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 orOpera

×
arrow-down2arrowcart2close4fat-arrow-leftfat-arrow-rightfeedbackfriends2happy-facelogo-gognotificationnotifications-emptyownedremove-menusad-facesearch2wishlist-menuwishlisted2own_thingsheartstartick
high rated
avatar
HereForTheBeer: <snip>
I think we're never really privy to the actual details of why a game is rejected and some of the details may not even relate to the game itself.

The issue with visual novels is an ongoing one and it's fair to assume that sales potential is the reason why GOG mostly rejects visual novels. The problem is that, as a niche genre, the visual novel fanbase is extremely vocal but also extremely small and there's a fair amount of advocacy from people who already own the games elsewhere anyway. Not to mention that there is a horrendous amount of VN shovelware out there. I could probably count the number of good VNs on two hands (yes, the three Danganronpa games are among them!). In any case, I suspect that this issue was raised at the meeting.

And there's certainly a chance that developers may not be entirely honest about why their game is not coming to GOG. When it comes to Steam, Valve holds all the cards, but developers probably equally assume that they have a much stronger hand when it comes to dealing with GOG, and so they come with much heavier demands that GOG may not be willing to cater to. I'll bet that at least one developer wanted to have their game distributed as a Steam key on GOG for multiplayer purposes, and that several wanted to keep a large (80-90%) share of the revenue. Being "rejected" doesn't necessarily mean that the game it was rejected. It can just as easily be the terms.


avatar
GR00T: Wow, that's a bit cynical. If it matters to you at all, during the 'ask GOG your questions' they took a lot of shit and some hard questions from us. Your choice whether you believe that or not.
Congrats on breaching the 4000 rep barrier by the way.
Post edited October 06, 2017 by _ChaosFox_
high rated
avatar
john_hatcher: I hope someone asked them why there is no option to opt out of the "always default DRM Galaxy invested downloads".
We did. And they're going to implement an option to opt-out as the default. As to when, well, we don't know.
avatar
john_hatcher: 5) That is total bullshit. As a polish company they don't have to comply to other countries rules (except maybe the world poilice USA).
There was a thread a while ago that brought this up (not sure if I can find it now), but the bottom line is they do have to comply: as soon as they opened a German storefront, they were bound by the German rules.

avatar
john_hatcher: 6) Funny that they said that. Why not just say "we want more games (and more money) and less trouble, so we just opted out of our core principle". That would honest and not so hypocritical.
At its root, it could be seen this way, but that's a tad too cynical. Not doing this would likely have meant no more GOG.

avatar
john_hatcher: 7) LOL so no changes in the next 5 years. And yes, I'll happily bring this thread back up in 5 years and will be even happier if I was wrong, but I doubt that.
Yes, it remains to be seen. I'll buy the beer if you're correct. :)
avatar
_ChaosFox_: Congrats on breaching the 4000 rep barrier by the way.
Oooh, I didn't notice. Thanks. :)
Post edited October 06, 2017 by GR00T
high rated
avatar
john_hatcher: 2) and 4) Seems there are different definitons of DRM free.
Yes. I say something is DRM-Free if I can install it in a "Bunker PC", so to speak (completely isolated from any kind of network) and still be able to play, so SecuROM, StarForce or LensLok are not DRM (by my definition), while for others any method that may prevent you from playing your game is (so all of the above for example).

avatar
john_hatcher: Galaxy is, for me the opposite of DRM free, so I'm in doubt of their DRM free stance
From the very beginning, GOG was of the mind that DRM-Free is for the single player only, and multiplayer may have restrictions. Sacrifice, one of the first games in the store, does use a serial for multiplayer, which for some people does count as DRM.
Galaxy does not prevent you from running a game (any game), though it will not offer you its capabilities for games you don't own, similar to how you are not able to get GOG patches for games you own outside of GOG.
But to each their own.

avatar
john_hatcher: because of developments like the always online Gwent "game".
I'm going to point you to A round of GWENT episode 2. GWENT is getting a single player portion. No idea if we can add anything to the video or not though.

avatar
john_hatcher: I hope someone asked them why there is no option to opt out of the "always default DRM Galaxy invested downloads". Make it "opt out" so that everyone has to actively change the settng, but no setting to this DRM invested sh*t is a nogo.
Last part of point 4. Such an option is coming, but no idea when.

