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
SPTX: Time to stop posting altogether.
avatar
Crassmaster: 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'.
This is not me stepping into the whole of this interchange, but it bears mentioning...

DLC should also be evaluated regarding it's value on a case by case basis before the internal content of the DLC is even considered. The business model of the company and DLC in question are worthy of an evaluation before the subjective concepts of 'content vs price' are brought up at all. The latter are personal discretion, while the former have larger implications than a simple matter of taste.

Cheers,
Legion
Post edited April 22, 2013 by RoseLegion
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
RoseLegion: 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).
Not at all, man! I posted that just as a discussion point, not that I necessarily agreed with what they said. But that's one "outsider" view of the survey results, even if inaccurate.

In a way it kind of shows the position GOG is in, trying to keep their DRM-free policy amidst the challenge of wanting to expand their business.

Though, I would argue that perhaps they don't need to expand the kinds of games they sell (aka focus on "good old games"). But I've wondered if the well for classic games is slowly drying up, limited by rights and deals they can negotiate. GOG seems to be thinking long term, wondering how they can stay true to their principles but not put themselves in a position to "dead end" with classic releases.

It's tricky, but I agree that the survey results were more conclusive than what the PC Gamer article says.
Post edited April 22, 2013 by mondo84
avatar
Crassmaster: 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
RoseLegion: This is not me stepping into the whole of this interchange, but it bears mentioning...

DLC should also be evaluated regarding it's value on a case by case basis before the internal content of the DLC is even considered. The business model of the company and DLC in question are worthy of an evaluation before the subjective concepts of 'content vs price' are brought up at all. The latter are personal discretion, while the former have larger implications than a simple matter of taste.

Cheers,
Legion
I quite agree.
avatar
SPTX: Don't try to make me say things I didn't say. Where did I say the shit for test drive was alright?
Right here:
avatar
SPTX: All of the expansions you cited ARE expansions. Even if mappacks, they hold quality and quantity versus money worth.
My very first example in the link you claim to be linking to a scam is a review of the (then) newly released Test Drive 2, along with it's two "expansions", California Challenge (a map pack) and The Supercars (a vehicle pack). So, are those expansions worth their quality and quantity versus money? Or are they not?
Because I'm not talking about the 3.5" floppies. I'm talking about Test Drive 2's "expansions".

avatar
SPTX: 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).
The 31 levels of Doom are based on 8 levels that were going to be released for free. But the "evil publisher" saw potential, thus instead of publishing them for free, like the creators wanted to, decided to add some more, and release them for payment. Oh, look, that is what newer map packs are. [sarcasm]But no, Final Doom is good, recent map packs are bad.[/sarcasm]

avatar
SPTX: 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.
COD II base price: 60 euros
COD II revolution: 15 euros
COD II nuketown: 5 euros
2 map packs cost 33% of base game.

Test Drive 2 base price: 25 pounds
California Challenge: 10 pounds
European Challenge: 10 pounds
2 map packs cost 80% of base game

So yes, I have seen what new map packs cost, and I have seen what older map packs costed.

avatar
SPTX: Where did I endorse these things from wingcommander?
Again:

avatar
SPTX: All of the expansions you cited ARE expansions. Even if mappacks, they hold quality and quantity versus money worth.
avatar
SPTX: Face it, you have no argument yourself. Your whole semantics lies on trying to make people look bad.
Check your facts. You make a case that is summed down to "Expansions were good. DLCs are bad." I present to you examples of bad expansions (for excellent games none the less) and good DLCs. You continue to ignore them, call me silly, and imply that I don't know what I'm talking about. So if I do make someone look bad, it's not my intention. It's a result of the facts that I present.
avatar
JMich:
Are you doing this on purpose, or are you genuinely impaired enough to not compute proper arguments that are not resorting to try to make me say things I did say the opposite of?

What you presented were scams, and good expansions you tried to pass as bad expansions. And you have yet to talk about a "good DLC". Not to mention that the matter of semantic for "DLC" has been talked about already. Technically, any game nowadays is DLC.
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.
So when I bought the Shivering Isles expansion pack on a disc for PC, it was quality and quantity. When my brother bought the Shivering Isles DLC for his Xbox, it was a horrible money grubbing scam.

