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

×
Community
General discussionWhich is holding back GOG more from getting "AAA" games here: lack of DRM or smaller userbase (vs Steam and co.)?(97 posts)(97 posts)
(97 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Posted August 06, 2019
low rated
avatar
Gylfe: I would love to see GoG get the same support that Steam gets, which is why it is my primary platform and I will repurchase games they release that I already had (like Stellaris) to get the game DRM free and to support the platform. The best way for us to make it happen is to suck it up and avoid buying games from DRM platforms and to purchase from and spread the word about GoG.
Unless most people start embracing DRM free en masse and don't mind spending more for some games on GOG(and not playing some games tied to other stores) I don't think this will ever happen(gog growing as big or nearly as big as steam). :\
Posted August 06, 2019
low rated
avatar
rjbuffchix: Because it is possible for the game to work without a step of online verification. Therefore, literally unnecessary. "Pirates using copies in MP" is not my problem, nor do I agree with your suggestion that it even IS a problem. So that's a non-starter.
==========================
So your advice to the consumer is effectively "shut up and like it"?

I am well aware that they get more money that way. They must not care about getting mine.
===========================
Many consider the Earth flat, and some also consider that the sun revolves around it rather than it around the sun. As I have said in another topic, reality is what determines the truth of the matter. In this case, it is obvious people are just making excuses. If you look on an identity level, both of those things you mentioned fail the FCKDRM.com standard of "100% DRM-free". Why are you accepting less?
=========================
avatar
GameRager: 4. One should be happy they have something to eat rather than that the thing is slightly less quality than they like(bruised vs non bruised apples of similar freshness). All gaming could be streaming only or steam only by now.....we should all be happy for what we have and not what we do not have....just my two cents.
avatar
rjbuffchix: Nope, nope, nopeity nope!

Again, this is called "fallacy of relative privation" but here is probably the most plain language write-up I found:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppealToWorseProblems

Please stop settling for less and demand more.
==========================
Lol...what I was trying to get at was that there really should not be a need for asterisks and qualifiers. The only reason there is a need, is because people are making excuses that allow the problem to fester until it can become totally malignant. "Oh, it's DRM-free for singleplayer at least". "Oh, microtransactions are in mobile games, but they'd never dare put them in real games".
=========================
I basically alluded to this idea when I said a one-time serial key is better (in a sense) than persistently having to connect (using, say, a client). The thing is, both function as unnecessary online verification, i.e., DRM. Both are anticonsumer, just that one is more anticonsumer than the other. It is a difference of degree, not a difference of kind.
Just because you don't see something as a problem doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Logical fallacy(as you keep saying).
============================
That or make/finance what you want made(through kickstarter/etc), influence devs through social media/etc, or don't buy. That's how the market usually works.
===========================
Those things you mention can be disproven through proof/experiments.....the "is this drm" argument with regards to a MP account(to me) is not so concrete one way or the other for most people.

As for accepting less.....I don't care for MP for the most part, and feel the same way about many other parts of gaming like achievements/etc. To me it's not about "accepting less" if I don't care for something(or if I do in how it's given to me like account based MP) as much or need it.
========================

Also sadly to them such stalwart people who staunchly hold such beliefs are a drop of a drop in the bucket. If you want things to change you need to find ways to make them change instead of complaining about it or lamenting the state of the industry as most do.
============================
It's also called looking on the bright side, and is good advice.....call it a fallacy to disregard it and cast it aside if you must, though.

I'd rather be happy for what i've got then complain all day long about this and that that I don't have.
===========================
Isn't saying it'll get malignant a tad hyperbolic? Just saying.
==========================
Eh, i'd rather have them than stuff like Denuvo/etc.

avatar
karnak1: GOG is not perfect; everyone has the right to buy wherever they want (steam, Epic, etc) but you want your games DRM-free? Then keep supporting GOG!!
The videogame market is definitely turning into agressive DRM stance. And it's trying to force it into customers by micro-transactions, loot, in-game purchases and online multiplayer. That's BAIT!! Like old Ackbar wold say: "It's a trap!!" Don't support that. Vote with your wallets.
I do vote with my wallet. Most games I buy here, but I am not opposed to buying drm free titles on steam if they are cheaper(as I am on a budget) or buying a game vastly cheaper on steam and then getting a crack for the future if I need to strip said drm out if steam ever went under.

