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

×
Survey Results: See what the future of GOG.com holds!

A few weeks ago we asked you to fill out a survey about some of the possible new areas of gaming that GOG.com might move into in the future. We also promised that we’d share the results with you, and they are below. Before we get to that, though, we did want to let you know what these mean to us:

1. We remain committed to bringing you guys the best games from all of gaming history, on both PC and Mac. This means that while we’re exploring ways to bring you new games, we also are committed to bringing classics back to life as well. This year alone has seen Omikron, System Shock 2, the Leisure Suit Larry series, Strike Commander, and even Daikatana!

2. DLC is a controversial issue, but something that has been in gaming—by another name—since the very early days. You guys seem to understand that it’s not possible for us to sign new games with all of their DLC (before it is even made) bundled in, and it looks like you’re willing to either buy DLC or not as you find it interesting. As part of our continual efforts to improve the user experience on GOG.com, we will be looking at new, better ways to present DLC in our catalog as well.

3. Selling episodic content before the “season” is finished is also something we’re looking forward to bringing you in the future, and you seem to agree.

4. Season passes—for both DLC and for episodic content—clearly have a mixed perception here. Season passes—if we do offer them—are something that we’ll approach with deliberation to make sure that we’re confident that the content that is promised will all be delivered.

5. Finally, we have somewhat conflicting information on the persistent multiplayer features; when discussed in a very abstract fashion (as it was in the first survey), it’s a very clear “no.” When mentioned in a specific game that we’ve shown you, it’s an equally clear “yes.” What we’re going to be sure of, going forward, is that we’re very careful that any game that we bring you guys with persistent multiplayer features will be at least as offline-friendly as Planetary Annihilation is.

One of the defining characteristics of GOG.com is that the games that we sell have no DRM; this isn't going to change, and we will continue to evaluate the games that we bring to you to make sure that they're not only great games, but great games that we think will fit in well with how we do business.

<iframe src="http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/19169133?rel=0" width="590" height="472" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border:1px solid #CCC;border-width:1px 1px 0;margin-bottom:5px" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen> </iframe>

Thank you for responding to our surveys in such large numbers. GOG.com would be a mere shadow of itself if it wasn't for its incredible, open, friendly, and active community--that is you!
Post edited April 19, 2013 by G-Doc
avatar
Crassmaster: His point was that there have ALWAYS been ripoffs. Expansions weren't some guaranteed mark of quality content, just like there is no guarantee that all DLC is of a high caliber.
My point is that there are more than ever now.

avatar
SPTX: He nitpicked scams, to compare them to good old expansions thinking it somehow justifies today's DLC bullshit.That's as fallacious as it can get.
avatar
JMich: Want me to post map packs? Take a look at Master Levels of Doom (or any other Doom "expansion").
You prefer another fps example? Duke it Out in DC.
The reason I keep posting TD2 is because it's the oldest I can find. I could probably go farther back if I also looked for hardware requirements, but I'm not sure I want to do that.
You can go back to the dawn of humanity to find scams. You don't hold any actual point here.
All of the expansions you cited ARE expansions. Even if mappacks, they hold quality and quantity versus money worth.
The weird thing is, when I think about it, some of the non-gaming software I use has paid "content packs", and it never occured to me that it's supposed to be bad and is a ripoff. O_O Yeah... hm... interesting...
avatar
Crassmaster: His point was that there have ALWAYS been ripoffs. Expansions weren't some guaranteed mark of quality content, just like there is no guarantee that all DLC is of a high caliber.
avatar
SPTX: My point is that there are more than ever now.

avatar
JMich: Want me to post map packs? Take a look at Master Levels of Doom (or any other Doom "expansion").
You prefer another fps example? Duke it Out in DC.
The reason I keep posting TD2 is because it's the oldest I can find. I could probably go farther back if I also looked for hardware requirements, but I'm not sure I want to do that.
avatar
SPTX: You can go back to the dawn of humanity to find scams. You don't hold any actual point here.
All of the expansions you cited ARE expansions. Even if mappacks, they hold quality and quantity versus money worth.
And? Since when does 'more' equal 'bad'?

You're being incredibly simplistic here. Anything branded an expansion is automatically quality, while anything branded a DLC pack isn't? So expansion map packs were perfectly okay for people to pay extra for, but DLC map packs aren't? Some stupid expansion adding an extra car to a game was fine, but a Borderlands DLC pack adding another world, new enemies, new gear and 10+ hours of content is not?

