG makes the concession to allow proprietary publisher stores with microtransactions in the games, this weakens their negotiation in getting new games from publishers. The publishers will know at minimum that GOG is willing to concede this point, so GOG thus would have less leverage and have to make more concessions on GOG's end to attract such games. Can visualize it like a tug-of-war where, instead of starting evenly apart from one another, GOG has already lost ground before the contest even starts.

Let's look at a similar analogy. Games on Scheme in the vast majority of cases require the client for multiplayer. GOG already conceded the client requirement by making their own and has many games here that require the client for multiplayer. In my view this has been a negative and diluted GOG's brand. NO developer now is going to listen to GOG on this subject even if GOG were to ask them nicely to provide non-client-required multiplayer. GOG willingly gave up their leverage and the results have imo been worse for the consumer and diluted the GOG brand.

All that said, I get that Creation Club and other such practices are not DRM. Not arguing that. What they are is an anti-consumer practice that I am hoping GOG doesn't give in to, because once the genie is out of the bottle with anti-consumer practices, it is essentially impossible to put that genie back.
avatar
rjbuffchix: ...
First off, good points I didn't think about.

At this point, I mostly view single-player DRM-free as the hill GOG should die on (as long as single-player content can be played fine without an internet connection, we're good; you buy "microtransaction" single-player content through the 'net, but that content can be played offline if you want), so I'm not even that worried about GOG allowing games here that allow optional microtransactions as long as any single-player content is DRM-free. (vs, I guess, "pro-consumerism" being GOG's brand) Players can say "fck off" to the game if they want, but others can buy it here if they want.

I think you and I probably will never see eye-to-eye on this if (and I don't want to suggest something wrong about your opinions or views, so please correct me) you view GOG as a business who should be a shining force for good in the game world, vs. a store that provides a product we want and who is trying to find a niche in the marketplace. I know some here seem to view GOG as the "shining force for good" and are very disappointed how GOG has been going the past few years; I'm more interested in getting highly-desired* DRM-free single-player games here and letting consumers decide instead.

One might also ask this question: does GOG need to control what games come here to prevent their customers from making bad decisions (like spending too much on microtransactions because they have an addiction)? On a broader scale, do you like to see governments regulate businesses/act as a protector of citizens? (Also, are you familiar with YouTuber Jim Sterling and his rants against anti-consumer practices? If so, how do you feel about Jim?)

Don't feel obligated to answer the above questions, I'm just curious; like I said I don't think we'll end up agreeing on this but good talk anyway :)

*I originally said "relatively bug-free" but FO4 is a Bethesda game sooo...
Post edited February 05, 2020 by tfishell
avatar
GOG.com: Dying Light: The Following - Enhanced Edition (-70%) is a survival game set in a vast open world. Roam a city devastated by the plague and flesh-hungry enemies.
avatar
tfishell: I know you probably want it here and Techland or/and Deep Silver are the hold-up, buuuut...
Dead Island pls
That would be an instabuy.
avatar
tfishell: I know you probably want it here and Techland or/and Deep Silver are the hold-up, buuuut...
Dead Island pls
avatar
W3irdN3rd: That would be an instabuy.
would you buy it without multiplayer or is that crucial to you?
avatar
tfishell: At this point, I mostly view single-player DRM-free as the hill GOG should die on (as long as single-player content can be played fine without an internet connection, we're good; you buy "microtransaction" single-player content through the 'net, but that content can be played offline if you want), so I'm not even that worried about GOG allowing games here that allow optional microtransactions as long as any single-player content is DRM-free. (vs, I guess, "pro-consumerism" being GOG's brand) Players can say "fck off" to the game if they want, but others can buy it here if they want.
(First, thank you as well for really good discussion. I consider this on-topic because in my view we are living in the "post-apo" era of gaming).

