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

×
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
avatar
Fuz: It's a slippery slope.
avatar
Fenixp: Not really, GOG already has a lot of games which require a unique key to access multiplayer.
Those were mostly classics though where multiplayer was still a relatively small part of the game.

Account based multiplayer DRM can be seen as a slider really, where one end of the scale only has a small part of the game wrapped up in multiplayer, and the other end has most of the game wrapped up in multiplayer and very little left if you don't participate in that.

In that sense, acceptance is really just arguing about the degree people consider it DRM and how much they're willing to take.

It seems silly to argue that as long as 'part' of the game is DRM-free "it's fine". A concession has already been made there. A part of the game has been given up for those who don't accept DRM. After that it's just where you draw the line.
avatar
Pheace: Those were mostly classics though where multiplayer was still a relatively small part of the game.

Account based multiplayer DRM can be seen as a slider really, where one end of the scale only has a small part of the game wrapped up in multiplayer, and the other end has most of the game wrapped up in multiplayer and very little left if you don't participate in that.

In that sense, acceptance is really just arguing about the degree people consider it DRM and how much they're willing to take.

It seems silly to argue that as long as 'part' of the game is DRM-free "it's fine". A concession has already been made there. A part of the game has been given up for those who don't accept DRM. After that it's just where you draw the line.
How do you suggest they do non-account based persistent world tho?
avatar
drchannard: I would say yes, but would like to add something.

Since there is no single-player offiline campaign and only a mulitplayer online campaign, I would suggest having a 1 month subsciption built in with the purchase price for people to be able to try the online aspects of the game.
Hm. It may have been unclear: there is no further purchase for multiplayer after you buy the game. You just need to activate the code that you are given in order to play online.
As most people, I checked all 'No's previous poll. We don't like 3rd party accounts and any limitations. So, if needed online play for Planetary Annihilation and you (GOG) want too, I'm OK today for you.
avatar
Fenixp: How do you suggest they do non-account based persistent world tho?
I don't, there's no such thing. It's basically a form of gameplay that requires a form of DRM attached.
Post edited April 15, 2013 by Pheace
Honestly as others have noted I see this as Slippery Slope Syndrome.

You can sing all day about the fact it has an offline single player skirmish mode but it is clear the focus and purpose of the game is Online - from the social features to the Galaxy at war stuff.

All of that MP stuff requires a key and an account registered with the games developer - that is nothing but DRM so I think at that point it is clear cut that this should not be on GOG.

I understand GOG is a business and they need to make Bank but this feels like a step in the wrong direction - Already you can see on the Developers site that there are pre order bonuses available - How will that work with GOG - will GOG now hawk DLC ?

Also for the sake of GOG, If they sell this game and people have problems you can be sure as hell they will complain to GOG and not to the developer, GOG being the point of sale, this could be especially annoying if the the issues are to do with server or MP and only solvable by the DEV.
...case study of why most modern games will avoid GOG like the plague.
avatar
Pheace: I don't, there's no such thing. It's basically a form of gameplay that requires a form of DRM attached.
See? So to be marked DRM-free, developers should be forbidden from including certain features? I mean as long as the rest of the game is DRM-free only for parts where it's necessary, there's really no need to exclude it. I don't really care all that much tho, I'll gladly give my money to Steam - I'm just gonna be sad that I won't get a DRM-free copy.
Post edited April 15, 2013 by Fenixp
avatar
drchannard: I would say yes, but would like to add something.

Since there is no single-player offiline campaign and only a mulitplayer online campaign, I would suggest having a 1 month subsciption built in with the purchase price for people to be able to try the online aspects of the game.
I did not get the impression that additional subscription fees were part of this. I kind of got the impression that you pay for the game = you get online play. Additional subscription fees would make this a 100% "no" in my book, where at the moment I'm okay with this game but not totally comfortable with the doors it opens.
I have to say that I am quite unsure on this one.
While this does provide, at least in my eyes, a full fledged drm-free experience, I can understand that some might say it does not.
Since this game does support all its features withouth requireing DRM, I think I would be fine with it.
After all, nobody prohibits you to play it in multiplayer with your friends on LAN, VPN or any other way you might find.
In this setting, I would therefore be ok with it. I can deal with the activation in the case you actually want to use the provided servers.
But I have to say, it is a very close call...
Post edited April 15, 2013 by mium
I don't think it's the worst idea, but I'd hate to see gog abandon it's traditional roots of tracking down licenses for older games and start taking an easier route instead by just adding mostly newer titles on Tues and Thurs. Would hate to see this site get lost in a sea of other digital distribution sites.
avatar
Pheace: In that sense, acceptance is really just arguing about the degree people consider it DRM and how much they're willing to take.

It seems silly to argue that as long as 'part' of the game is DRM-free "it's fine". A concession has already been made there. A part of the game has been given up for those who don't accept DRM. After that it's just where you draw the line.
I'll start with 2 big name titles that fit here. Diablo 2 and Age of Empires 2. I've spent literally HUNDREDS of hours playing those games... but never left my LAN to do so. And I've never touched the single player campaigns. This was all lan based co-op. This game offers the same capability of investing a full games worth of features without ever touching optional features that don't matter to me. If I would never use those features anyway... its not DRM when I don't.

In other words, my dislike towards DRM isn't that it exists... its that I won't participate in it for myself. So when a game comes out and I don't have to participate in it... that is the same as not having it. Diablo 3 is the opposite example. They made it so that the features I wanted were wrapped up in optional and undesirable functions. I've never touched the game because of the DRM that is unavoidable. If they made it play like Diablo 2, where you only go online for the ladder or the matchmaking (something I NEVER do) then I would have bought it twice. So, where Diablo 3 has mandatory DRM, the game in question here has optional DRM just like D2 and AOE2 (and for those that NEVER use that option, its not going to affect them at all)

I feel like I could word this better, but hopefully it makes sense as one opinion.
avatar
Pheace: I don't, there's no such thing. It's basically a form of gameplay that requires a form of DRM attached.
avatar
Fenixp: See? So to be marked DRM-free, developers should be forbidden from including certain features? I mean as long as the rest of the game is DRM-free only for parts where it's necessary, there's really no need to exclude it. I don't really care all that much tho, I'll gladly give my money to Steam - I'm just gonna be sad that I won't get a DRM-free copy.
'Only for parts where it's necessary'. That's basically where it hinges then isn't it. But if the gameplay is built around that necessity. If the majority of the game is in that necessity. Is there still a point to saying you have a DRM-Free game?
FINALLY GOG is trying to get in on sales at the starting line, before its been for and on sale Everywhere else exhausting potential profits here on GOG c/o market satiation.

all DRM-free single player + DRM-free local multiplayer (tcp/ip ?/ hamachi probable) happy for lan parties, fin A!

Yes GOG!

thanks for listening!

then snag us Homeworld + Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines
avatar
Pheace: I don't, there's no such thing. It's basically a form of gameplay that requires a form of DRM attached.
avatar
Fenixp: See? So to be marked DRM-free, developers should be forbidden from including certain features? I mean as long as the rest of the game is DRM-free only for parts where it's necessary, there's really no need to exclude it. I don't really care all that much tho, I'll gladly give my money to Steam - I'm just gonna be sad that I won't get a DRM-free copy.
Yes. SimCity is all social features, not DRM (to hear EA tell it), so would you approve of it being here? If so, why? If not, how is it different from this?