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

×
Please take a survey and tell us what you think!

Last week, we launched the first ever DLC on GOG.com (for tactical-strategy game Omerta: City of Gangsters). The launch was a bit rushed on our end, and we did a bad job communicating what it was, and why we're adding it to the store. That was a screw-up on our part, and we're sorry. We've read all of your comments (and there were a lot!) and it's lead us to wonder about DLC and other new models of gaming that are happening right now. There's a survey at the bottom of this newspost, where we'd like to hear more about what you think GOG.com should do in the future, but don't jump down there just yet.

First, we wanted to explain the reasoning behind offering DLC for sale. It boils down to this: the number of newer games that have DLC keeps growing every year. As publishers and developers look at ways to remain profitable--look at how many big studios have gone bankrupt in the last 3 years if you think that's not a challenge--they're exploring new things like DLC, episodic content, and so on. GOG.com loves games, and we're committed to bringing the best games in history--classic or new--here to the site for you to enjoy. To sign some of these newer titles, however, we need to make a decision: do we sell DLC for these newer games, or do we not offer DLC and, increasingly, find that what we sell doesn't contain all of the content available for the game, content that hardcore fans of the game will probably enjoy?

We thought about it and decided that the best thing for us to do was to offer you the freedom to choose. We don't like telling you what to do with your games, whether it's how you want to back it up or how often you want to reinstall it, and it felt like refusing to sell DLC for new games was another instance where we were limiting your freedom. In our minds, if you don't like DLC, you're free to ignore it; if it represents a good value to price to you, then, you're free to buy it here--DRM-free, of course--from GOG.com.

For classic games, our goal always remains to bring you the definitive version of the game--with all expansion packs--at one price. Sometimes, for one reason or another, we don't get the expansion packs. At least, not right away (::coughcoughSidMeier'sAlienCrossfirecough::), but the goal remains that way and it won't change.

New games are different, though. Classic games aren't being actively developed, and they aren't being updated with new paid content, so it's easy to negotiate a single fixed price. For new games, that's not the case, and we can't promise a fixed price for all of the expanded content ever for a new game. We will try to get you all of the DLC that we can for free, but let's be realistic: developers release paid DLC because they want more money. Offering it for free is not always in the cards. Offering it for free 6 months, a year, or 18 months after the launch? That's more likely to be possible, and it's certainly something that we would love to be able to do for all of our games. We can't promise anything, but that's another goal for us.

So, as we mentioned above, we didn't do a very good job letting you guys know about this ahead of time, and as such your response was--unsurprisingly--pretty strong. To help determine what you want us to do in the future, we've prepared a short survey for you about DLC, episodic content, and other possible new areas of gaming that GOG.com might venture into offering you. Please take a moment and answer the survey, and leave us a comment below. We'll pick 10 winners who comment below and give them any game from the catalog--even Omerta and its DLC, if you like. :)

tl;dr version: We're sorry about how we communicated to you during DLC launch. We hope you'll give us feedback on what new things GOG.com might start selling in the future.

The survey is now closed. Thanks for your time and your insights, everyone. We'll take a close look at the outcome. This will surely help us in making GOG.com an even better service custom-tailored to its users tastes and expectations. Again, thanks for your opinions!

As promised, we'll pick 10 posts from the comment thread and give their authors a game of their choice. We'll PM you to ask you what would you like to get.
Post edited March 15, 2013 by G-Doc
gaaaah, what you people are talking about?
WHAT survey? :P
Ok. Interesting survey. It's clear that there are new gaming areas that GOG needs to know how to sell or if sell at all.

I see the DLC/season/episodic this way:

- i dont want to have a season pass for multiplayer missions that dont add anything to the game (aka many multiplayer games like Call of Duty or Battlefront or even the multiplayer dlc for games as Red Dead Redemption)
- but i see that selling episodic content or seasons could be good to sell games like "The Walking Dead" and other Telltale games seasons without waiting the season to end... so, i'm ok on cases like that
- in other way this opens the road to sell games like Fallout 3 without the DLC and then sell them for more money when they could offer the GOTY edition... so it sucks a lot.. :/

On the alpha/beta status games:

- i guess they are talking about games from Kickstarter, so they could get money to the developpers and offer the betas/alphas to us like there is happpening with DoubleFine Adventure on steam. I say yes, do it. Those who wanna enter the kickstarter realm may want do it on GOG.

