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

×
Couldn't find an answer to this so I'm asking for an 'Official' response (or a response from a 'well informed' fellow user). I'm sure a huge amount of votes on the 'Wishlist' counts for a lot (you *do* want to make some money), but what are some of the reasons for a game being in the 'top 10' of the wishlist for example, but not being released for d/l by you guys? What kind of grief and negotiations do you go thru with the companies involved? You know, like why does System Shock have 3192 votes, but we get 'Duke Nukem'? *Not complaining* - just curious what some of the stumbling blocks are. It would be interesting to know. Thanks.
No posts in this topic were marked as the solution yet. If you can help, add your reply
I wonder.
The big players have hundreds of games which didn't see rerelease in years and probably won't ever see (boxed version at least).
so what is stopping them from dumping one or two of less popular games as an experiment? if it fails (very minimal sales) there is no real loss. but if it succeeds there is lots of monies to be made. Not only from sales but from new franchise which could originate plus it is also a good advertisement for a company.
Quite true, a pilot project from a major company would be brilliant, selling syndicate or tie fighter would likely get major figures and generate goodwill
avatar
cogadh: EA likes its DRM, GOG doesn't. That's a big sticking point on System Shock 2.
avatar
Zeewolf: Well, to be fair, we don't know that. We know that EA use DRM on their new games, but so do most companies here. There are several companies on GoG who have been known to use Starforce and Securom on their releases (not that I hold that against them, I'm pretty fed up with the the anti-DRM hysteria to be honest, I'm just pointing it out). So the fact that EA use DRM-solutions on their new releases doesn't have to be relevant here.
My guess, though it is only a guess, is that EA know their back catalogue is worth tons of money, and they're not yet convinced that they should "turn it over" to GoG. They have traditionally been very keen on maintaining control over their IP and products - they did not like Xbox Live to begin with, they wanted their own digital distribution platform instead of using existing ones like Steam, et.c. So basically, I think GoG will have to really prove itself before they will consider it.

Considering that EA executives have made many statements in the past regarding their need for DRM and other copy protection schemes and that EA has been one of the most vocal proponents of DRM, I'd say it is very fair to say they like their DRM. Even when they release a game as supposedly "DRM free', they release it on Steam, which is DRM in and of itself. When called on that, they revise their statements to say "no DRM beyond Steam's own DRM". Unlike other companies that have used DRM schemes in the past, EA has not heard their customer's complaints and continue trying to squeeze more and more restrictive DRM into their games, while those other companies instead try to find ways to reduce the restrictiveness while maintaining the security. You or I may not necessarily "know" that EA likes its DRM, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is still a valid conclusion.
avatar
lukaszthegreat: I wonder.
The big players have hundreds of games which didn't see rerelease in years and probably won't ever see (boxed version at least).
so what is stopping them from dumping one or two of less popular games as an experiment? if it fails (very minimal sales) there is no real loss. but if it succeeds there is lots of monies to be made. Not only from sales but from new franchise which could originate plus it is also a good advertisement for a company.

I believe that is exactly what JoWood is doing right now.
avatar
Aliasalpha: Also I've gotten the impression over the years that they always seem on the cusp of comitting to re-launching an old IP & don't want the old ones around to distract from potential sales. Of course they never DO re-launch them and so they sit forever.
avatar
Weclock: from what I understand they release new games based on the habits of a groundhog.

Nah thats how they greenlight new IP projects
oh, then I guess it has something to do with the position of the moon and the tide...
I have a question, when GOG makes a deal with a publisher do they have access to all of their catalogue of games or they make a deal for a specific number of titles? Also is it the publisher or GOG that chooses which games will end up on the service?
avatar
Gexecuter: I have a question, when GOG makes a deal with a publisher do they have access to all of their catalogue of games or they make a deal for a specific number of titles? Also is it the publisher or GOG that chooses which games will end up on the service?

