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

×
If gog would stop rejecting the old games that made them famous, that would help too:

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/games_gogcom_has_turned_down/post302
avatar
Lucian_Galca: If gog would stop rejecting the old games that made them famous, that would help too:

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/games_gogcom_has_turned_down/post302
Honestly this just pisses me off.
avatar
Lucian_Galca: If gog would stop rejecting the old games that made them famous, that would help too:

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/games_gogcom_has_turned_down/post302
avatar
Chromanin: Honestly this just pisses me off.
Same here. It's baffling too. They even supposedly rejected the original Apple versions of Shadowgate, etc thathit Steam years ago:

https://store.steampowered.com/sub/59404/
avatar
§pec†re: They can implement LAN for multiplayer.
avatar
JakobFel: On some games, yes, but not most modern games unless the developer adds it (and that's no small task if the game is designed to have online-only multiplayer).
LAN is,or was, a standard PC game option however when modern game "devs" can't even manage to have proper control configuration........

avatar
BrianSim: No, most criticism I've seen comes from ordinary people who are getting tired of "optional" Galaxy's increasing un-optionality. Whether some people call it "DRM" or not is irrelevant when the reason most people want offline installers is just as much they don't want to be forced to use a client (especially for single player games) as they don't want DRM checks just to get the game to work properly and access the same content they paid the same money for in OFFLINE installers.
In some cases, that's on the devs, not GOG and it's not the fault of Galaxy either. Devs favor clients because, to my knowledge, it makes it a lot easier to publish games, deploy updates and engage with the community.
They like clients because it lets them do what they want against the interests of the customer.
Post edited November 30, 2021 by §pec†re
low rated
avatar
§pec†re: LAN is,or was, a standard PC game option however when modern game "devs" can't even manage to have proper control
Oh, I know, I loved the LAN era and I'm not against adding that as an option but I'm just saying it's not really GOG's fault if devs don't want a LAN option in their game. GOG basically does what they can in that regard yet they get the Boycott Squad screaming at them about how that's allegedly DRM (it's not) which is really frustrating.
high rated
avatar
JakobFel: In some cases, that's on the devs, not GOG and it's not the fault of Galaxy either.
In the examples I gave, Saints Row 3 is literally a Galaxy API call (that shouldn't be in an offline installer) failing in an offline installer (because there's no Galaxy running). That's as obviously Galaxy related as you can get. And Divinity Original Sin and the 'outdated offline installer vs Galaxy' (not the different 'outdated installer vs Steam' thing) are the cases where GOG has the updated / rollback files available on their servers, they simply refuse to make the available to all customers equally due to a policy based on over-advertising Galaxy. Which as many have observed is the problem with being so enamoured with Galaxy the same basic tech support that used to exist "Hi, x game offline installer isn't working for me but the previous one did, could you provide a link to it please" = "Sure, here you go!" has been replaced with "Oh you're an offline installers user? We can't be bothered to help. Just use Galaxy..."

Whether you like to admit it or not, there's definitely been a downturn in quality of both offline installers, tech support quality for offline installers and pre-release QA testing of offline installers of new games (SR3 Remastered in a nutshell) since Galaxy was introduced (and as a direct effect of it). That's not even up for debate. Shortly after Galaxy 1.0 (two website makeovers ago), GOG first hid the offline installer download links behind a sub-menu (to which at first glance some people actually thought they removed them from the website), for which people literally had to beg GOG during the last website makeover to move them back onto the main game card (underneath the giant blue INSTALL GAME WITH GOG GALAXY button). Around the same time, GOG forced Galaxy stub installers into offline installers (with "g" suffix added to the filename) so if you had 2,000 games, you'd end up with +100GB of wasted space consisting entirely of 2,000x duplicated Galaxy installers embedded inside offline installers? Remember the huge backlash that caused them to remove the "g" installers? Remember how p*ssed off people were having to re-download the "normal" ones because the "g" ones were made default?...