avatar
john_hatcher: 5) That is total bullshit. As a polish company they don't have to comply to other countries rules (except maybe the world poilice USA). As a possible customer from Germany, I'm offended by your (=GOG) censorship and oppose to it.
Not entirely true. Not more I can say though.

avatar
john_hatcher: 6) Funny that they said that. Why not just say "we want more games (and more money) and less trouble, so we just opted out of our core principle". That would honest and not so hypocritical.
Same as above. The Disney games did lose their regional pricing after our visit though.

avatar
john_hatcher: 7) LOL so no changes in the next 5 years. And yes, I'll happily bring this thread back up in 5 years and will be even happier if I was wrong, but I doubt that.
Hypothetical. Let's say I said the forum would be changed in the next 2 months, and something delayed it. Would that be better than me not saying anything or worse?
I've no idea of any timeline, but my understanding is that something is being done.


avatar
john_hatcher: Just to be clear, this not criticism towards you JMich or your post or your visit. This is just my point of view towards the GOG officials and their decisions so far.
No worries, we're here to answer your concerns, or at least those we can answer.
avatar
Smannesman: Inviting a couple of pro-GOG forum people in secret, feed them some platitudes and non-information in order to basically do nothing.
I know of at least 2 highly critical of GOG people that couldn't make it. I'm not going to name any names (we know 6 that didn't make it, and there should be a few more as well), it's up to them whether they want to step forward or not.
Post edited October 06, 2017 by JMich
avatar
john_hatcher: 5) That is total bullshit. As a polish company they don't have to comply to other countries rules (except maybe the world poilice USA). As a possible customer from Germany, I'm offended by your (=GOG) censorship and oppose to it.
And you did not read until the last part of this point? I spoke personally to one of the people responsible for the "German problem" (and believe me I would love to go more into detail since I also hate censorship) and I can assure you that there are several things GOG is actively trying to do to make the situation better here. Regading the "bullshit" part I would like to ask if you are a laywer specialized in digital distribution or not? Unfortunately things are not that easy as you may think. If they are in fact please point me to some judgement in such case or at least to some paragraphs - maybe this could help?
avatar
JMich: Yes. I say something is DRM-Free if I can install it in a "Bunker PC", so to speak (completely isolated from any kind of network) and still be able to play, so SecuROM, StarForce or LensLok are not DRM (by my definition), while for others any method that may prevent you from playing your game is (so all of the above for example).
Was the issue of Absolver raised? Absolver will forever more be the classic example of a "token gesture", doing the absolute bare minimum to satisfy the requirement of "DRM-free", similar to the way that online games on Steam implement the most basic of bot match mechanisms just to satisfy the "single player" tag. I have a sneaking suspicion that GOG themselves didn't know how short and worthless Absolver's offline experience would be until just before release.

The problem is that, technically speaking, many games can be installed on a "bunker PC". I could install Tribes 2 on a bunker PC and technically play it, but it's really only a practice mode against bots and therefore worthless.

Is GOG aware that they need to prevent abuse of this principle where developers would offer a token 1-2 hour single-player feature and then gate the bulk of the content behind online servers?
high rated
avatar
Smannesman: Seems like a very GOG move.
Inviting a couple of pro-GOG forum people in secret, feed them some platitudes and non-information in order to basically do nothing.
Just BS and stall enough and people will eventually forget what they were mad about.
Maybe you should read some posts of us "pro-GOG" people we posted in the past before you say things like this. If you mean pro GOG in "we like GOG" and to keep GOG the way we like it we told them our worries and our problems we are having at the moment .... then yes, then I am pro-GOG. If you are saying that we are the ones that approve everything GOG is doing or has done before, then no - that's not the case and if you like I can link you to some proof of that. They wanted sincere and honest (unblunt) feedback.
When GOG say Soon™, it is about 132 days.
(A blue said that they will fix the notification soon, and the bug was fixed 132 days later, while 3rd party script fixed it within 1 week.)

We will see when we get (or never get) the option to set Classic installers default.

About forum improve:
The forum system was, and is worse and worse and worse.
I doubt it will become any better Soon™.
avatar
_ChaosFox_: Was the issue of Absolver raised? Absolver will forever more be the classic example of a "token gesture", doing the absolute bare minimum to satisfy the requirement of "DRM-free", similar to the way that online games on Steam implement the most basic of bot match mechanisms just to satisfy the "single player" tag. I have a sneaking suspicion that GOG themselves didn't know how short and worthless Absolver's offline experience would be until just before release.

