Two of the games in this bundle are behind in bug fixes/patching. If you guys want to be around another 10 years, you might want to start making sure your customers don't get an inferior product. This has been happening with numerous games for years now, and it's long past getting old:

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/suggestions_wanted_for_gog_mix_games_that_treat_gog_customers_as_second_class_citizens/post1509

+1 for that, added to reader. No need for it so far, but now seems the only way to still know what's going on here at all.
Didn't know their feed still existed. Wonder for how long, since there's no longer a link to it.

Do you think the site redesign might be like the shutdown news? Hit us with something that no one likes, then say in a couple of days "Ha,ha! That was just a joke." Because the aesthetics of the site now play such havoc with usability that it's hard to believe anyone interested in getting customers to *buy stuff* agreed to these changes...

When I saw all the giant videos and empty space and replacement of actual words with uninformative picture tiles, I assumed GOG was sacrificing desktop/laptop users to benefit the mobile crowd, but incoming reports from mobile users suggest it's no better for them. :-(

If only. But highly doubt it...

While I'm still in the mood to gripe about this lame, letdown of an event...

Why the hell does the celebratory video feature a hypocritical, petulant manchild like Angry Joe who's barely ever mentioned the site... whilst having absolutely zero sign of one of YouTube's most beloved GOG supporters? Namely LGR.

Why the hell is Clint not in your video?

Those videos are nothing more than commercials. Advertisements.

Clint's fanbase already knows about GOG, they are already here IF they are interrested at all.

The fanbase of Angry Joe / Jim Sterling are steam-worshippers, so GOG needs to advertise themselves to THOSE only.

Because of those potential customers we have a new shopsite, those "customers" need to be catered something like steam.

Sorry, but business requires such realities today, even if we do not like them.

Honestly I am glad you brought this aspect of the "Owned" change. It is a point of great concern.

However before I get into it I would say that your assertion that owned is not technically correct, is not correct. There is a LARGE difference between physical property and intellectual property. You are citing a commonly held misconception of ownership and license. The licensure you refer to is related to intellectual property.You CAN own a retail copy of software.

What you do not own is the freedom to try and alter the software and claim it as your own unique work.

In the retail example games are published onto physical media and produced products for mass resale. You own the physical disc it is printed on. You can do with that disc what you want, how ever you want, (provided it is not otherwise illegal) You can sell it, destroy it, use it in part of your own creation.(such as using a generic disc) so long as it is not utilizing the intellectual property written on the disc to function. You own the physical media. Once you have downloaded the software, as long as you are not exploiting the content ON the media you are in your rights to do with the container as you please.

Ownership of the physical media does not bestow ownership to the intellectual property or assets that are assembled on the media. So you cannot go in, decompile a game, separate its assets and use those original works of art, music, sounds, text strings, scripting coding, in your own work. Likewise you cannot use the intellectual property for your own purposes to profit, such as making your own animations, games, stories, ect based upon the characters involved in the game. THAT is where a "licensed copy" exists and ends.

Now as it relates to digital distribution, games are still products. Just because it is in a digital format does not actually change that much. When you get a digital peice of software, you have to have some manner of installation "container" that initiates the installation OF the software. In the case of things like steam where you are granted licenses, the container, in most cases is the Steam client. However in cases like GOG or to a lesser extent Humble bundle, you have containers that the software reside in. Be it standalone .exes, Compression files like .zip files that either contain the direct launcher or installer. When you buy these digital products you can OWN them in the sense you are buying these standalone installer containers that have provide the directions for installation to the various files embedded.

In clients such as steam it is almost exclusively Steam client that at least initiates this installation. Yes there are some exceptions where games can be accessed without full fledged installations but the fact that you can buy these from steam that technically can be accessed via the executable file, it is still the steam client that acts as the point of distribution to that file. Granted it is a murky area. It being technically a case where you can have a steam file function devoid of the client is an incidental exception to the rule because you would not have been granted access to the download the content without the understanding that you were not buying a product, you were buying a license.

Honestly It has been since 2011 when Steam went consumer hostile that I actually used steam so I can no longer say if there are any games out there you can still access completely devoid of the steam client at least at some point once it is installed (Cause such games would allow you to not only bypass the client for your own use, but could be copied and installed infinitely on other machines)

Regardless this addresses how the actual laws play out more than concern over the technical exceptions to the rules.

........

All that said, I want to write a second post here over the "Owned" removal, as this issue needs to be brought up and addressed by someone in a position with GoG to actually do so.

I am in fact surprised with how GoG customers try to defend even against GoG itself that this has not yet really been brought up until about 3 hours before these posts by ped7g.

As has been stated, the "Owned" categorization is gone and has been replaced with the wording "in library"

There is no technical reason to make such a change. You CAN own digitally distributed products as described in the prior post. However by changing the wording and removing Ownership it needs to be addressed if Gog is beginning to migrate away from assuring the ownership of the product that GOG has been built on for this last decade.

Making such a change this strategically specific changes the connotation of possession between a user buying the content and having ownership of it to the "possession" of the content being locked into ones library that the purchaser is simply being granted access to.

Such a change is a MASSIVE change and can be a stepping stone that is in effect removing freedom over the content and is making it tethered to an account that no differently than Steam, MS, Sony, EA, ETC can be removed by removing ones access to their account. Whereas currently with the word ownership we have the right to download the software and then if we wish back it up. Burn it to CD, external drive, etc. While this may not be accompanied with any prohibition towards doing with the container what you wish today... Such a change can be the first step into locking content into an account which effectively becomes DRM that GOG has fought the last decade against, and why people such as myself have invested hundreds, if not thousands of dollars into not only obtaining software, but supporting the PROPER method of handing the distribution of software products.

Such a change would effectively be reneging on the central tenet of GOG. One that GOG has recently doubled down on reinforcing with the FCK initiative.

So I think we deserve a clarification on this point, because while it might have seemed like an offhanded minor change to phrasing, it is an alteration that profoundly effects the entire premise. Oversight of this can be forgiven, but ultimately this is not something that can be left to stand because even if GoG does not demonstrate any intent to today, this opens the door down for such a change to happen and such a "war of attrition" is exactly what got the industry in this anti consumer shape in the first place.

So please, someone with some blue text clarify this for us because this is a profound change to the nature of this arrangement.

In advance, thank you.

Maybe your phone does not have enough RAM.

Works for me on Samsung Internet Beta, but it takes a long time to load.

I was hoping ... no, I was expecting for GOG to say something official about the expiring "gift"codes people payed for when buying the anniversary bundle. Did I miss it? Is this discussed somewhere else? I am considering buying such a bundle but I don't see the sense in doing this if two of three game keys (in my case) will just expire pretty fast forcing me to refund the game. It really puzzles me how any serious distributor could simply "miss" to put such a small thing like "expiring in case you already own" in the product description. But as I said - maybe this is just the wrong thread and GOG already solved the issue in another thread. IN that case I would love to be redirected.

Happy birthday GOG!!!

I don't buy often from here anymore because of the continuous devaluation of the argentinian peso.
Here in Argentina, to buy on Steam is A LOT MORE CHEAPEST (because of the regional pricing in pesos)than to buy on GOG... Add Proton to that list and Valve wins here. ..
You have to do something about it.

Now.. I dont like the new store look...

Give Us the good old look back!

Just need a switch to Good Old GOG.

Woah woah woah, what's this about paid for codes from the anniverary bundles expiring? First I've heard of this.

Seems like they do...