So no, people here didn't wake up one morning and start suddenly randomly hating on Galaxy for the same reason you don't see "You know what? Today I actively despise Playnite & LaunchBox. For absolutely no reason. That is all" threads here. The increase of people becoming more vocal about disliking Galaxy is the reaction to the "2nd class experience" placed on users using the store for offline installer purposes since approx 2016, and especially over the past 2 years where we've seen intelligence insulting junk like "needing" Galaxy to "unlock" 'bonus content' in single player games entirely as a "please use Galaxy" marketing gimmick, whilst every pre-2019 game AAA released here on GOG that had similar 'pre order bonuses / booster packs', 'bonus cosmetic skins', etc, either included them in the main game installer, or as a separate mini installer without any nonsense. This stuff absolutely causes more unnecessary irritation and division and causes people to view Galaxy in a significantly more negative and less neutral light than if Galaxy was pushed solely in a positive way. That 'bullsh*t fatigue' is what's really driving a lot of Galaxy criticism on many threads, regardless of how some are trying a little too hard to reframe it into some organised irrational 'hate campaign' it simply isn't.
Post edited November 30, 2021 by BrianSim
high rated
Negative impacts Galaxy has on those that don't use it:

1) It sucks up a huge (and disproportionate) amount of GOG's resources, to the extent that other important aspects of the site are neglected. It's been literally years since we saw any changes/improvements to the site besides the front page and GOG's customer support has gone down the toilet in recent years.

2) There are credible accounts that Galaxy is deterring some developers from releasing games here DRM-free, because they don't think the overhead of supporting the Galaxy client is worth it. Axiom Verge is probably the most visibly high-profile of those.

3) It has led to a clear trend of neglecting offline installers, which are the heart and soul of the DRM-free concept. This has also led to divisions between the GOG userbase, with those that don't want Galaxy feeling that they are in-effect treated as second-class customers.

This is not simply unjustified 'hate' towards Galaxy. These are concrete, objective ways in which GOG's heavy focus on Galaxy is negatively impacting me and other GOG customers who don't want it. In addition, several of these items have a negative impact on GOG's 'primary' mission as a DRM-free store.

I wouldn't object to the existence of Galaxy if it was not affecting those that don't use it and/or the DRM-free mission and the amount of resources GOG were spending on it were proportional. I.e. if 40% of GOG's customers use Galaxy, then ~40% of GOG's resource expenditure should be going towards it.

1) and 3) could be solved by a more balanced resource expenditure. 2) could be solved by making Galaxy optional for developers, as well as customers. If those things can't be done for whatever reason, then Galaxy needs to go. Simple as that.
Post edited November 30, 2021 by Time4Tea
avatar
JakobFel: People here hate Galaxy because they have a poor definition of DRM and want everyone to have the experience that they prefer. It's so childish. Galaxy IS still optional, whether the haters want to admit it or not. It has never been forced for ANYTHING other than Gwent and that's just because that's an online-only game by design.
1. Enough of these "strawpeople". I'm sorry but I have seen you bemoan all the Galaxy detractors in multiple topics for being "childish". Please either name names of people who are making such claims and address points directly, or stop creating fiction and then calling your fictional characters names. It isn't good discussion.

2. The "My Rewards" singleplayer cosmetic content of Cyberpunk is one example of something for which Galaxy is not optional. But, let me guess, that's how they designed it (doesn't this go without saying?), so, in the view posited from your comment here, therefore it magically isn't DRM.
low rated
avatar
JakobFel: People here hate Galaxy because they have a poor definition of DRM and want everyone to have the experience that they prefer. It's so childish. Galaxy IS still optional, whether the haters want to admit it or not. It has never been forced for ANYTHING other than Gwent and that's just because that's an online-only game by design.
avatar
rjbuffchix: 1. Enough of these "strawpeople". I'm sorry but I have seen you bemoan all the Galaxy detractors in multiple topics for being "childish". Please either name names of people who are making such claims and address points directly, or stop creating fiction and then calling your fictional characters names. It isn't good discussion.

2. The "My Rewards" singleplayer cosmetic content of Cyberpunk is one example of something for which Galaxy is not optional. But, let me guess, that's how they designed it (doesn't this go without saying?), so, in the view posited from your comment here, therefore it magically isn't DRM.
1) It's not a strawman to say your attitudes are childish.

2) Oh yes, because useless cosmetic content that is a thanks to those who use Galaxy is somehow making Galaxy required. Not to derail the topic but the definition of DRM is right in the name: digital rights management. Not "online multiplayer needs client" or "optional cosmetic content thanking Galaxy users".
low rated
avatar
Ancient-Red-Dragon: The statement that GOG has wasted tons of money on Galaxy is correct, but that isn't because of Achievements.
True, and worth pointing out. That is not really what I was trying to get at with the achievements though. I wanted to illustrate sort of a contrast to your earlier position. You suggested no one cares about curation and it harms the DRM-free principle. I counter that not that many people care about achievements (you are probably the most eager I've seen, that's not a slight btw), and that they harm the DRM-free principle by focusing things around a client which is in opposition to DRM-free gaming since it pushes things online rather than offline.