I understand your position and am not completely removed from it. Where I generally draw the line is at what I consider brand identity. That said, I am probably pining for an ideal of DRM-free that is extremely unlikely to ever come back. To use my own analogy, I don't think there is any way to "put the Galaxy genie back in the bottle" with things like multiplayer requirements so you are probably right that the best we can hope for anymore is "single-player DRM-free." Still, that is sad, and makes people confused about GOG's brand. More on this after the next quote. For what it's worth, I am not necessarily saying I don't want some such games (well, some of them) here as a consumer but I am trying to look at the situation from a more detached, long-term view.

avatar
tfishell: I think you and I probably will never see eye-to-eye on this if (and I don't want to suggest something wrong about your opinions or views, so please correct me) you view GOG as a business who should be a shining force for good in the game world, vs. a store that provides a product we want and who is trying to find a niche in the marketplace. I know some here seem to view GOG as the "shining force for good"[...]
Striving to be a "shining force for good" is not where I'm coming from, though that would be a good start at finding their niche in the marketplace. My concern is that by GOG diluting its identity, it makes it that much harder to carve out a niche in the market, just for branding reasons alone:

"We're a DRM-free store. Our games are DRM-free for singleplayer, but for multiplayer...well, that's up to the developer. But wait, have you seen our own proprietary client that incorporates other proprietary clients?". Way too convoluted!

Contrast how the standard set out on FCKDRM.com is simply "100% DRM-free." That makes a lot more sense to the average customer. A lot less moving parts, and nothing left defined as "maybe,maybe not".

Clearly, though, GOG chose "more games" at the expense of weakening its brand. To the point that a plain reading of FCKDRM.com ironically invalidates viewing GOG as a 100% DRM-free source.

avatar
tfishell: One might also ask this question: does GOG need to control what games come here to prevent their customers from making bad decisions (like spending too much on microtransactions because they have an addiction)? On a broader scale, do you like to see governments regulate businesses/act as a protector of citizens? (Also, are you familiar with YouTuber Jim Sterling and his rants against anti-consumer practices? If so, how do you feel about Jim?)
The reason I don't want microtransactions here is as simple as that I think (at least most of) the games that have them are tied up with other forms of DRM that don't belong here. I'm not aware of many (any?) examples of games that would be 100% DRM-free for singleplayer, but which also feature the option to connect to their servers and buy stuff. And we both know that developers aren't jumping to make a custom GOG build that gives this sort of compromise.

If you asked my personal opinion, I would also say that most games with microtransactions are poor games due to being built around the microtransactions (as, if the microtransactions didn't significantly improve the game, very few people would buy them) and could be rejected by curation for that reason too, but I think excluding them from GOG is as simple as maintaining strong brand identity of DRM-free.

And I'm as opposite from that sort of forced "paternalism" as you can imagine, as I am all about voluntary interaction. In my view, it's up to businesses (really, the individuals behind them) to decide how to run their stores, so something like store curation is valid by my standards in a way that a national ban on games with microtransactions, is not. That said, you wouldn't see me protesting that ban, haha.

As for YouTubers in general, I find it bothersome that none of the visible ones are really advocating that people buy DRM-free. I don't know if Jim is like this (only watched a video or two of his), but it seems to me most of these cats talk a good game about how evil EA is, etc, but still keep supporting the Scheme monopoly. The only gaming media-person I've seen talk positively about GOG and against Scheme DRM is a blogger.

In short, I want GOG to "try saving what's left of the gaming world." I'm not saying that they are a shining force for good; they are a business like any other. But GOG provides a strong combination that is unavailable from any other store. GOG somehow has a combination of big games here, that are DRM-free. I would prefer they cultivate this without sacrificing either of these pillars; meaning, not accepting all indie games, but also not accepting bigger games that would require more drastic compromises.
GMG has Dead Island on sale at a deep discount. It's probably totally unrelated but part of me wishes it meant DS was trying to squeeze the last of the Steam money out before releasing the game here. ;) Hopefully GOG can bring it at a comparable discount, though it's pretty darn deep right now - 88% off/only $2.50. Maybe it could show up at a 75% discount; that's $5 which is double the discount price above but still a fair price, I'd like to think.

