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 discussion (archive)New Gaming Options: Follow-up Survey(519 posts)(519 posts)
(519 posts)
Pages:
1
5
10
15
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
35
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 15, 2013
We (still) want to hear from you!

We recently asked you guys for feedback based on some potential games that we may be able to sign in the future. The results were pretty clear--and we will be sharing them with you all soon--but we did want to ask you a single follow-up question with an actual real-world game example. One of the games that we would like to add to our catalog is Planetary Annihilation. This is an RTS with many modern gaming features, and we figured we'd use it as our test example.

<iframe width="590" height="332" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Xpze54xgqtg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Planetary Annihilation is distinctive for the following:

- Multiplayer and skirmish focused gameplay; there is no story-based single-player campaign, but AI skirmish matches provide a great single player experience.
- Optional persistent online features such as scoreboards, social features, achievements, and the online multiplayer campaign - a persistent galaxy-wide war; an account with the developer's online service is required in order to use these features.
- No activation, unique codes, or third-party accounts are required for single-player play or, LAN/direct connection multiplayer.
- A unique key is required for Internet multiplayer, and an account with the developer's service is only required for the persistent online features.

Now, that you know about the game's specifics, here's our question:
Post edited April 15, 2013 by G-Doc
Posted April 16, 2013
avatar
BJWanlund: Frankly, I think people are blowing the idea of these new gaming options out of proportion.

I don't want DRM as much as the next guy, but I at least want parity with what Steam offers (i.e. one-time activations, achievements, GOG.com multiplayer frameworks that do not in any way constitute DRM, etc.). That game looks really fun, so it'd be a real shame if the extreme anti-DRM ppl on this forum were to not allow this to be sold on GOG.com (or an affiliate site if they want to, but GOG.com has a very specific branding that I don't think would transition over to another site that offers such content very well). I'd rather buy such a game here than on Steam any day because I know GOG's legendary customer service will carry the day!
Your statement is a bit contradictory, you don't want DRM as much as the next guy.... except the "extreme" anti-DRM people on the GOG forums? Moving beyond the contradiction what makes these members, in your view, extreme? How do you qualify those aspects? Are there any players (even theoretical ones) you can cite that have no interest in what steam has to 'offer' which you would not consider extreme?

Most of the social features of steam can be had without steam itself nor bound to a specific game, most of the game catalog features (obviously with the exception of size due to the number of publishers who still cling to DRM) of steam are things GOG already offers. One-time activations are unneeded when you have no DRM so GOG does that one better, I could go on but I'll keep this short.

The point is that even tho I voted "yes" on the survey due to the game offering LAN and direct connection options that are fully DRM free (if my reading has been accurate anyway), that no you are certainly not as opposed to DRM as the next guy at least if the next guy is one of the ones like me who won't use steam because of it's integrated and imbedded DRM (not to mention truly horrendous customer service, I mean they're no EA but they give it a good shot).

Note, despite my closing paragraph my first should not be viewed as rhetorical, I absolutely do want explicit and detailed answers from you regarding the questions posed there.

Legion
Posted April 16, 2013
I see no issue with this and it would be a shame for GOG to lose my money. The auth code is for a service, not a feature of the game and as a player I actually like that.
Posted April 16, 2013
avatar
Point Man: Are these results going to be shared on the site, or at an unannounced summer conference maybe :P?
GOG generally don't publish the results of their surveys but the results help them make the correct decisions later on.

Since this game is specifically named with a screenshot and everything (rather than talking about general types of games, as in the previous survey) I'd say there's a reasonable chance of this very game being released on GOG as part of the first few games of this type (assuming the customer response is sufficiently positive).
Posted April 16, 2013
Of course yes +100

GOG need to evolve with more multiplayer game, so people get more choice...

I think maybe, just maybe this just beginning for AAA games going GOG..
Just simple cd key activation , I would not call it DRM even request online activation...

People just wanna DRM free like 90's game but doesn't even think about how few pirates / torrent in that era..

Edit: simple DRM only for multiplayer..Single player will always get pirated regardless the DRM...
From observation in country where "even" the government itself support pirating(implicit).
Post edited April 16, 2013 by yinan
Posted April 16, 2013
avatar
Decivre: Is that a better definition?
More or less in line with my own in post 244, assuming Torchlight2 needs to go online and ask a 3rd party for permission. If its CD-Key can be used offline, and doesn't care about a server response, then I wouldn't consider it DRM.

