Must say that I was pleasantly surprised with this statement.

Also thanks for this statement.

Some one else said that he/she feels that GOG is desperately looking for ways to grow without upsetting the fan base too much.
IMHO, it's a good thing GOG is looking for ways to grow otherwise it won't be around for much longer, will it now? It's possible that the newer generations don't buy that much into the oldies and classics, and lets not forget the factor of personal preferences in specific genres (I, for example, don't care for shooters and racers, so won't be buying them regardless of release year). Aspects like this make it only logical that GOG needs to expand their game catalogue.
The fact that they care for the fan base and demonstrate it actively is one of the reasons I like them better than other places - TET's statements in this NEWS thread speak volumes.

Now, regarding the survey at hand - I don't care for MMOs, nor for their so called "online features" (scoreboards, social features, achievements). And I guess that what is described to join the developer's servers is pretty much standard practice with games of this nature. And that people into this sort of gaming already know about it.
The test example and its likes aren't of interest to me and their restrictions won't affect me personally. But I'm the last person to dictate what others enjoy to play. I wish for all kind of gaming to be truly DRM-free for everybody, but if people are willing to accept some form of DRM-free, I'm not going to preach on them or try to forcefully convert them. That part there seems to be what makes it comply with GOG's letter and spirit of their “Discover all the reasons you will love it” motto.

And as long as that motto stays true for all single player & LAN/ direct connection multiplayer games, I think it's worth to at least try and see if there's a market for games with the restrictions and "features" of Planetary Annihilation.
I repeat, as long as this stuff doesn't creep into single player and LAN/ direct connection multiplayer games.

And I do hope and expect that any and all future games considered will comply to all requirements set by the test example in a strict way - that's why I asked about a hypothetical test example.

It goes without saying that the restrictions and requirements should be more than visible on the game card so that people can make an informed decision and thus have no excuse to complain later on.

I stand by my statement in the original survey:
I’d like GOG to keep bringing us good (regardless of age, but do work on that Wishlist), DRM-free, complete and reasonably priced games with the most goodies possible for many years more. If that means “supporting” some practices that are compatible with GOG’s spirit and will remain optional to me, please go ahead; if it doesn’t, I’ll get the old stuff while it’s still available under the current conditions and change course for the rest. In the end, if things reach a dead-end, I’ll just stay at home and finally play all my games.

Objection, I recent got a Gamersgate account and all my purchases so far have been Steam free. Granted, I'm not in the normal gaming area. Achtung Panzer: Operation Star and Crusader Kings aren't exactly top of the pops. :P But there's still plenty of DRM free games on there. They are annoying in that you have to get a downloader, activate via the internet, then install, but you can load them with no other interference afterwards which is nice.

I'd prefer them on GOG of course, but GG is there if you want. Just read the bit on the side to know what you're getting.
For someone who isn't technical that was a pretty specific counter to my example, you're looking for outs now. Hotseat multiplayer means the developer/publisher is letting you use your single license for multiple people in specific areas, they'll usually define it in the EULA. Your original comment was about installing a game on multiple computers and LAN'ing it. That's not hotseat. :P

The PSP had a hotseat function, and another where you could temporarily share games so people who didn't have the game could play against you. Doesn't mean you could copy and share the games around, just that within the restrictions the developer has purposefully set, you could play the game with others. Installing on multiple computers, hacking, cracking, that's not what the dev has set. Artemis will let you download and install the same file on six computers with one license, doesn't mean I can run the same file on thirty (I probably could but be nice to the sim guys). If you are explicitly allowed to install and run your game on multiple computers then go ahead, if you're not, go ahead just don't pretend it isn't pirating.

A game company has no right to decide how I play my game. Or use my software. They cannot tell me what I'm allowed to do, whether I can mod, tweak, alter, or use the game however I like. That's the nature of fair use. Just as a computer company couldn't tell their customers that the only way they can use the hardware is for surfing the net and watching porn, a game company has no right to tell me how I get to play my game, and that includes letting others play my install.

What you are implying leads down a dark road. After all, if I'm the designated license user, then no other person should be allowed to play my copy at all, regardless of whether I'm using it or not. Hell, they shouldn't even be allowed to watch me play... the NFL has already set the precedent down for controlling whether people can watch your TV or not during a football game. If what you're saying is true, then what's to stop a game company from telling me that no one else can even come near my computer?

Fair use means that game companies, nor any companies, can decide how I get to enjoy the product I buy... so long as I am not selling, distributing or copying the product illegally. And none of these things are happening.
You're very wrong about this. Courts have made several rulings regarding fair use and how it affects your consumption of videogames. As long as distribution never happens, you are allowed to do with your item as you will. This is why companies cannot forbid you from hacking hardware, or imaging software, or modding. They would love to, but it's illegal to prevent. That's why they take alternate routes, like voiding your warranty. That said, nothing I've said has anything to do with distribution whatsoever. It's not a question of giving away copies for my friends to play, it's about me using multiple copies of something I own. Am I allowed to use multiple copies of software I own? Am I allowed to let someone else use a copy of something I own on my hardware? Unless the answer is no to either of those things, then I'm in the right.

And again, don't call this piracy, because it isn't. Punching a drunk man isn't rape, eating a postage stamp isn't murder, and playing multiple copies of a game isn't piracy.