I place less importance in what something is branded as rather than what something actually IS. I know, CRAZY!
avatar
Crassmaster: Since when does 'more' equal 'bad'?
You're being incredibly simplistic here. Anything branded an expansion is automatically quality, while anything branded a DLC pack isn't? So expansion map packs were perfectly okay for people to pay extra for, but DLC map packs aren't
I'm pretty sure you'd still miss the point if it was directly shoved in your face.
I'd expect someone calling me "simplistic" to do so not just to hide how simple he is himself.
Post edited April 22, 2013 by SPTX
avatar
Crassmaster: Since when does 'more' equal 'bad'?
You're being incredibly simplistic here. Anything branded an expansion is automatically quality, while anything branded a DLC pack isn't? So expansion map packs were perfectly okay for people to pay extra for, but DLC map packs aren't
avatar
SPTX: I'm pretty sure you'd wtill miss the point if it was directly shoved in your face.
What a shocker! Faced with factual arguments, you resort yet again to being a child stomping his feet and acting out.
avatar
SPTX: I'm pretty sure you'd wtill miss the point if it was directly shoved in your face.
avatar
Crassmaster: What a shocker! Faced with factual arguments, you resort yet again to being a child stomping his feet and acting out.
I think you need to learn the difference between facts and opinions too.
http://www.mobygames.com/game/wing-commander-ii-vengeance-of-the-kilrathi-speech-accessory-pac
http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/wing-commander-privateer-speech-pack
http://www.mobygames.com/game/strike-commander-speech-pack
http://www.mobygames.com/game/pagan-ultima-viii-speech-pack
http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/pacific-strike-speech-pack
http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/metaltech-earthsiege-speech-pack

We totally don't want your money guys...
avatar
Crassmaster: What a shocker! Faced with factual arguments, you resort yet again to being a child stomping his feet and acting out.
avatar
SPTX: I think you need to learn the difference between facts and opinions too.
It's a purely opinion-driven issue. And I presented opinion as fact...where? Oh that's right, I didn't. I gave my OPINION. An OPINION that I actually explained reasoning for.
avatar
SPTX: All of the expansions you cited ARE expansions. Even if mappacks, they hold quality and quantity versus money worth.
Do you include Final Doom in that part? Here's an interview of half the team that made half of final Doom. Also, why is adding vehicles to TD2 a good thing, while adding vehicles to Train Simulator 2013 a bad thing? Why is adding maps to Duke Nukem 3D a good thing, while adding maps to Black Ops is a bad thing? Why is adding a set of missions to Wing Commander a good thing, while adding a set of missions to Borderlands a bad thing? Why is adding voices to Wing Commander Privateer a good thing, while adding country specific sprites to Hearts of Iron a bad thing?
And were those expansions really worth their asking price? Which was usually 35%-100% of the base game asking price mind you.

If you answer yes, then that is my stand for DLC as well. Some of the DLC is worth its asking price.
If you answer no, then you can't really use the "Expansions ruled, DLCs suck" argument either.
avatar
mondo84: I checked and didn't see this posted yet, but PC Gamer did a small article on the survey results.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/04/22/gog-survey-results-show-customers-reaction-to-dlc-drm-and-pre-release-alphas/
Thanks for posting this link, and please don't consider the following response as in any way directed at you (the conclusion of the article has me feeling a bit irate).

At best, the thing to note is that, far from people being immovably against DLC, or even DRM, consumers are more interested in judging things on a case-by-case basis – and what bonuses they’re being offered as a result of perceived negatives.
This is a staggering example of the problem and danger faced when expanding the catalog here at GOG (for the record I'm a long time supporter of this expansion). The idea that these survey results indicate that DRM should be evaluated on a case by case bases is ludicrous. Speaking as someone who voted "yes" on almost all counts in the survey that concept in no way represents my view even remotely.
Once again PA's offerings of direct connect and LAN support for multiplayer are not commented on (this is an all too frequent bias within "gaming journalism"). Instead of focusing on the solid development choice to avoid forced DRM by creating a game with options they conclude that somehow acceptance of this title indicates a larger acceptance of DRM, I want the ability to publish a rebuttal to this flawed and short sighted article on their main site (sadly comments or blogging elsewhere will not get the same exposure as the main article and thus not serve this purpose).

The article even fails to quote within the proper context, citing the "at least as offline-friendly as Planetary Annihilation is" as GOG's conclusion to this survey overlooking the actual concluding statement (viewable above) from GOG, to wit "One of the defining characteristics of GOG.com is that the games that we sell have no DRM; this isn't going to change"

In my experience GOG users support choice and object to artificial restrictions on such. Certain DLC (still a painfully vague term) and obviously DRM are both unacceptable restrictions to player choice, however the same can be said for restricting the ability to make one's own assessments of value when it comes to "DLC" in general (as opposed to bad pre-parsed games masquerading as "DLC" for PR reasons). The survey seems to support that assessment in both it's "yea" and "nay" votes on these issues (as individual perspectives differ regarding which aspects are "capstone" and worthy of first address). Even in the discussions in this thread (as hostile as some of them have become) still seem to bespeak a desire on all sides for player choice to be sacrosanct.