The problem is that, technically speaking, many games can be installed on a "bunker PC". I could install Tribes 2 on a bunker PC and technically play it, but it's really only a practice mode against bots and therefore worthless.

Is GOG aware that they need to prevent abuse of this principle where developers would offer a token 1-2 hour single-player feature and then gate the bulk of the content behind online servers?
This is a good point. I wasn't aware of the Absolver issue (the game wasn't on my radar), so obviously didn't mention it to the GOG staff - and I don't recall any of the others mentioning it either. But it's something I think we should toss their way.
avatar
_ChaosFox_: Was the issue of Absolver raised?
I don't recall it being discussed, but I wasn't always paying attention. On the other hand, I don't recall any big discussion about this on the forum either, but I don't really visit the game specific forums, so I may have missed it.

avatar
_ChaosFox_: The problem is that, technically speaking, many games can be installed on a "bunker PC". I could install Tribes 2 on a bunker PC and technically play it, but it's really only a practice mode against bots and therefore worthless.
As I said, personal definition of DRM-Free, not GOG's definition. And my personal definition does make most multiplayer games DRM'd, even those that are not (like most MUDs).

avatar
_ChaosFox_: Is GOG aware that they need to prevent abuse of this principle where developers would offer a token 1-2 hour single-player feature and then gate the bulk of the content behind online servers?
From what I know, yes.
avatar
MarkoH01: Maybe you should read some posts of us "pro-GOG" people we posted in the past before you say things like this. If you mean pro GOG in "we like GOG" and to keep GOG the way we like it we told them our worries and our problems we are having at the moment .... then yes, then I am pro-GOG. If you are saying that we are the ones that approve everything GOG is doing or has done before, then no - that's not the case and if you like I can link you to some proof of that. They wanted sincere and honest (unblunt) feedback.
The problem is that, to people like Smannesman, anyone who tries to establish some kind of compromise between the old "only standalone installers, no regional pricing, no regional locks" and the recent developments must automatically be "pro-GOG". There are a number of other people who take this "no compromises" attitude and resolutely refuse to believe that many of the games that have come here in recent years would not have been possible without regional pricing and Galaxy.

I guess there are just plenty of people who simply don't have a clue how a business is run and how the gaming industry works.
please don't argue with mr hatcher. :P

trust me, I've tried. It's not going to work. XD
avatar
kbnrylaec: When GOG say Soon™, it is about 132 days.
(A blue said that they will fix the notification soon, and the bug was fixed 132 days later, while 3rd party script fixed it within 1 week.)

We will see when we get (or never get) the option to set Classic installers default.

About forum improve:
The forum system was, and is worse and worse and worse.
I doubt it will become any better Soon™.
Heh, they're well aware of our perception of their 'soon'. I can say they asked us for feedback on the forums - specifically what functionality we'd like to see. We gave them a long list. They're looking to get much more robust forum software implemented. But we got no timeline for that. Basically as soon as they can. *shrug*

*edit* spelling
Post edited October 06, 2017 by GR00T
Thanks for the report, appreciate it. The thing is, as GOG have been very reluctant to provide info directly to all users, for me it's just too little and much too vague, way too late. Their hearing the opinions of a couple of us in person doesn't make up for past decisions that have turned lots of people away. Hope you had a good time though.
Somehow I'm not surprised they didn't invite me :D Anyway, they didn't really get a taste of the community unless all they had a couple of people to just randomly shout about Trump being worse than Hitler or those damn SJW feminazis taking over the world.

Still, while my general rule is to beware and distrust any PR, I'm rather reassured by this. If they wanted to just stonewall us with PR bullshit they wouldn't do this, no need to lie to someone's face when you can do it just as well through the forum, and if it was meant as just a PR stunt they'd make a bigger deal out of it. My expectations are rather low now anyway. I'm pretty much resigned to GOG's new priorities and way of doing things. All I want is DRM-free games and offline "classic" installers. Oh, and Star Trek TNG: A Final Unity.
avatar
Breja: All I want is DRM-free games and offline "classic" installers.
They assured us that this is set in stone going forward.

avatar
Breja: Oh, and Star Trek TNG: A Final Unity.
This never came up, oddly... :P