Judas tried this for three pages now. And I think with more than legitimate reasons. They are trying to protect customers and themselves from unnecessary and avoidable trouble. I don't know if a DLC works with a version from a differnt vendor, even within DRM-free releases, GOG is providing own installers and maybe change something in the installation order. And it is common with digital distribution to use/buy the DLC from the source of your original game. If these source is unable to sell the DLC - don't buy there again. GOG does not want to provide this support, witch is reasonable.

And if you want to buy the DLC know and the base game later than think again and do it vise versa.

They could just put a simple checkbox before the payment page stating "I am aware I do not own the base game on GOG and agree that GOG is not responsible and will not support any and all issues that arise due to my purchase and subsequent usage of this DLC" or something like that.

To bring this to a new level, your discussion reminds me of the unfair behavior to provide game updates only to people who bought the games here.

Why can't I use/download the GOG game update if I bought the game anywhere else or maybe intend to buy the game later? I mean, it is freedom of choice and back in the good old days there was only one update file for all the different sellers.. .

The discussion has moved to the prohibition of behaviour that doesn't involve any party other than the buyer and GOG at all.

So you're actually taking the discussion to a previous level :)

To the OP: you haven't tried to download the GOG DLC? Make sure you don't, I presume it makes refunding easier.


Judas to clarify what he meant, but common logic says:

- You (or someone else) tries to use the gifted GOG DLC on a non-GOG game => no support

- You (or someone else) uses the gifted GOG DLC on a GOG game => supported (including the 30-day money back guarantee for technical problems)

Anyway, since there is the loophole that you can buy the DLC to yourself via gifting it to yourself, what was the problem then for you? Remember, you won't get support if it doesn't work with the non-GOG version, hopefully you are not expecting that either.

We already saw the non-Mint/Ubuntu Linux users demanding official support from GOG for their flavor of Linux, so much for people not expecting special treatment/extra support over what GOG has promised.

Yet, Linux users complained that Moto Racer 2 didn't work correctly on Linux (when Linux wasn't even officially supported), or some non-Mint/Ubuntu Linux users loudly complained when GOG stated they officially support only certain flavors of Linux with the Linux versions.

Theory, and practice.

Yet, when these reasons are used to justify DRM, we complain. Why do they apply there but not here?

It is also common with digital distribution to get DRM. "Everyone else does it" is a crap excuse for not doing something different.

Not asking them to.

If I wanted a digital distributor to dictate what I do, I'd buy games on Origin and Steam, thanks.

Also, your response ignores the fact that sometimes, you might not be able to do it the other way around. It's possible for the DLC to be affordable for a limited time, while the base game is not i.e. sales.

Because I have to exploit a loophole to do something that doesn't require one. And no, I'm not expecting any support if I start doing clearly unintended things like using GOG DLC on a non-GOG version. If it works, great, I got the DLC cheap, if not, well, I paid for the gamble (or I could get a refund if I was going to be an ass about it).

Yeah, a small handful of Linux users out of how many? If it's okay for Judas to appeal to the minority, it's must be okay for me!

And so what? Demanding official support for something unreasonable is completely different from prohibiting the reasonable behaviour of legitimate customers (i.e. just wanting to buy the DLC first).

Bringing it, once again, to the DRM parallel, pirates demanding official support for their pirate versions is unreasonable, but adding DRM which prevents legitimate customers from playing their single player game because they are offline, or the servers are down, is unreasonable too.

I complained that Moto Racer 2 didn't work correctly on Linux because:

1) I purchased the game under the assurance that it was DRM free, and therefore DRM would not be the reason why it wouldn't work in Linux.
2) It doesn't work in Linux because I am stopped by DRM in the game.

Okay so, their changes that render the DRM inert (you are not free of something if it is there, but inert) don't work in Linux. Fair enough. Buuuuuuut:

3) Every other no-CD crack I used resulted in the game being playable.

Which shows that what they did is inferior to other solutions, which means it may hit other "normal" users if they try to use it on, say, a newer version of Windows (Vista/7 support was just being rolled out I think). I wasn't expecting GOG to fix it, but it would have been pretty nice, considering the level of support I had shown them (if I hadn't brought any other GOG games, I could have used the money to hire one of their programmers for about a month).

When GOG games (Windows) don't work in Linux because the game doesn't.. that's fine. I've supported GOG with my purchase (which was my main goal, hence the number of them). When GOG games (Windows) don't work in Linux because of the DRM, it's pretty reasonable to feel at least a little bit disappointed! :P

By the way, from the FAQ about the 30 day gaurentee: This would also apply to buying the DLC without the base game, if the base game is listed in the system requirements for the DLC.

If someone buys the DLC and can't get it to work, because they misread the system requirements, all they get offered is "we're sorry for you :(".

There is no difference between not reading the system requirements for a game and getting "we're sorry for you" and not reading the system requirements for the DLC and getting "we're sorry for you".

I literally just demonstrated this isn't true in this very thread.

I purchased the DLC. Money changed hands. Then you stopped me from redeeming it.

So.. errr.. By your own definition, your restriction is DRM. Seeing as I wasn't even claiming it was DRM.. I think this actually constitutes as an epic fail. Congrats, I guess? :)

I obviously know it was there (I had a look after you mentioned it) as I explicitly said "it is below the other DLC bit". However, the screenshot I put was how it looked in my browser when I went through the process, where it wasn't visible. It wasn't a case of "it isn't on the game page at all", it was a "I didn't see it because of where you've put it".
Err.. how do they find out "if [their] game doesn't work because [they] misread [your] system specs" without running it, which, you know, requires you to download it?

I've read (most of) this topic and now I'm curious about a thing or two. Why am I not allowed to buy special edition upgrades for games that I don't own? Games like Gods Will be Watching and Shadowgate have such DLCs which don't modify the game files in any way and are just extras. Maybe I'm just interested in owning the soundtrack of a given game or enjoy the digital artbook. ;)
Oh and please don't get me wrong on this because I agree with most of what you said, Judas. I'm just playing around with different scenarios here. :)

It doesn't matter, just remove me as the recipient and it becomes a completely normal transaction. You can, of course, nitpick that you said "after they (the user) have paid" but then you would be claiming that no gifted games have DRM, as the restrictions don't apply to the purchaser.

So which ridiculous result would you like?

1) Would you like to claim that gifted games never have DRM because the restrictions don't affect the purchaser?
2) Would you like to admit that by the definition you gave, the restriction is DRM, when you keep repeating that it isn't.. even though no-one else was arguing that it was? (I really like this one, please choose it).
3) Would you like to move the goalposts again?