avatar
rjbuffchix: ...
Very well thought out and reasonable writings. I think we're still going to have to agree to disagree - basically I'd still like to see Fallout 4 here if, somehow, Creation Club Credits can buy content stuff that can be made DRM-free - but you have good thoughts so thanks for taking the time to write this up. (Maybe I'm not as concerned about the gaming world as you since, funnily enough, I don't have much time to really get invested in playing games nowadays, and I can't even run most modern games.)
Post edited February 06, 2020 by tfishell
avatar
W3irdN3rd: That would be an instabuy.
avatar
tfishell: would you buy it without multiplayer or is that crucial to you?
I don't care about multiplayer. I consider not having 13-year olds scream "HAHAH YOUFAG" and tormenting my speakers with distorted music from Justin Bieber a good thing.
Post edited February 07, 2020 by W3irdN3rd
avatar
tfishell: would you buy it without multiplayer or is that crucial to you?
avatar
W3irdN3rd: I don't care about multiplayer. I consider not having 13-year olds scream "HAHAH YOUFAG" and tormenting my speakers with distorted music from Justin Bieber a good thing.

Don't you?
I wasn't trying to say that's a bad thing, I was just asking because devs implementing multiplayer seems to be the biggest issue some games have getting here. So if very few people here care about multiplayer for Galaxy being implemented, I think that could be a positive in regards to the game coming here.

And personally no I don't care about multiplayer. (but then again my computer is so old it chugged when I tried to play the game many years back; ironically I had an easier time playing Crysis on this machine, but even that chugged at a low resolution at times)
Post edited February 07, 2020 by tfishell
avatar
W3irdN3rd: I don't care about multiplayer. I consider not having 13-year olds scream "HAHAH YOUFAG" and tormenting my speakers with distorted music from Justin Bieber a good thing.

Don't you?
avatar
tfishell: I wasn't trying to say that's a bad thing, I was just asking because devs implementing multiplayer seems to be the biggest issue some games have getting here. So if very few people here care about multiplayer for Galaxy being implemented, I think that could be a positive in regards to the game coming here.

And personally no I don't care about multiplayer. (but then again my computer is so old it chugged when I tried to play the game many years back; ironically I had an easier time playing Crysis on this machine, but even that chugged at a low resolution at times)
I don't even care about Galaxy. But I don't know if I'm your average GOG customer.

avatar
tfishell: One might also ask this question: does GOG need to control what games come here to prevent their customers from making bad decisions (like spending too much on microtransactions because they have an addiction)? On a broader scale, do you like to see governments regulate businesses/act as a protector of citizens? (Also, are you familiar with YouTuber Jim Sterling and his rants against anti-consumer practices? If so, how do you feel about Jim?)
I like Jim.

I don't think GOG should allow lootboxes. Microtransactions in the form of small DLC (like buying a hat for 30 cents) is okay. Microtransactions like "This is no time to be stingy! Spend a few more Gems to instantly rush the building of this trap." NO. JUST NO.

Not only because it's a scummy business practice, but it would likely also hurt GOG because it would likely cause a backlash. And it won't allow (many) games to release here that we want. Maybe we'd get FIFA (we wouldn't), well fck that. I want Dead Island, I want Skyrim, Far Cry 3-4-5, Wreckfest, GTA, Bully, RDR2, Dishonored, Hitman 2, Doom 2016, etc etc. I don't think any of those hinge on lootboxes.

Governments, well I'd prefer regulation wouldn't be needed.. But I guess it is.. I mean gambling in games for kids? What? I remember back when games came in a big box. You'd go to the store, get the box, and pay. And that was it!!!! There was no DLC, there were no microtransactions, there was no day-one patch and day-one DLC.. No, you just paid money and in return you got A GAME! What an innovative concept that was!
avatar
W3irdN3rd: And it won't allow (many) games to release here that we want. Maybe we'd get FIFA (we wouldn't), well fck that. I want Dead Island, I want Skyrim, Far Cry 3-4-5, Wreckfest, GTA, Bully, RDR2, Dishonored, Hitman 2, Doom 2016, etc etc. I don't think any of those hinge on lootboxes.
I agree, however my original post on this matter was about Fallout 4. The Steam page lets people buy something called Creation Club Credits - https://store.steampowered.com/app/598110/Fallout_4__Creation_Club/

"Get Credits to be used in Creation Club – a collection of all-new game content for Fallout 4. Content is fully curated and compatible with the main game and official add-ons. Using Creation Club is easy – browse the selection in-game by category and use Credits to download the content. Credits can be purchased in packs of various sizes, and you’ll receive a discount on larger packs."