avatar
Ancient-Red-Dragon: With no Galaxy client at all, then GOG would be probably be driving off many potential customers because GOG would have no ability to offer Cloud Saves, which is a vital feature in our modern day.
I don't think people who are vociferous for DRM-free, care that much about cloud saves. Mainstream audiences, I couldn't tell you. I believe it was GTA IV backwards compatible version on modern Xbox consoles where the ONLY options allowed for saving are cloud saves, so I personally would file this along with achievements as a feature designed to get people plugged-in, always-on, reliant on the client. In other words, something that pulls the brand in different directions and which should not be part of a "barebones, back-to-basics" type of strategy for GOG.

avatar
Ancient-Red-Dragon: As for Axiom Verge, that didn't come to GOG because the dev wanted to be lazy and not give GOG customers an equal version of the game if he were to release it here. Him at least being ethical enough not to give GOG customers a gimped version is something he deserves credit for, and us being 'deprived' of having a gimped version here is a win for us, not a loss.
I disagree but we can leave it at that.

avatar
Ancient-Red-Dragon: Whereas, giving all customers on all platforms equal treatment makes everyone happy, because even people who don't like Achievements won't be upset if a game includes them (especially since anyone who doesn't want them always has the choice never to use them), and they also won't refuse to buy any game due to them being included.
The really equal treatment would be to have in-game achievements so that anyone with any version of the game can earn them. Why do they need to be linked to social media online stuff? If GOG were to focus strictly on DRM-free gaming, does it really make sense to go for all that online stuff too? Seems like spreading themselves thin, trying to have cake and eat it too, etc...the things that may have gotten them to this point as it is right now.
avatar
rjbuffchix: 1. Enough of these "strawpeople". I'm sorry but I have seen you bemoan all the Galaxy detractors in multiple topics for being "childish". Please either name names of people who are making such claims and address points directly, or stop creating fiction and then calling your fictional characters names. It isn't good discussion.

2. The "My Rewards" singleplayer cosmetic content of Cyberpunk is one example of something for which Galaxy is not optional. But, let me guess, that's how they designed it (doesn't this go without saying?), so, in the view posited from your comment here, therefore it magically isn't DRM.
avatar
JakobFel: 1) It's not a strawman to say your attitudes are childish.

2) Oh yes, because useless cosmetic content that is a thanks to those who use Galaxy is somehow making Galaxy required. Not to derail the topic but the definition of DRM is right in the name: digital rights management. Not "online multiplayer needs client" or "optional cosmetic content thanking Galaxy users".
1. Please identify specific points I made which you believe are childish and perhaps we can address them. Lumping me into some collective isn't productive to discussion.

2. Your original claim that I was making this point towards was that Galaxy "has never been forced for ANYTHING other than Gwent". Obviously, that is false. By the way, how much more courting and romancing do Galaxy users need? Would you at least admit this is a disparity between the treatment of Galaxy users and the treatment of offline installer users, being that the latter never get such thanks, don't get to preload like Galaxy users despite apparently being able to years ago, etc?
Post edited November 30, 2021 by rjbuffchix
avatar
Chromanin: Honestly this just pisses me off.
avatar
Lucian_Galca: Same here. It's baffling too. They even supposedly rejected the original Apple versions of Shadowgate, etc thathit Steam years ago:

https://store.steampowered.com/sub/59404/
These are just the few that we know that exist. We don’t know how many others have been lost like this.

There are tons of options still left in this field. What about funneling attention to good old games by hosting truly abandonned or freeware titles on GoG free of charge? What about creating a GoG workshop for modding old games? And really, emulation is leaving so much money on the table. You won’t start with the big ones, but try to negotiate old devices with a free license software catalogue.
avatar
Chromanin: Honestly, you are arguing quantity of releases while it should be quality.
I was mostly replying to "GOG should focus on old games not DRM-Free" as the issue isn't "DRM-Free is holding back old games" at all, as I posted on another thread earlier, all the 'low-hanging fruit' has been picked and this late in the day most of the missing classics GOG can't get are almost entirely down to rights issues. I'm certainly not arguing "quantity over quality" in terms of opening the gates Steam-style. I am happy though that we also have 'good new games' here like Stardew Valley, Dusk, etc, instead of just relying on "old" titles (for which the cutoff is a moving target anyway).