Thanks for asking GOG! ^_^

PD: please, put the dlc/episodes on the same Gamecard of the main game, so we dont have a large episodes list mixed with full games... U_U
Post edited March 15, 2013 by SpiderFromMars
The survey is a lie! :D
My vote is confidential.However, there are some very interesting question.
avatar
Pheace: Not necessarily all of it, just a certain predetermined amount of DLC. There have been cases where there was still DLC released that was not part of a Season Pass.
That's actually even worse.
avatar
Tsugirai: It's a prinny!!! LET ME PET YOU!!!
DOOD! Honestly!

;-)
Post edited March 15, 2013 by jamyskis
Everything 'yes' apart from alpha/beta. I don't like buggy games so I avoid most of the alpha/beta like the plague. I especially don't like the "buy in" option. When a developer will fail to deliver, people will start whining at GOG and bitch and moan until GOG makes it better.
Thank u gog for really caring about your customer's opinion. That is exactly why I like GOG so much. :D
GOG is pretty cool guy, eh apologizes and doesn't afraid of anything :)

Filled out the Survey, I'm not OK with certain modern things (i.e. Season Passes) but if it means more DRM-free games for us, then I can cope with it.

PS: Pssst, we Linux users want games too. Just sayin'
avatar
GOG.com: NOTE: If you already completed the survey it won't display for you anymore. If you didn't but you don't see it below, [url=https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/BKCFHC3" target="_blank]you will find it here[/url].
Thank you...
avatar
TomNook: The survey is a lie! :D
Post edited March 15, 2013 by Stooner
avatar
Snickersnack: I'm fine with selling DRM-free DLC, episodic content, season passes, games in beta, and multiplayer games that require a unique key but please avoid multiplayer games that require a 3rd party account. Those leave you at the mercy of the account provider. :(
They probably mean accounts that are crucial to the multiplayer functionality. See Two Worlds (on GOG already); for its multiplayer mode you make an account for the server you choose to play on, and your multiplayer character is then accessed through those details. Any multiplayer game that stores your persistent character on the server would work in a similar manner.
Post edited March 15, 2013 by Arkose
avatar
caul: What do you mean by "multi-player focused games?" Doesn't GOG.comalready have a bunch of multiplayer RTS and the like? Is this referring to something with servers hosted by the developer/publisher as opposed to the player?
avatar
JMich: Planetary Annihilation perhaps? It's pure multiplayer (lacks a Single Player campaign), and if it requires unique cd-keys to play online, would you want this game on GOG?
Planetary Annihilation HAS a single player sandbox game in which you take on an entire galaxy and that serves as a surrogate for story too (it's in the devs interviews regarding the last stretch goal on Kickstarter- I think it was the last goal).

And yes, I would like to see that on GOG.com
Post edited March 15, 2013 by tomagabriel
Surprisingly many yes answers. I'm a bad person. =)

But I would want some newer games which weren't so indie stuff.

Realistically, I don't see suddenly a rush of new games, like some Dead space 3 coming here with DLC and micro transactions.

I do believe that people have right to buy crappy DLC's if it comes to that. =)
*sigh* today times ruined me, I answered yes on almost all...
avatar
Nirth: So it's a possibility they won't make the DLCs and the idea for the publishers to get an estimate of how much they could make before they have created them? Hmm, well I'm not sure, I suppose that's OK. Any down side of this system for the customers?
avatar
jamyskis: I think you misunderstand - you pay for the season pass in advance, and that covers the cost of all future DLC, even though said DLC (or its quality) is not assured.
Actually that's what I assumed it did. So it's a risk? It sounds like a desperate attempt at some money scheme for the publishers to be honest. I gather season passes aren't popular or has it been a success?
I answered yes to everything under the assumption online features are always optional. No game should depend on a publisher's servers to function.