I think it's a specific number, depends on the deal they made I guess.
Post edited February 28, 2009 by TheCombine
What exactly is there to wonder about?
To sell games here, GoG will have to strike a deal with the appropriate copyright holders of said games. Said copyright holders may or may not be hard to track down. The exact content of these agreements will vary from developer to developer, and even game to game. The most common "stumbling block" here is purely economical. I assume GoG takes a certain % of the revenue for each game for the service they provide, and if the rights holder does not find their own % high enough to merit releasing the game on GoG, by their own standards, an agreement cannot be reached.
What games to "release" from their catalogue is entirely up to the rights holder, at the end of the day. In fact, in several cases GoG has had to release additional titles from someone's back library, for instance in order to gain permission to release that one high-profile title.
GoG probably has some flexibility towards when they make games available, for eample if there are last-minute issues with the release even if the deal is done. Also, I have noted that when new catalogues come calling, the big titles are always released first, then the rest come in a slow trickle over the following weeks. Which is just good business sense, you release the games that will probably sell the best, first.
This is about as good as anyone can second-guess the process. I doubt GoG would ever release more accurate information than this, you don't give that out in a market where competition is as stiff as it is in digital games distribution. In fact you mostly don't give it out at all, just some gross numbers at certain intervals to keep your shareholders informed. If GoG has any shareholders at all.
Post edited February 28, 2009 by stonebro
avatar
cogadh: Considering that EA executives have made many statements in the past regarding their need for DRM and other copy protection schemes and that EA has been one of the most vocal proponents of DRM, I'd say it is very fair to say they like their DRM. Even when they release a game as supposedly "DRM free', they release it on Steam, which is DRM in and of itself. When called on that, they revise their statements to say "no DRM beyond Steam's own DRM". Unlike other companies that have used DRM schemes in the past, EA has not heard their customer's complaints and continue trying to squeeze more and more restrictive DRM into their games, while those other companies instead try to find ways to reduce the restrictiveness while maintaining the security. You or I may not necessarily "know" that EA likes its DRM, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is still a valid conclusion.

Well, it isn't actually true that EA haven't been listening to their users complaints. They have increased the install limits and removed Securom from games such as Red Alert 3 on Steam. We also have their experiments with the online version of Burnout Paradise on the PC. So I don't think you're being entirely fair here.
avatar
Gexecuter: I have a question, when GOG makes a deal with a publisher do they have access to all of their catalogue of games or they make a deal for a specific number of titles? Also is it the publisher or GOG that chooses which games will end up on the service?
I believe it depends on what the publisher is willing to put on the service.
avatar
cogadh: Considering that EA executives have made many statements in the past regarding their need for DRM and other copy protection schemes and that EA has been one of the most vocal proponents of DRM, I'd say it is very fair to say they like their DRM. Even when they release a game as supposedly "DRM free', they release it on Steam, which is DRM in and of itself. When called on that, they revise their statements to say "no DRM beyond Steam's own DRM". Unlike other companies that have used DRM schemes in the past, EA has not heard their customer's complaints and continue trying to squeeze more and more restrictive DRM into their games, while those other companies instead try to find ways to reduce the restrictiveness while maintaining the security. You or I may not necessarily "know" that EA likes its DRM, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is still a valid conclusion.
avatar
Zeewolf: Well, it isn't actually true that EA haven't been listening to their users complaints. They have increased the install limits and removed Securom from games such as Red Alert 3 on Steam. We also have their experiments with the online version of Burnout Paradise on the PC. So I don't think you're being entirely fair here.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree then. Getting busted by your customers after the fact for your DRM schemes is not listening to your customers, that's simply ignoring your customers in the first place when you decided to try out that unreasonable scheme. Its not like people hadn't expressed their dislike for things like limited activations before EA decided to add it to yet another game. Until EA actually stops trying out newer and sneakier DRM schemes and only reversing or adjusting position in a token manner (sometimes) if they are called on it publicly, then saying they like their DRM too much is a fair assessment (IMO, of course).
Saying that EA is listening to it's customers by increasing the install limits is fallacy.
There should be no install limits in the first place. No, it doesn't count if you remove them entirely after X years when "there is no longer any significant interest around the game" (in other words; we can't be assed to keep the servers going any longer).
Some DRM is probably warranted but it's gone way too far. However, that is a topic for a different thread (of which we have at least 5 on this forum already).