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

×
Thanks for all the feedback you gave us after the previous update. You’re awesome and it shows the GOG insights piques your interest. Today’s article is about a topic that we know is very important to you – our commitment to DRM-free gaming and what it exactly means.

GOG was built on trust, which is at the very core of our identity. It is evidenced by our 30-day refund policy or releasing games DRM-free, among other things. At the same time, we understand DRM-free might mean different things to different people, especially when modern games blend offline and online experiences.

When GOG first launched, the gaming market looked very different from what it is now – retail was the main place to buy games, and digital distribution was just taking baby steps. DRM, the copy protection software created to protect licenses against unauthorized disc copying, was a huge source of annoyance for gamers often restricting how they can access their content. From the beginning, part of GOG’s mission was to provide gamers with a simple way to access and play games, without the need to fiddle with files or deal with any DRM. Making sure you can play games purchased on GOG offline, make backup copies, and install them as many times as you need is even more relevant now, as things like game preservation become an important topic for the whole industry.

Today, while some of the most infamous DRMs of the past are thankfully long gone, it doesn’t mean the constraints are fully gone. They just have a different, more complex face.

Games are evolving and many titles offer features beyond single-player offline gameplay, like multiplayer, achievements, vanities, rewards. Many such games are already on GOG and will continue to join our catalog. But it also raises the question: is this a new frontier for DRM?

And this is the crux of the matter. Some think it is, some don’t. Some hate it, some don’t mind it. And to be fair, we didn’t comment on it ourselves for quite some time and feel this is the time to do so:

We believe you should have freedom of choice and the right to decide how you use, enjoy, and keep the games you bought. It manifests in three points:
1. The single-player mode has to be accessible offline.

2. Games you bought and downloaded can never be taken from you or altered against your will.

3. The GOG GALAXY client is and will remain optional for accessing single-player offline mode.


We fully commit to all those points. Aside from this, we reaffirm our continuous effort to make games compatible with future OSs and available for you for years to come.

As for multiplayer, achievements, and all that jazz – games with those features belong on GOG. Having said that, we believe that you have the right to make an informed choice about the content that you choose to enjoy and we won’t tell you how and where you can access or store your games. To make it easier to discover titles that include features like multiplayer, unlockable cosmetics, timed events, or user-generated content, we’re adding information about such functionalities on product pages. In short, you’ll always know.

We always took a lot of pride in the freedom we provide gamers. While we know DRM-free may have a different meaning to everyone, we believe you have the right to decide how you use, enjoy, and keep the titles you get on GOG. With games evolving towards adding more online features, we want you to understand our DRM-free approach and what it means to us. It is an important topic – let us know what you think.
high rated
Thank you for the update, those 3 points are the most important for myself as a customer here, but it still sounds like there's wiggle room for online unlockable content and the like. I guess it's the unavoidable direction the industry is heading, but at least outlining such features on the product pages is probably the best step you can take in such a case.
low rated
'' relevant now, as things like game preservation become an important topic for the whole industry.''

Only now?

Yeeesh

As a side note, you still don't really make clear what DRM-free is to you, nor is there any real commitment made on the topic... which is partly why the Hitman saga ran on for so long. Skating around problems does not count as addressing them. By your logic with Hitman it was DRM-Free and passable due to the bones of the single-player being offline... when we know that mean's the paying customer (at a high price) was getting very little in return, barely half a game in truth.

I can see the sentiment you're going for, but the wording (all that 'jazz'...?) lacks commitment to a stance and allows a whole load of wiggle room for you. You're propping yourself up as the only place to preserve games and offer DRM-free titles, yet seem afraid to show devotion to it; that's not going to speak to many people.

As a side note, working with the Video Game History foundation to 'preserve' stuff is a little odd given they're in bed with WATA and have heads who expressed interest in pricing out common folk from preservation. It shouldn't just be a nice buzzword to hoy in between emojis. Doing so just adds to the problem!
Post edited March 17, 2022 by Linko64
high rated
avatar
Linko64: '' relevant now, as things like game preservation become an important topic for the whole industry.''

Only now?

Yeeesh

As a side note, you still don't really make clear what DRM-free is to you, nor is there any real commitment made on the topic... which is partly why the Hitman saga ran on for so long. Skating around problems does not count as addressing them. By your logic with Hitman it was DRM-Free and passable due to the bones of the single-player being offline... when we know that mean's the paying customer (at a high price) was getting very little in return, barely half a game in truth.