I will close by saying I devotedly hope that the management of GOG is more astute than the author of that article and manage to read the results for what they are, a mandate to preserve player choice, (which by the way includes DRM-free) rather than some mealy mouthed tacit act of submission to "the way gaming is now" aka the 'AAA' stance that "I've already got your money bro" is an acceptable business model.

My (rather irate) 0.02 cents,
Legion
avatar
Crassmaster: And I presented opinion as fact...where? Oh that's right, I didn't. I gave my OPINION. An OPINION that I actually explained reasoning for.
avatar
Crassmaster: What a shocker! Faced with factual arguments, you resort yet again to being a child stomping his feet and acting out.
Time to stop posting altogether.

avatar
SPTX: All of the expansions you cited ARE expansions. Even if mappacks, they hold quality and quantity versus money worth.
avatar
JMich: Do you include Final Doom in that part? Here's an interview of half the team that made half of final Doom.
avatar
JMich: Also, why is adding vehicles to TD2 a good thing, while adding vehicles to Train Simulator 2013 a bad thing? Why is adding maps to Duke Nukem 3D a good thing, while adding maps to Black Ops is a bad thing? Why is adding a set of missions to Wing Commander a good thing, while adding a set of missions to Borderlands a bad thing? Why is adding voices to Wing Commander Privateer a good thing, while adding country specific sprites to Hearts of Iron a bad thing?
And were those expansions really worth their asking price? Which was usually 35%-100% of the base game asking price mind you.

If you answer yes, then that is my stand for DLC as well. Some of the DLC is worth its asking price.
If you answer no, then you can't really use the "Expansions ruled, DLCs suck" argument either.
Don't try to make me say things I didn't say. Where did I say the shit for test drive was alright? I kept brandishing it as a scam. You're the one who implied it was alright by the simple fact that it was done before DLC and that by extension, DLC is alright too.
31 levels for doom. How can you even remotely imply it's not a worthy expansion? It's as big as the whole base game! (and good too).
Have you ever compared the pricing of COD's mappacks to expansions? I am starting to think you don't even believe in what you are saying yourself seeing how it stinks dirty.
Where did I endorse these things from wingcommander?

Face it, you have no argument yourself. Your whole semantics lies on trying to make people look bad.
avatar
mondo84: I checked and didn't see this posted yet, but PC Gamer did a small article on the survey results.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/04/22/gog-survey-results-show-customers-reaction-to-dlc-drm-and-pre-release-alphas/
avatar
hucklebarry: "Which makes it hard to draw firm conclusions."

I disagree with that. Seems incredibly easy to draw conclusions. People don't want DRM. The broad question asked if we would play a game that forced us online. The overwhelming answer was no. The second question clarified and let us know that the online piece was optional with a fully working and DRM-free offline version... so we voted yes (overwhelmingly). What is there not to conclude? DRM = no. DRM-free = yes. No need to overthink it, Mr. PCGamer :p
Those who don't want to read my (somewhat lengthy tirade) should read this post, it's more succinct and less irate than mine and accurately covers the same points.

+1 to you sir :)
avatar
Crassmaster: What a shocker! Faced with factual arguments, you resort yet again to being a child stomping his feet and acting out.
avatar
SPTX: Time to stop posting altogether.
Good grief. I meant factual as in 'I have presented an argument to support my opinion. Namely : calling all DLC good or bad regardless of content is stupid. It should be judged on a case by case basis'.
avatar
YnK: The weird thing is, when I think about it, some of the non-gaming software I use has paid "content packs", and it never occured to me that it's supposed to be bad and is a ripoff. O_O Yeah... hm... interesting...
Interesting, maybe it's growing up around computer tech types but I've always considered those non-gaming expansions as additional payed content packs. In fact that's part of where I derive my definition of "good DLC" vs "bad DLC" if a software product offers more content for an additional fee and provides ongoing support of the base product/product at large then that's essentially fine i.e. that's a matter of individual discretion. However if a given product is not supported with fixes et al and they "offer" additional content then it's dirty pool as they're demonstrating a focus on getting more of your money rather than providing a solid product for your consideration/purchase. If a word processor provides an expanded thesaurus or dictionary for an extra fee that's fine it's an option, if they do so for a product that hasn't been made stable, secure, or to include a basic spelling correction function then it's a ripoff mislabeled as "added content".

On another note your posts are contemplative and bring up some interesting angles, thanks for sharing.

Cheers,
Legion
avatar
SPTX: Your whole semantics lies on trying to make people look bad.
I'm starting to get slightly confused. Are you doing some sort of a super post modern projection art performance?