I support GOG for it's DRM-free mission and good community/way it treats people, but if a game is 2-3 times the price here than on steam and if steam has it drm free as well I am not opposed to buying there as it's the drm free aspect I support first and foremost not loyalty to one store over all others(mostly).
Post edited August 06, 2019 by GameRager
Posted August 06, 2019
avatar
GameRager: Just because you don't see something as a problem doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Logical fallacy(as you keep saying).
Could you explain to me why your hypothetical "pirates on MP" represents a "problem"? For that matter, wouldn't it even be a potential GAIN if it increased the playerbase and lifespan of the game? Regardless, my point is that it is a made-up "problem". Companies say it is a "problem" the way they see it, sure, but objectively speaking it shouldn't make any difference to the game itself. What objective difference does it make to the game itself?

avatar
GameRager: That or make/finance what you want made(through kickstarter/etc), influence devs through social media/etc, or don't buy. That's how the market usually works.
That's how a free market could basically work. What we have in PC gaming (let alone elsewhere) is not that. I do not wish to run afoul of the rules so I'm afraid I can't engage in more discussion on that point, lest it delve into political talk :) Needless to say, it is not as simple in the current gaming market as "vote with your wallet", because not only are DRM-free customers an utter minority that companies are actively seeking to eradicate, there are "whales" that would support the most DRM-filled of games, even if DRM-free gamers were a majority of consumers!!

I want to emphasize that last sentence, because the implications are very depressing for gamers who want deep, quality games with no strings attached. There is no end in sight for the DRM and online-only practices even if a majority of customers agree they are practices to be avoided. Rather the companies will give you the following choice: accept games with these practices built-in, or don't play the games/have a VERY limited selection of games in comparison. Don't believe me? Look at the mobile gaming market.

avatar
GameRager: Those things you mention can be disproven through proof/experiments.....the "is this drm" argument with regards to a MP account(to me) is not so concrete one way or the other for most people.
You're right in the sense that "DRM" would need to be defined as a term. Using the criteria from FCKDRM.com, I would say it looks pretty concrete as to any account or client for multiplayer. What do you say?

avatar
GameRager: As for accepting less.....I don't care for MP for the most part, and feel the same way about many other parts of gaming like achievements/etc. To me it's not about "accepting less" if I don't care for something(or if I do in how it's given to me like account based MP) as much or need it.
First they came for the multiplayer gamers...

avatar
GameRager: Also sadly to them such stalwart people who staunchly hold such beliefs are a drop of a drop in the bucket. If you want things to change you need to find ways to make them change instead of complaining about it or lamenting the state of the industry as most do.
Complaining about these practices loudly IS a form of action. Not supporting these practices IS a form of action. In any case, since you mentioned that such stalwart people are such a drop in the bucket, what exactly is your idea on how to get companies to listen to them in spite of that? In other words, what particular action would "make them change"? Imo, the only way people or companies will change their ways is for others to realize the negatives of DRM, as well as the positives of ownership. There is a huge media and societal push in the opposite directions, btw, so this is made even more difficult.

avatar
GameRager: It's also called looking on the bright side, and is good advice.....call it a fallacy to disregard it and cast it aside if you must, though.
Yes, I will point out the "it could be worse..." fallacy if you keep committing it. I make no apologies for the fact I value critical thought and seek truth in all things to the best of my ability. Along those lines, you may be surprised (or not) to learn that I don't have much use for optimism as a philosophy. However, I do agree about the importance of acceptance. I very much value acceptance of reality, combined with striving for better (different from rationalizing that things aren't so bad). Let's strive for better!