I was addressing Feyjoo specifically, because for me the method Planetary Annihilation is going to use isn't something I consider DRM. I can install my game and play it single player or with friends, no matter what the company thinks of me and/or my key. So this method is fine in my book.
Posted April 16, 2013
avatar
Phaidox: There's nothing wrong with a game making it mandatory to type in a key in order to gain access to its online/multiplayer features (how else would that work?...)
I've said it multiple times already. Many older games do not require a serial key for online multiplayer (for example Unreal Tournament or Vietcong) and even account-based online features don't necessarily have to use serials (as can be seen in case of Incredipede). Requiring serials is a habit, not a tecnical necessity. Developers could as well just require people to pay for a DRM free client and give them access to completely DRM free multiplayer after that.
Post edited April 16, 2013 by F4LL0UT
Posted April 16, 2013
avatar
JMich: More or less in line with my own in post 244, assuming Torchlight2 needs to go online and ask a 3rd party for permission. If its CD-Key can be used offline, and doesn't care about a server response, then I wouldn't consider it DRM.
I still would, if only because it acts as an unnecessary step in the installation process. It's even more irksome considering that the CD-key doesn't come pre-programmed into the game; if you lose your case for Diablo 2 (and who hasn't lost the case for a game before), you cannot install the game again without a keygen or a newly purchased key. That's ridiculous.

I tend not to mind as much with GoG games like Neverwinter Nights, because it never asked for my key. The game came with a key pre-programmed, so it was hassle-free unless I played on their servers. I do tend to get annoyed, however, if it prohibits me from playing on two different computers I own at the same time. I should be allowed to play a game in multiplayer from two different computers I own, without the need for purchasing two copies.
avatar
JMich: I was addressing Feyjoo specifically, because for me the method Planetary Annihilation is going to use isn't something I consider DRM. I can install my game and play it single player or with friends, no matter what the company thinks of me and/or my key. So this method is fine in my book.
To an extent, I agree... which is why I voted yes. So long as it isn't prohibitive to playing the full extent of the game; if I can only install downloadable maps on one copy because of this restriction, or if there's some arbitrary limit to how many computers I may play the game from, I'll probably be pretty mad for it.
Posted April 16, 2013
avatar
Phaidox: There's nothing wrong with a game making it mandatory to type in a key in order to gain access to its online/multiplayer features (how else would that work?...)
avatar
F4LL0UT: I've said it multiple times already. Many older games do not require a serial key for online multiplayer (for example Unreal Tournament or Vietcong) and even account-based online features don't necessarily have to use serials (as can be seen in case of Incredipede). Requiring serials is a habit, not a tecnical necessity. Developers could as well just require people to pay for a DRM free client and give them access to completely DRM free multiplayer after that.
All your point nothing relevant in this era.. look at my post 320..

edit: add quote
Post edited April 16, 2013 by yinan
Posted April 16, 2013
It's been an interesting year with newer games, indie games, pricing experiments, etc.

I don't know what the future holds for GOG, but I think they are doing their best to understand what the consumers and community want.

Not intended to be an "OMG GOG is perfect" post. Just my way of saying it's good they're getting feedback, and it's good people are providing that feedback in a constructive way.

Cheers, everyone.
Posted April 16, 2013
with the games only real "purpose" being multiplayer it still feels like it goes against what GOG intends to represent.
Posted April 16, 2013
I agree. CD-Key is no big deal for MP portion of the game. You just type it in and play. It's not like You HAVE to be logged in into some 3rd party account in order to play. MP should be protected, and having a CD-Key is the best possible solution.
As long as we can enjoy singleplayer portion of the game without the need of CD-Keys, 3rd party accounts etc, I'm fine with it.
I, personally, am not interested in this game, but I wouldn't mind it being added to gog.com catalog for people who are, so I voted "Yes".
Post edited April 16, 2013 by marcoolio_lv
Posted April 16, 2013
avatar
Barefoot_Monkey: I'm expecting an overall positive response. This seems very reasonable. The game looks nice as well - I was considering backing the kickstarter (I ended up deciding I was backing enough projects already).
I voted No and for one specific reason.

I've seen too many companies do things like this in the past with statements like "Oh we just want to add this one game" and then from there, it's another and another and another and before you know it the service you originally liked doesn't even resemble the service you now have.

Gamersgate started doing things like this....slowly adding just a couple of games that needed Steam. Now, you can barely buy ANY games on Gamersgate that don't require Steam. And, mark my words, GOG goes this direction it will be exactly the same -- moving faster and faster down a slippery slope.

Sorry, but no.
Posted April 16, 2013
avatar
viranimus: with the games only real "purpose" being multiplayer it still feels like it goes against what GOG intends to represent.
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: I voted No and for one specific reason.

I've seen too many companies do things like this in the past with statements like "Oh we just want to add this one game" and then from there, it's another and another and another and before you know it the service you originally liked doesn't even resemble the service you now have.

Gamersgate started doing things like this....slowly adding just a couple of games that needed Steam. Now, you can barely buy ANY games on Gamersgate that don't require Steam. And, mark my words, GOG goes this direction it will be exactly the same -- moving faster and faster down a slippery slope.

Sorry, but no.
If all game community follow ur advice, future of PC gaming will be FTP and mickrotransaction even for single player...
We will pay per chapter maybe, do u want looting system $5 or u prefer save checkpoint $10...Can u imagine it?

edit: add quote
Post edited April 16, 2013 by yinan
Posted April 16, 2013
avatar
jamyskis: I'm a little stuck on what to say for the first (and by the looks of it, only, question).