I can see the sentiment you're going for, but the wording (all that 'jazz'...?) lacks commitment to a stance and allows a whole load of wiggle room for you. You're propping yourself up as the only place to preserve games and offer DRM-free titles, yet seem afraid to commit to it; that's not going to speak to many people.
Literally what do you want them to say? Copy paste the definition from Wikipedia? They outlined 3 basic criteria of what every DRM-free game on GOG is, and everything outside those three points (cosmetics, achievements, in-game events etc.) is optional. GOG finally made a proper statement on something that was being asked of them for years, and you choose to argue semantics. Can't help but laugh!
LAN multiplayer options for past and present games should also be a focus instead of forcing galaxy as the only option.



16:35
Post edited March 17, 2022 by §pec†re
high rated
Gog is trying to communicate at least.

One thing I wanna point out however is that actions speak louder than words. If they want to make that message of commitment to DRM-free undeniably clear they could release the Cyberpunk2077 "My Rewards" items DRM-free in a free DLC not bound to Galaxy.
Post edited March 17, 2022 by joppo
high rated
Thank you for addressing certain subjects.
As a customer I reached GOG because of the offline installers, which one can download from our Library.

And that's the #1 reason why I am still buying games here. If you keeping faithful to your customers I'll keep faithful to you.
high rated
I will be very honest.I don't care about the achievement system. I don't play games to have an achievement collection or a video game collection. I play to enjoy the video game in my leisure or free time. I love the gaming world. The online features don't interest me at all. I care more about the content of the video game (that it is complete and bug free, that it is kept up to date, that I can download it and save it for myself and install it whenever I want). In my case I'm more of a ''single player'' type of video gamer. The challenge is to beat the artificial intelligence. I respect gamers who play their games online and I feel that multiplayer options should be maintained so that those people can continue to enjoy their video games the way they want to. So it is with great joy and excitement that I welcome the fact that GOG is still GOG. Thank you very much!
low rated
avatar
joppo: Gog is trying to communicate at least.

One thing I wanna point out however is that actions speak louder than words. If they want to make that message of commitment to DRM-free undeniably clear they could release the Cyberpunk2077 "My Rewards" items DRM-free in a free DLC not bound to Galaxy.

But I am pleasantly surprised by this, so much that I will temporarily suspend my boycotting position.
The in-game items received in Cyberpunk 2077 are purely cosmetic and in no way affect the single player experience of the game. However, we’re adding information about such functionalities on product pages. Therefore, you will always know in case a game includes them.
...
Post edited May 24, 2022 by clarry
avatar
Linko64: '' relevant now, as things like game preservation become an important topic for the whole industry.''

Only now?

Yeeesh

As a side note, you still don't really make clear what DRM-free is to you, nor is there any real commitment made on the topic... which is partly why the Hitman saga ran on for so long. Skating around problems does not count as addressing them. By your logic with Hitman it was DRM-Free and passable due to the bones of the single-player being offline... when we know that mean's the paying customer (at a high price) was getting very little in return, barely half a game in truth.

I can see the sentiment you're going for, but the wording (all that 'jazz'...?) lacks commitment to a stance and allows a whole load of wiggle room for you. You're propping yourself up as the only place to preserve games and offer DRM-free titles, yet seem afraid to commit to it; that's not going to speak to many people.
avatar
carwglas: Literally what do you want them to say? Copy paste the definition from Wikipedia? They outlined 3 basic criteria of what every DRM-free game on GOG is, and everything outside those three points (cosmetics, achievements, in-game events etc.) is optional. GOG finally made a proper statement on something that was being asked of them for years, and you choose to argue semantics. Can't help but laugh!
I'll give you a hand with this one, get you linked in on the point

''The single-player mode has to be accessible offline''

This leaves a fair amount of wriggle room for titles that are barebones unless connecting online... much like Hitman. It was pretty clear that was a point made in the post... hence the question.

When working within DRM-Free circles and comms it would be something that would pop up and needs attetion

No one wants GOG to go down, but you have to address issues, even if it means taking a bruise, the Hitman issue left a lot of distrust and questions. A blanket statement that leaves room for questions doesn't fix that. Hope this makes things clearer.
Post edited March 17, 2022 by Linko64
high rated
I appreciate that this piece clears up the whole thing about how GOG defines DRM-free at the moment, right in the middle of the era of live services and the likes (which make preservation a bit of a pain in the ass).

But here's the pertinent question.

1. The single-player mode has to be accessible offline.
As much as I appreciate this point being included in what makes DRM-free DRM-free, it's vague and open to wild interpretation. Such vagueness will allow games like the new HITMAN happening again, and again, and again. I'm pretty sure you, GOG staff, would not like to relive that experience as much as I do, if not the whole community at large.