avatar
GameRager: Isn't saying it'll get malignant a tad hyperbolic? Just saying.
No, absolutely not! This very topic is proof!! Look at how Steam took over the PC gaming market. Look at how local forms of multiplayer are now the exception rather than the rule. If you give these companies an inch, they will take a mile, then try to set up tollbooths every five feet. Goodness, man, the timelines of DLC and mobile gaming practices should be even more evidence of how this plays out so very negatively in the current gaming market. There was a time before all this nickel-and-diming, after all!
Posted August 06, 2019
low rated
avatar
rjbuffchix: Could you explain to me why your hypothetical "pirates on MP" represents a "problem"? For that matter, wouldn't it even be a potential GAIN if it increased the playerbase and lifespan of the game? Regardless, my point is that it is a made-up "problem". Companies say it is a "problem" the way they see it, sure, but objectively speaking it shouldn't make any difference to the game itself. What objective difference does it make to the game itself?
=========================
That's how a free market could basically work. What we have in PC gaming (let alone elsewhere) is not that. I do not wish to run afoul of the rules so I'm afraid I can't engage in more discussion on that point, lest it delve into political talk :) Needless to say, it is not as simple in the current gaming market as "vote with your wallet", because not only are DRM-free customers an utter minority that companies are actively seeking to eradicate, there are "whales" that would support the most DRM-filled of games, even if DRM-free gamers were a majority of consumers!!
=========================
I want to emphasize that last sentence, because the implications are very depressing for gamers who want deep, quality games with no strings attached. There is no end in sight for the DRM and online-only practices even if a majority of customers agree they are practices to be avoided. Rather the companies will give you the following choice: accept games with these practices built-in, or don't play the games/have a VERY limited selection of games in comparison. Don't believe me? Look at the mobile gaming market.
=============================
You're right in the sense that "DRM" would need to be defined as a term. Using the criteria from FCKDRM.com, I would say it looks pretty concrete as to any account or client for multiplayer. What do you say?
=============================
First they came for the multiplayer gamers...
=============================
Complaining about these practices loudly IS a form of action. Not supporting these practices IS a form of action. In any case, since you mentioned that such stalwart people are such a drop in the bucket, what exactly is your idea on how to get companies to listen to them in spite of that? In other words, what particular action would "make them change"? Imo, the only way people or companies will change their ways is for others to realize the negatives of DRM, as well as the positives of ownership. There is a huge media and societal push in the opposite directions, btw, so this is made even more difficult.
==========================
Yes, I will point out the "it could be worse..." fallacy if you keep committing it. I make no apologies for the fact I value critical thought and seek truth in all things to the best of my ability. Along those lines, you may be surprised (or not) to learn that I don't have much use for optimism as a philosophy. However, I do agree about the importance of acceptance. I very much value acceptance of reality, combined with striving for better (different from rationalizing that things aren't so bad). Let's strive for better!
=========================
No, absolutely not! This very topic is proof!! Look at how Steam took over the PC gaming market. Look at how local forms of multiplayer are now the exception rather than the rule. If you give these companies an inch, they will take a mile, then try to set up tollbooths every five feet. Goodness, man, the timelines of DLC and mobile gaming practices should be even more evidence of how this plays out so very negatively in the current gaming market. There was a time before all this nickel-and-diming, after all!
For starters it's a moral/etc "problem" akin to the same one people tout about pirates playing games in general over not paying for them.

Also the devs made the MP and expect those playing to have paid for the right to do so, as with all other products.....such checks make sure one paid for their copy, and are not that intrusive(when it comes to serial keys).

As for objective difference it makes to the game itself...none most likely, but it is still a problem(moral/legal) for devs to face.
=======================
Vote with your wallet still works.....it's just that many people are too dumb to do so or the whales on the DRM free side(and there are likely some) don't want to bother. Also as I said: social media/etc 'stinks' and outrage could get the ball rolling towards manipulating the market in a way that's more desirable to drm-free gamers....if only some would be brave enough or not too lazy to try.

Also I doubt a few whales would support the ENTIRE drm gaming industry if DRM free gamers were the majority....how rich do you think they are? o.0
======================
You seem to act as if that is how things don't normally work in general. One either can partake or choose not to, unless they are rich or influential enough to change the market/system.
======================
If it were PAID accounts for MP and only some could use them then yes it might be DRM to me, but if the accounts/MP is/are free then no.
======================
First off, it is a bit offensive(in general, not to me) to equate this with that famous saying as if gamers are being persecuted akin to that level/type/style.