In principle, if the game only requires an account for the persistent online features, and can be played without phoning home for single player, LAN player and direct IP WAN connections, I don't really have an issue with this.
There are a couple of issues that do concern me and hold me back from a "yes" response though.

The first is that I'm concerned that this would be the start of a slippery slope. If this is approved, what's to stop devs coming along with a multiplayer-focused game that requires account registration, claiming that there is a single-player mode, only to turn out to be some superficial training mode that is interesting for about five minutes. Games like this are like a mass plague on Steam, and seem to have these training modes just so that they can have the "single-player" tag as a honey trap for unwitting buyers to lure them into a fundamentally multiplayer game with an inactive online world.

The second concern is that such account-bound online multiplayer would impinge upon and diminish single-player experiences, as seems to be the current fad. See Mass Effect 3 for a perfect example of what I mean by this.

I'm not saying that Planetary Annihilation specifically fits into this second category. Aside from the account-bound online multiplayer, the game seems to be directed towards a multiplayer audience, and while it's therefore not really my cup of tea, the ability to play LAN without an internet connection or unique key means that I at least have no ethical concerns.

I'm a little fuzzy though on what is meant by "direct connection" multiplayer and "internet" multiplayer. Does this mean that the game can be played over the internet without passing through the developer's service first by connecting via IP address? If so, and "direct connection" encompasses both LAN and WAN connections, that would be fine by me.
I'm agreeing with you way too much lately :)

Yes, to all your concerns as they're mine as well. And that's why I voted 'No'.

GOG's unique selling point is that all its games don't require DRM. This requires DRM in some form to be able to play all aspects of the game so, yes, it's a game with DRM.

From here, it will be another game and another game and another game and then......I'll be buying my games elsewhere :(

avatar
Bloodygoodgames: I voted No and for one specific reason.

I've seen too many companies do things like this in the past with statements like "Oh we just want to add this one game" and then from there, it's another and another and another and before you know it the service you originally liked doesn't even resemble the service you now have.

Gamersgate started doing things like this....slowly adding just a couple of games that needed Steam. Now, you can barely buy ANY games on Gamersgate that don't require Steam. And, mark my words, GOG goes this direction it will be exactly the same -- moving faster and faster down a slippery slope.

Sorry, but no.
avatar
yinan: If all game publisher follow ur advice, future of PC gaming will be FTP and mickrotransaction even for single player...
We will pay per chapter maybe, do u want looting system $5 or u prefer save checkpoint $10...Can u imagine it?

edit: add quote
Huh?

Sorry. What you just said makes no logical sense.
Post edited April 16, 2013 by Bloodygoodgames
Posted April 16, 2013
avatar
jamyskis: I'm a little stuck on what to say for the first (and by the looks of it, only, question).

In principle, if the game only requires an account for the persistent online features, and can be played without phoning home for single player, LAN player and direct IP WAN connections, I don't really have an issue with this.
There are a couple of issues that do concern me and hold me back from a "yes" response though.

The first is that I'm concerned that this would be the start of a slippery slope. If this is approved, what's to stop devs coming along with a multiplayer-focused game that requires account registration, claiming that there is a single-player mode, only to turn out to be some superficial training mode that is interesting for about five minutes. Games like this are like a mass plague on Steam, and seem to have these training modes just so that they can have the "single-player" tag as a honey trap for unwitting buyers to lure them into a fundamentally multiplayer game with an inactive online world.

The second concern is that such account-bound online multiplayer would impinge upon and diminish single-player experiences, as seems to be the current fad. See Mass Effect 3 for a perfect example of what I mean by this.

I'm not saying that Planetary Annihilation specifically fits into this second category. Aside from the account-bound online multiplayer, the game seems to be directed towards a multiplayer audience, and while it's therefore not really my cup of tea, the ability to play LAN without an internet connection or unique key means that I at least have no ethical concerns.

I'm a little fuzzy though on what is meant by "direct connection" multiplayer and "internet" multiplayer. Does this mean that the game can be played over the internet without passing through the developer's service first by connecting via IP address? If so, and "direct connection" encompasses both LAN and WAN connections, that would be fine by me.
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: I'm agreeing with you way too much lately :)

Yes, to all your concerns as they're mine as well. And that's why I voted 'No'.

GOG's unique selling point is that all its games don't require DRM. This requires DRM in some form to be able to play all aspects of the game so, yes, it's a game with DRM.

From here, it will be another game and another game and another game and then......I'll be buying my games elsewhere :(

avatar
yinan: If all game publisher follow ur advice, future of PC gaming will be FTP and mickrotransaction even for single player...
We will pay per chapter maybe, do u want looting system $5 or u prefer save checkpoint $10...Can u imagine it?

edit: add quote
avatar
Bloodygoodgames: Huh?

Sorry. What you just said makes no logical sense.
Sigh, look at my other post 320 in page 16.
Post edited April 16, 2013 by yinan
Pages:
1
5
10
15
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
35
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)New Gaming Options: Follow-up Survey(519 posts)(519 posts)
(519 posts)