I don't really wanna hop into this shitfight, but you're explicitly wrong about that.

I feel that with these polls they're looking in the wrong directions and exploring to what degree we'd tolerate account requirements, other forms of DRM or rip-off DLCs. All the things the modern gaming industry wants, but we the customers don't. The problem is that if you're looking at it only from a business perspective, you'd want to distribute whatever rubbish the publishers come up with, people buy it after all. GOG is one of the few places that aren't actively hostile to its customers right now, and I'd rather it stay that way than grow too much by making choices that are right only from a short-sighted business point of view.

I made some suggestions for what I'd like to see in my last post. To spell it out again: get more good old games (plenty left), and try to get publishers to distribute newer single-player focused games without DRM on GOG. Preferrably better ones than Omerta. Getting Linux versions (if only as unsupported extras) would also be a boost.

Of course GOG is free to become a distributor of the usual rubbish, and it may even make business sense for them. But then if I really want that I can buy it elsewhere too and see no need to remain here if GOG becomes just like everyone else.

May I ask you (personally you) as to what you define as DRM?

Only fault Omerta has is the price. It is an entertaining game.

Watch this post go ignored by most.

One way of defining it: anything that prevents certain ways of playing the game or needlessly interrupts the game, where eliminating the restriction would improve the experience. Examples: CD checks (or other hardware checks), dongles, lenslok, codewheels or other things to look up in the manual, entering a 20-digit code at install time which has long faded from the sticker it was printed on, forced registrations, forced connection to the internet (either for a single time or permanently, where "forced" can mean a variety of things such as "you could play offline but you can't save"). Another way of defining it: anything from which only the publishers (think they) benefit, but not the customers.

(GOG gets a pass from me for truly old games like MOO1 where removing the manual check is probably too difficult at this point in time.)

The most insidious examples are what's been done to Diablo 3 and Sim City 2013, where games that could have been single-player experiences have been redefined to be "multiplayer-focused" and then the forced connection to the internet is sold as a "feature" rather than a bug. This is why the "multiplayer-focused" adjective in the Planetary Annihilation description doesn't sit very well with me, as it's been demonstrated that this label can be very badly abused. If a large part of the game is only playable by connecting to 3rd-party servers which can be turned off at any time, then this is a problem. For certain types games (those which are truly MMO) it's somewhat unavoidable and comes with the territory, but let's not have this spread to other genres.

So tomorrow there will be some information about the outcome of the survey? I'm excited.

So requiring specific hardware to play is DRM? Like, say, a 3DFX only game? This is by your definition btw, not mine.


For the specific game, the closest example is Diablo 2. You can play single player, you can play on LAN, and you only need an account to play on the official servers. Is this DRM? With your definition, it is, thus you did well to say no. By my definition of DRM, Planetary Annihilation is DRM free, even if it does require a 3rd party account for playing on the official server.

I just want MORE new/current games in GOG--i.e., not just old ones, but bearing the same trademark of NO DRM, of course. It's just due time, IMO. I believe the industry will comply--whether they like it or not. It's been proven enough as it is, time and again, with regards to profitability and market tendency. Even despite piracy and whatever.

Keep it up on this path, GOG. Your wealth is guaranteed!

Do note that it says "some technological barriers". The DMCA did create the illegal numbers. In effect, the means of decrypting something is illegal to possess if you are not the rights holder. But this does not change my statement, you may still do with software as you wish... arguably to the exclusion of decryption*.

* In reality, only the method of decryption is illegal, and the act of finding said method... the product of decryption is not. This made the bizarre scenario where Sony could sue GeoHotz for cracking the PS3 firmware, but could not prosecute anyone who actually used his firmware crack.

I like to see you guys back DRM-free indie development, and it feels like you even encourage the big players to try out the DRM-free business model. I like this, and I hope you guys continue to do it.

But more importantly, I want to see you guys expand to more options. Not just more games, but more platforms. I think you guys should start supporting both Linux and Android. If not the former, then at least the latter; apks are standardized, and you guys have the potential to be an awesome platform for those to be sold. I think you should reach out to more indie developers, especially ones who haven't already released, and get them in GoG on release day. I'm excited that game like Fez will be coming to GoG, and I'm three-shakes from ready to drop some cash on that. I don't want you guys to be always following on the heels of Steam. I want you in the lead.

Most importantly, you guys should find a way to become a first-stop for indie developers. See if you could find a way to get an indie developer to release on GoG's storefront, and few other places. Exclusivity brings customers, and that's the sort of selling power you need. I'd love to see GoG exclusives, and you can potentially make it happen by promising developers who offer you exclusive access some opportunities... bigger front page space, smaller royalties, or whatever is needed to make it happen.

And you guys should expand the community. Make an app for phones, so I can shop your store while I'm walking. Enhance wishlists so we can actually use them like wishlists, and send them to people so they know what, and where, to buy our presents. Try out running official GoG tournaments, or have leagues going. You don't even need prizes; just give us a soapbox for showcasing our love for games. Because that's what I feel GoG is all about.
Diablo II is DRM'd, but not because of the official servers. Because it requires CD-key authentication to even start playing the game.

I'm not cool with that.