Second, most people are that way....they are more self interested and mainly care about stuff that they like more than other things. That is just human nature.

Also I doubt SP will ever be on the chopping block as without it there is no gaming technically.
=======================
It is action but it is akin to shouting in a soundproof room for others outside said room to hear you....not very effective.....you could shout till you're sore throated and it wouldn't make much difference in said case.

I mentioned ways to fix the situation to one's liking/tastes above(social media outrage/movements/etc, for starters), btw.
=======================
I would cal it a truism rather than a fallacy, as it rings true usually.

Also critical thinking is fine as long as one is able to use it for good and not get stuck on terminology/phrasing/fallacies/etc when talking with someone.

And yes....strive for better, but also be thankful with what one has and realize when change isn't likely or not that likely and be ok with it. :)

(Also also I prefer optimism to pessimism usually)
====================
It's still a tad hyperbolic, imo.....it's not so bad when we have some new indie devs and even AAA devs workingn towards stuff and practices we like.
Posted August 06, 2019
avatar
GameRager: Also I doubt a few whales would support the ENTIRE drm gaming industry if DRM free gamers were the majority....how rich do you think they are? o.0
Without the time to respond to the rest of your post right now, I wanted to respond to this and the next part I quote below.

I think the DRM gaming industry is heading to where the consumer has only the following "options":
1. Play with DRM (most important being always-online DRM, which they will spin as benefiting the players).
2. Don't play at all.

Then, I think aside from the whales, most gamers will hold their noses and grudgingly accept the first option even they are against DRM. After all, they would rather play than "miss out", to draw back to our earlier discussion. It is what happened with Steam already, as it became a virtual monopoly on PC gaming. I wasn't clear enough in my last post about this but this is what I was trying to get at. Not enough people chose "don't play at all". Keep in mind that even if the customer bought there, then used a workaround/tried to remove the DRM/whatever, they have still "fed the beast" so to speak by spending money there. With always-online stuff, it stands to be an even worse situation, since whatever such "workarounds" would not even be possible.

avatar
GameRager: Also I doubt SP will ever be on the chopping block as without it there is no gaming technically.
Millions of online kid-bro Fortnite gamers would probably say the opposite, that there is no gaming without MP! If anything, singleplayer has already been on the chopping block, with vastly more online-only games now than in th epast. The companies make more money in multiplayer, DRM, and microtransaction schemes than they make from singleplayer. Behavior of the big companies is obvious in this regard and has been abundantly clear for years. Take for example EA abandoning Mass Effect Andromeda while trying to prop up their faltering slot machines, lol. More generally, do you think these companies shoehorn multiplayer into classicly singleplayer games out of the goodness of their hearts, because they only have gamers' best interests in mind? Now THAT would be some grade-A optimism :)
Posted August 06, 2019
The main thing in my opinion that is holding back GoG is that laws have not caught up to the digital age. Companies have been able to say they sale their games for years, yet treat it as a lease, and then unlike most leases they are able to disavow any responsibility on the part of their product.
Several cases covering First sale doctrine, right to repair, and resale, Have made it to the American supreme and been decided in favor of the people. Unfortunately no drm or gaming specific cases have made it through the courts yet, Maybe when most of our lawmakers are young enough not to remember the invention of the horse and buggy things will get better.
Tell the truth, how many people would forgo buying a game it it was forced to disclose that it was only a lease. And many game companies would work on removing game breaking bugs if they were liable to the people that leased their product.
Posted August 06, 2019
low rated
avatar
rjbuffchix: Without the time to respond to the rest of your post right now, I wanted to respond to this and the next part I quote below.