This may be a shitty practice, but I was wondering if Fallout 4 had a higher change of coming here if GOG allowed these credits to be sold on a game page in their catalog. (especially since FO4 is single-player, no need to worry about multiplayer afaik)
avatar
W3irdN3rd: And it won't allow (many) games to release here that we want. Maybe we'd get FIFA (we wouldn't), well fck that. I want Dead Island, I want Skyrim, Far Cry 3-4-5, Wreckfest, GTA, Bully, RDR2, Dishonored, Hitman 2, Doom 2016, etc etc. I don't think any of those hinge on lootboxes.
avatar
tfishell: I agree, however my original post on this matter was about Fallout 4. The Steam page lets people buy something called Creation Club Credits - https://store.steampowered.com/app/598110/Fallout_4__Creation_Club/

"Get Credits to be used in Creation Club – a collection of all-new game content for Fallout 4. Content is fully curated and compatible with the main game and official add-ons. Using Creation Club is easy – browse the selection in-game by category and use Credits to download the content. Credits can be purchased in packs of various sizes, and you’ll receive a discount on larger packs."

This may be a shitty practice, but I was wondering if Fallout 4 had a higher change of coming here if GOG allowed these credits to be sold on a game page in their catalog. (especially since FO4 is single-player, no need to worry about multiplayer afaik)
I doubt it, there are plenty of titles in Bethesda's catalog but GOG simply hasn't seen much love lately.

And I don't care. I'd love to see Fallout 4, but with this creation club bs, no thanks. When I'm playing a game, I don't want to spend money! And when I'm shopping, I don't want to play games!

I don't want to think about purchases with real-world money or made-up money that costs real-world money while in a game. The experience just gets instantly ruined. Any game that does that is dead to me.

I'm not a complete hardliner btw, if the micropayments are restricted to a menu option that I'm never reminded of during gameplay, I guess I could live with that.
Post edited February 08, 2020 by W3irdN3rd
avatar
W3irdN3rd: I don't care about multiplayer. I consider not having 13-year olds scream "HAHAH YOUFAG" and tormenting my speakers with distorted music from Justin Bieber a good thing.

Don't you?
avatar
tfishell: I wasn't trying to say that's a bad thing, I was just asking because devs implementing multiplayer seems to be the biggest issue some games have getting here. So if very few people here care about multiplayer for Galaxy being implemented, I think that could be a positive in regards to the game coming here.

And personally no I don't care about multiplayer. (but then again my computer is so old it chugged when I tried to play the game many years back; ironically I had an easier time playing Crysis on this machine, but even that chugged at a low resolution at times)
Implementing multiplayer is not a issue. It just needs to be done differently.
It is necessary that developers add multiplayer to games via LAN / Direct Connect. This solution is store-independent, does not require the use of proprietary API clients, and will allow players to play multiplayer regardless of the store in which the game was purchased (including the owners of the game from different stores with each other - cross-store MP). Without additional efforts (from developers) to support every small store.
Moreover, such a decision will in no way violate the principle of DRM-Free.
Profit for everyone.

Unfortunately, GOG chose the path of Steam: to introduce its own clumsy client and offer developers to embed multiplayer through it. As a result, we have what we have: some games cannot be played in multiplayer without a Galaxy-client. Only then the question arises: why buy such games in GOG? The competitor has better support and there are more players in multiplayer (What is important for multiplayer by definition).
GOG did not go along the path of strengthening its strengths, but along the path of trying to imitate the competitor's strengths. Unfortunately, bad imitation.