The new Hitman technically had a single player mode, accessible offline, so it satisfied this checkbox on a surface level. But all of the cool stuff (that are accessed and playable in singleplayer, mind you) still required an internet connection. I don't remember the exact details, someone may fill them in better than I do, but even unlocks and rewards weren't accessible until you went online. Again, technically the game was playable offline, but so much of the single player content was still gated off behind online connectivity.

I do appreciate that this was stated loud and clear, and in bold letters to boot, but when I think of that point, I think of Stardew Valley for example. All of the game's vast content is playable in single player and offline. Only the multiplayer and Galaxy stuff requires internet, and if you ignore Galaxy there's almost nothing lost (you can still play online but that's kudos to ConcernedApe for forward thinking and I understand it's not really up to GOG). I don't think of the new Hitman.

Thanks for the update and I hope you take the point I was trying to make into heart.
Post edited March 20, 2022 by PookaMustard
I agree with these three points. It´s a good beginning.

Securom/Starforce protections were awful.
high rated
Back in my old days, multiplayer was just a matter of opening a server and connecting to an IP. Guess this requires a DRM now?
GoG could (should?) have a clear stance on that matter. People like me like (liked?) GoG for two reasons: because you own the games you buy, and because games were supposedly filtered to only keep Good games (which is subjective, yes, but can still represent a minimal quality requirement). Those were very similar and compatible with the Linux mentality, and I'm pretty sure GoG has a much bigger ratio of Linux users than other platforms.

However, what has it become now? GoG Galaxy 2.0 (also known as "the update nobody wanted") arrived, unfinished but yet mandatory, still incompatible with Linux, and allowing games to implement a DRM *inside* GoG. Two issues here, one obvious, and the other a bit less as it has been forgotten long ago, it seems:
- GoG is supposed to fight against DRM, not to implement them
- GoG is not supposed to accept games with DRM, and should a game be sold on GoG while still including DRMs (whether using Galaxy or not), it should be removed as quickly as possible from the store, allow anyone who bought it to be refunded, and never come back unless every kind of DRM has been removed. Yes, it is extreme, but it should *never* happen if the GoG team filtered the game properly in the first place.

Now why would it matter that much for GoG? Money is money, and if people who got lured into using GoG for DRM-free games forgot about it and keep buying without thinking, it's all good, no?
Well, let's put aside the moral aspects (since those seem to be long forgotten anyway). Out of all decent game shops, the only ones that still provide DRM-free games are GoG, and Itch.io. Out of those two, GoG is the only one that has the strength (let's not forget that CDPR made more money than, for example, Ubisoft: if they want to do something, they can) to attract big games and "force" them to provide fully DRM-free versions. Yes, it means losing money (or rather, losing profit, which is not the same), and making a lot of efforts, and showing a lot of honesty towards buyers. Yes, it is hard.
It is hard, but the main strength of GoG is the trust from people who buy there. As far as I know, most people who buy on GoG will try to mainly buy on GoG, even if prices are a bit lower on steam or whatever. That's because they trust and like this platform. However, all this relatively dishonest talk about DRMs while still implementing them is destroying this trust, and I'm not sure there is much left. People like me are getting really disappointed at GoG, and don't see it as "a good alternative" but a "less bad alternative". I am more and more frequently going on Itch to see if the games I want on GoG are there, and I'd rather buy on Itch than on GoG now. Even though they have a relatively crappy interface which makes everything more complicated.

Now I don't know who is at fault here. Marketing teams deciding that money is worth more than trust? CDPR for not putting enough budget in GoG? Community managers giving off a wrong idea of the current stance of GoG about DRMs (as this post may suggest)? I don't know, and to be honest it's not my job to find out. GoG made a single promise, that it keeps on breaking more and more. Buyers like me are trying to be patient with GoG, to give it a chance to stop doing all this nonsense, but we're getting close to the point of no-return. Trust isn't something you can get back, as a company, especially when you prove that no matter how central your promises are, you can still break them for something as trivial as money for a company as big as CDPR.

It would be time to go back to the core of what made GoG a serious platform: the idea that a game retailer could still have ethics and morals. Because it's your last opportunity to disappoint us, or not.
high rated
avatar
GOG.com: snip
- single-player offline gameplay = an absolute must for me
- online multiplayer = I don't mind if it's there, though I usually won't use it (offline MP modes I do use (occasionally): hotseat and/or LAN).
- achievements/rewards = again: I don't mind them, but I also don't need them
- vanity items (= items in a game that are purely cosmetic, not affecting the player's abilities in any way) = and once again: I don't mind those being around, but I don't need them.

I guess if I had to put all this into a single sentence, it would be as follows:

Just give me the opportunity to play my games completely offline from beginning to end, and I'm a happy camper.