I think the DRM gaming industry is heading to where the consumer has only the following "options":
1. Play with DRM (most important being always-online DRM, which they will spin as benefiting the players).
2. Don't play at all.
==========================
Then, I think aside from the whales, most gamers will hold their noses and grudgingly accept the first option even they are against DRM. After all, they would rather play than "miss out", to draw back to our earlier discussion.
==========================
It is what happened with Steam already, as it became a virtual monopoly on PC gaming. I wasn't clear enough in my last post about this but this is what I was trying to get at. Not enough people chose "don't play at all". Keep in mind that even if the customer bought there, then used a workaround/tried to remove the DRM/whatever, they have still "fed the beast" so to speak by spending money there. With always-online stuff, it stands to be an even worse situation, since whatever such "workarounds" would not even be possible.
==========================
Millions of online kid-bro Fortnite gamers would probably say the opposite, that there is no gaming without MP! If anything, singleplayer has already been on the chopping block, with vastly more online-only games now than in th epast. The companies make more money in multiplayer, DRM, and microtransaction schemes than they make from singleplayer. Behavior of the big companies is obvious in this regard and has been abundantly clear for years. Take for example EA abandoning Mass Effect Andromeda while trying to prop up their faltering slot machines, lol. More generally, do you think these companies shoehorn multiplayer into classically singleplayer games out of the goodness of their hearts, because they only have gamers' best interests in mind? Now THAT would be some grade-A optimism :)
I am a bit more optimistic. I see this as just a "phase" and eventually it will come to shift to our side or someone else's way of thinking how the industry should be....only time will tell, though.
===============
There will always be those offering alternatives and those bucking the current trend so we/others will always have options to consume.

Also as for people playing so as to not "miss out": Imo as long as people are happy......well with some exceptions of course.
=============
Eh, people can and could still shift the gaming scene if they wanted to....most do not currently, sadly.

Also if one buys on deep sale or buys used(physical games) then the beast isn't fed much if at all, and imo that's alright/understandable as it allows one to partake yet not give such people much money/etc.

As for always online: Unless we install high speed/bandwidth lines everywhere that's likely to never become a reality for enough areas to be sustainable for long.
=============
Most games people like are SP or co-op geared games, not MP only or mainly MP.....so no I realistically do not think SP will be killed off anytime soon, as that would likely kill off quite a few genres that they make money from(indie devs and some AAA devs).
Posted September 20, 2019
avatar
karnak1: To be honest, considering the complexities of multiplayer gaming (and that devs prefer game clients to manage the multiplayer aspect of their games) and that one needs to be always online for multiplayer (and fact is: one is never 100% safe when online) I'd also accept DRM (like Galaxy) for multiplayer use.
Indeed.

avatar
karnak1: I'd still reject the need for Galaxy for offline single-player gaming, though.
Totally.
Posted September 20, 2019
avatar
clarry: Why do you want DRM????
Who said i do? I don't. I am totally against DRM.

However, when it comes to online Multiplayer, I am a realist. You are having to login to a server anyway, into an account, so where is the big problem, like there would be with an offline game that had such an EXTRA requirement. I don't see where the situation is such a burden. That still doesn't mean I agree with DRM even then, but it should at least be tolerable.

Playing with direct connect or Lan is another matter, and if a dev/publisher provide that ability, then it should be DRM-Free at GOG, definitely ... no excuse to be otherwise.

But for me, the main focus of a game will always be the offline element, and anything beyond that is a bonus, and if I was interested in the multiplayer aspect, I'd rather it be there, even with DRM, than not have it at all. Especially if that is the deal GOG needs to make to provide the game (offline element) in the first place.

Of course, if a game has no offline element, then its multiplayer only aspect should be totally DRM-Free to exist at GOG.
Posted September 20, 2019
avatar
Timboli: However, when it comes to online Multiplayer, I am a realist. You are having to login to a server anyway, into an account, ....
Why should that be necessary? Only for storing information like items or other stuff you unlocked, or to generate some ranking for matching you with nearly equally skilled opponents.
Back in the day there was no login, no account. You joined a server and the maximum check by the server was that no two players used the same serial number.
Since Quake 1 the server was included in the game itself - one could start a game and others could simply join if they knew the IP address, be it LAN or WAN. Then the "dedicated server" (often for Linux too) was shipped with games, so you could simply start a server somewhere (without staring the actual game) and people could join. Tools like GameSpy kept a list of servers, what game, what map was currently running and how many people were playing.
For me this is still the way it's supposed to work. Sadly - realistically - most devs nowadays seem to spare the effort to deliver the server with the game and instead rely on "official servers" and account-driven third-party tools like Steam or Galaxy, which means MP is a feature with an expiration date.
Posted September 20, 2019
i mean devs dnt like DRM free stuff at all, stuff like demo's and beta's which used to be free are now put behind pre order paywalls especially betas and demos are just non existant now,
Posted September 20, 2019
low rated
avatar
clarry: Why do you want DRM????
avatar
Timboli: Who said i do? I don't. I am totally against DRM.