Right then.
huh... what?
avatar
SPTX: What you presented were scams, and good expansions you tried to pass as bad expansions.
Hold it, was California Challenge a scam (as you say in post 440) or a worthy expansion (as you say in post 421).

And as for good DLCs, Zombie Island of Dr. Ned, Secret Armory of General Knoxx, Fallout New Vegas DLCs, and quite a few more, depending on who you ask. Hell, I enjoyed The Con Artist as well.
It's unfortunate that you mixed TD2 with doom in your post. The first thing I said was that is was a scam and I maintain. I was OBVIOUSLY not talking about TD2. But thanks for proving my point anyway, you clearly just try to make me look bad.
avatar
SPTX: It's unfortunate that you mixed TD2 with doom in your post. The first thing I said was that is was a scam and I maintain. I was OBVIOUSLY not talking about TD2. But thanks for proving my point anyway, you clearly just try to make me look bad.
Hold it, you mean that the 3 expansions for TD2 are scams? Yes or No answer.
avatar
SPTX: What you presented were scams, and good expansions you tried to pass as bad expansions.
avatar
JMich: Hold it, was California Challenge a scam (as you say in post 440) or a worthy expansion (as you say in post 421).

And as for good DLCs, Zombie Island of Dr. Ned, Secret Armory of General Knoxx, Fallout New Vegas DLCs, and quite a few more, depending on who you ask. Hell, I enjoyed The Con Artist as well.
I think you should stop. Seriously, it was fun at first, but now he's lying on the ground with blood pouring out of his mouth, and you just keep kicking him, and how much longer can you plan to be doing this?
Just tell me, do you think you are smart or something? You're just making fools of yourselves right now.
Post edited April 22, 2013 by SPTX
avatar
SPTX: Just tell me, do you think you are smart or something? Your just making fools of yourselves right now.
Ah, attempt to insult the intelligence of the other, as well as question dodging. Usually a sign of no counter-argurment.
Take your time to gather your thoughts and counter-argument. My stance is that neither Expansions nor DLCs are automatically good/evil, and that the consumer should have the option of choosing for him/herself. At no point in time was an expansion automatically good, and the developers have always tried to sell more stuff for a succesful game (or book, or movie).
While I would also love for all post-production content to be included for free with my initial purchase, if that is not possible, I prefer to have the option to buy it instead of not having the option to do so.
So, what is your argument to not allow me the option to buy DLCs from GOG?

Off to sleep, take as long as you wish to answer me.
avatar
JMich: Hold it, was California Challenge a scam (as you say in post 440) or a worthy expansion (as you say in post 421).

And as for good DLCs, Zombie Island of Dr. Ned, Secret Armory of General Knoxx, Fallout New Vegas DLCs, and quite a few more, depending on who you ask. Hell, I enjoyed The Con Artist as well.
avatar
BadDecissions: I think you should stop. Seriously, it was fun at first, but now he's lying on the ground with blood pouring out of his mouth, and you just keep kicking him, and how much longer can you plan to be doing this?
Until he stops twitching.
You really are hopeless.
I already answered your question even before you asked it too. You're really trying to push things too far and end up making yourself sound like a dodgy politics.

avatar
JMich: My stance is that neither Expansions nor DLCs are automatically good/evil, and that the consumer should have the option of choosing for him/herself. At no point in time was an expansion automatically good.
While I would also love for all post-production content to be included for free with my initial purchase, if that is not possible, I prefer to have the option to buy it instead of not having the option to do so.
So, what is your argument to not allow me the option to buy DLCs from GOG?
My stance is that good or not is irrelevant because of what publishers make them be. There is no guarantee GOG can do a good job at filtering what people may deem good or bad DLC.
You are also implying that post production stuff is indeed post prod and not cut-out content.
My position is simple, opening the floodgate will lead to abuses. You can call me tinfoil hat all you want, but this is what will happen if DLC becomes allowed with no proper standards set.
Have you not ever thought that what you were doing a mistake buying some stuff? Not allowing this is also a way to protect you.