avatar
Chromanin: But they can carve out their niche by providing a higher quality for the titles that they do offer, and then specifically old games that are more difficult to run on current day machines.
Problem there is there seems to be some contract clause where any fixes GOG makes can be used by other platforms. I'm pretty sure I've seen this before, eg, Commandos Behind Enemy was dumped on Steam "raw" and just didn't work. GOG fixed it and as if by magic, the Steam version started working shortly after with the same fix. So I don't there's much money in GOG deliberately seeking out the most difficult to fix games if the developer can just copy-paste that to Steam under contract.

avatar
Chromanin: Do a mini remastering where widescreen support is enabled, or various mods with agreement
The bulk of that level of enhancement (beyond simple compatibility) stuff is that patches / source ports are usually done for free by the modding community (often taking years of work and requiring source code be leaked / released). Eg, NewDark for Thief 1-2 & System Shock 2 is pre-integrated on GOG, but GOG didn't do the work on creating that or the preceeding TFix / Tafferpatcher themselves, that was modders from the TTLG forums and it can be applied equally to the Steam / disc versions. For games with no available source code GOG simply can't do anything on such scale. Likewise searching for "GZDoom" in Steam's Ultimate Doom discussion forum comes up with dozens of pages where people just add it themselves. So stuff like that is not something that'll ever be unique to GOG, and that grade of enhancement / source port typically takes some very determined people years of work working for free.

avatar
Chromanin: I think a really big win in this space would be legitimizing emulators to run old console titles. That would be a big win. Starting from small players of old systems to test out the waters.
It's certainly one option. If you mean like Nintendo, they are notoriously finicky as hell with older games rights. They'd rather just keep booting out re-releases on new platforms, or sell those overpriced new "retro console" usually with an extremely small amount of games. For 64kb era C64 / ZX Spectrum stuff, there's no real money in it vs existing archive sites.
low rated
avatar
rjbuffchix: 1. Please identify specific points I made which you believe are childish and perhaps we can address them. Lumping me into some collective isn't productive to discussion.

2. Your original claim that I was making this point towards was that Galaxy "has never been forced for ANYTHING other than Gwent". Obviously, that is false. By the way, how much more courting and romancing do Galaxy users need? Would you at least admit this is a disparity between the treatment of Galaxy users and the treatment of offline installer users, being that the latter never get such thanks, don't get to preload like Galaxy users despite apparently being able to years ago, etc?
This will likely be my last post here for a while, as this discussion diverges into a completely different discussion.

1) I have done so on many, many different occasions and it always, ALWAYS boils down to "We don't like Galaxy and so nobody should be allowed to use it, even if they enjoy it."

2) It's not false, Gwent is the only game for which Galaxy is required. Online multiplayer requires a client, that's just how it works; you may want LAN multiplayer but go to the devs of the game, not GOG. They can't really do anything about that. And basically, the gift in Cyberpunk is CDP saying "Thanks for being a user of our client, since everyone seems to be so opposed to it for no real reason." As I said previously on this thread, I do agree that offline installers should be kept up to date. I think EVERYONE on GOG should be treated equally but that cuts both ways: users who prefer the offline installers should be given up-to-date files at all times but Galaxy users should not be cast aside just because a few selfish individuals want Galaxy to be shuttered just because they don't like it.
avatar
JakobFel: This will likely be my last post here for a while, as this discussion diverges into a completely different discussion.

1) I have done so on many, many different occasions and it always, ALWAYS boils down to "We don't like Galaxy and so nobody should be allowed to use it, even if they enjoy it."
This is utter nonsense. I have provided several very objective ways in which Galaxy negatively impacts those who don't use it in my last post, which you seem to be ignoring. Please either engage with the debate and address the legitimate points others are making, or be quiet.

Tbh, your approach to this discussion could be described as 'gaslighting'.
Post edited November 30, 2021 by Time4Tea
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: Sorry, I have to completely disagree. Modding should not be part of any commercial enterprise. Otherwise we get workshop or creation club, locked platforms only for a certain group or for commercial purposes. Even moddb nowadays, half the stuff on there is just adverts for workshop, no access for those not on it regardless of where you brought the game.
Having gog, who can’t even fix the purple dot, attempt their own modding integration would create another closed environment which will fail pretty quickly.
I see you passed your accelerated reading class with an F, seeing as you completely misread the point I was making.

There are platforms like this, where gaming communities can organize their mods in such a way as to not be tied to the steam workshop or any integration. Many games do integrate with the platform, with no cost to the user.