However, when it comes to online Multiplayer, I am a realist.
You're "a realist" so you want DRM?

You are having to login to a server anyway, into an account,
Stop it. That is not true. I've spent thousands of hours of my life on multiplayer games that do not require me to log in to anything.

so where is the big problem,
The big problem is where you propose that multiplayer games should require DRM and, inevitably, eventually fail because the service is pulled off or your account banned or you want to play with a family member and the DRM prevents that or something equally ridiculous. That's how multiplayer games with DRM die. Please don't ask for DRM in multiplayer games.

like there would be with an offline game that had such an EXTRA requirement. I don't see where the situation is such a burden.
If I weren't so lazy, I could give you a long list of multiplayer games that don't work now because they added DRM and then pulled the service. Or multiplayer games that I can't enjoy with a friend or family member who didn't buy the game because DRM prevents them from playing with me.

How is that not a burden? That's a massive burden, one that very few gamers can overcome (by reverse engineering and writing custom servers or otherwise cracking the DRM). That is such a burden that most of these games that died with DRM were never resurrected by anyone.

That still doesn't mean I agree with DRM even then, but it should at least be tolerable.
Uhh, you don't agree with DRM, yet you're asking for it.
Post edited September 20, 2019 by clarry
Posted September 20, 2019
Ideas why the Batman games (currently free on Epic Store) aren't here despite being DRM-free?
Posted September 20, 2019
avatar
tfishell: I always hear about how GOG doesn't get big-name publisher "AAA" games because GOG doesn't allow DRM, and while I no major reason to believe otherwise, I wonder - if GOG suddenly allowed DRM - if devs and pubs would actually suddenly be willing to invest time and money to bring games here when GOG still has a small marketshare compared to Steam and co. Is the lack of DRM or the small userbase holding back GOG more?
I think it varies from publisher to publisher and the size of the development team of the developer and how much overhead is required to make builds for multiple storefronts and online service backends among other factors, but I do think the #1 reason is almost certainly DRM. The majority of big publishers that make AAA games still insist that DRM is very valuable at increasing revenue on release week and following that for some time while it remains uncracked. I'm not sure if there's any way to fully study the truth of that or not, but if they believe it to be true whether it is or not then they're not likely to abandon the practice without having their minds changed, and so we're not likely to see new releases from such publishers here any time soon.

We can however hope that as long as CD Projekt RED keeps making kick ass AAA titles and releasing them DRM-free that it will raise the eyebrows of some of the other companies out there who might follow suit in the future as well. I'm not holding my breath on that mind you. But we have seen things happen from publishers in the past that we never ever thought would happen too, like getting some Blizzard games here, or some of the more popular games in the Bethesda catalogue as well as some other publishers etc.

I don't think the userbase is an issue at all, GOG has a pretty large userbase based on information that has been discussed previously in the forums including regards to the number of copies of Witcher 3 sold here for example.

Personally I think it is 99.5% all about release week/month DRM being deemed important tool for boosting initial sales before the dropoff.
Posted September 20, 2019
avatar
tfishell: Ideas why the Batman games (currently free on Epic Store) aren't here despite being DRM-free?
Because Gwent is not as profitable as Fortnite, so CDP can't give WB ridiculous amount of money to release games here.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionWhich is holding back GOG more from getting "AAA" games here: lack of DRM or smaller userbase (vs Steam and co.)?(97 posts)(97 posts)
(97 posts)