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

×
avatar
Niggles: what's the point and why? I'm happy if they build it in-house.
avatar
shmerl: The point is explained in the thread about open sourcing the client.

The key idea is trust. "Being happy" doesn't make such client more secure or trustworthy. Building it in house can be perfectly fine, if they open the client as well. Community client would be needed if GOG will decide to keep the client closed.
I really don't see any benefit for customers in general except keeping people who are paranoid about "closed" software from being suspicious.I don't see any benefit for the greater user base. Im looking for practical benefits and not this trust thing some people go on about
avatar
Niggles: I really don't see any benefit for customers in general except keeping people who are paranoid about "closed" software from being suspicious.I don't see any benefit for the greater user base. Im looking for practical benefits and not this trust thing some people go on about
It has nothing to do with being paranoid. It's basics of security. Trusting closed code is bad by definition especially if the task of such code is managing installations and it also has network connectivity.

Trust is a practical benefit, even of you don't realize it. Otherwise why would GOG bother with being DRM-free in general? Steam doesn't bother with it for example.
Post edited June 06, 2014 by shmerl
avatar
Niggles: I really don't see any benefit for customers in general except keeping people who are paranoid about "closed" software from being suspicious.I don't see any benefit for the greater user base. Im looking for practical benefits and not this trust thing some people go on about
avatar
shmerl: It has nothing to do with being paranoid. It's basics of security. Trusting closed code is bad by definition especially if the task of such code is managing installations and it also has network connectivity.
Dude. You seem to be the main one going on about it, and i ask again, is there any real practical benefit to it being open sourced?. This is closed code by GOG, are you saying you dont trust GOG?.
avatar
Niggles: Dude. You seem to be the main one going on about it, and i ask again, is there any real practical benefit to it being open sourced?. This is closed code by GOG, are you saying you dont trust GOG?.
I already explained the benefit, but you fail to understand it. Open code can be audited better. That gives potential for better security. A very practical benefit if you ask me. The fact that you personally don't care about it doesn't make it not beneficial.

It's not a question of whether me or anyone else trusts GOG. It's the question of improving trust.
Post edited June 06, 2014 by shmerl
avatar
Niggles: I don't see any benefit for the greater user base. Im looking for practical benefits and not this trust thing some people go on about
More eyes to spot flaws to begin with.
And there is a difference between saying 'we won't screw you' and showing 'we won't screw you', you may not care but it has its importance.
avatar
shmerl: There is a request already for GOG to open source the upcoming updater client:
https://secure.gog.com/wishlist/site/release_the_future_gog_updater_client_as_open_source

However if you can't do that, it shouldn't prevent GOG from opening the protocol and API used by the client. It would make creating an open community alternative client for GOG service much easier than trying to reverse engineer it.

__________________________
* See corresponding wishlist entry to vote for opening the protocol and API.
Yes, I very much agree.

If not, then developers might be tempted to only support GOG Galaxy, because it would possibly be less work for them, and once GOG Galaxy shuts down in the future, multiplayer will become impossible for these games.

As someone who coop-ed System Shock 2 last year, and who is currently coop-ing Icewind Dale, I am very glad that these games support open standards for multiplayer.

Let's please maintain this possibility for future games.

Or to put it more bluntly: When the GOGers design Galaxy it is imperative that they always keep in mind that at some point their company will be bankrupt. It may be tomorrow or in 20 years, but it will happen. GOG Galaxy needs to be designed accordingly. Memento mori.
avatar
shmerl: There is a request already for GOG to open source the upcoming updater client:
https://secure.gog.com/wishlist/site/release_the_future_gog_updater_client_as_open_source

However if you can't do that, it shouldn't prevent GOG from opening the protocol and API used by the client. It would make creating an open community alternative client for GOG service much easier than trying to reverse engineer it.

__________________________
* See corresponding wishlist entry to vote for opening the protocol and API.
avatar
rhoelzl: Yes, I very much agree.

If not, then developers might be tempted to only support GOG Galaxy, because it would possibly be less work for them, and once GOG Galaxy shuts down in the future, multiplayer will become impossible for these games.

As someone who coop-ed System Shock 2 last year, and who is currently coop-ing Icewind Dale, I am very glad that these games support open standards for multiplayer.

Let's please maintain this possibility for future games.

Or to put it more bluntly: When the GOGers design Galaxy it is imperative that they always keep in mind that at some point their company will be bankrupt. It may be tomorrow or in 20 years, but it will happen. GOG Galaxy needs to be designed accordingly. Memento mori.
Thats a bad thing to say. Many companies never go bankupt. Thats a very strong thing to say....
avatar
rhoelzl: once GOG Galaxy shuts down in the future, multiplayer will become impossible for these games.
Does it? Certainly we dont have any real details, but atleast the trailer was all rage about being optional.

There arent that many new games, which support direct ip connecting for example - so in this sense Galaxy isnt atleast making things worse. Who knows, how their game connection/finding will work anyways? Atleast i understood the trailer in such way, that Galaxy isnt probably offering actual masterservers or such, but just the tools for finding players and connecting.

Anyways, we'll see eventually.
Since GoG team members always ranted about the problem of supporting enough Linux distros (and finally going for Ubuntu/Mint), opening the source would be logical so that people can do that themselves for all the other distros.
avatar
shmerl: in case of Linux open source client can be packaged in system repositories for example. That's a practical benefit as well.
Yeah, I sure like my repos. :)
Post edited June 06, 2014 by Klumpen0815
avatar
iippo: Does it? Certainly we dont have any real details, but atleast the trailer was all rage about being optional.
I interpreted that to mean that you will always be able to play SINGLE player, but they did not seem to say anything about multiplayer.

avatar
iippo: Galaxy isnt probably offering actual masterservers or such, but just the tools for finding players and connecting.
Even that requires a master server which will probably be run by GOG. The server will not do very much, but it will still be an essential component of the system. That's why proper documentation of API and protocols (or even better open-sourcing the client and server) is so important. That would be the future-proof solution, where the server can always be replaced or the client be adapted to new technologies, standards, environments, etc..
high rated
avatar
Niggles: I really don't see any benefit for customers in general except keeping people who are paranoid about "closed" software from being suspicious.I don't see any benefit for the greater user base. Im looking for practical benefits and not this trust thing some people go on about
To what extent have you ever been involved in any open source software?

Anyway, you want to see the benefits, all right, let's make a rundown:
a) The part of the community who's capable at programming can make:
- Their own, personal branches of the application to suit their own needs
- Collaborate on public branches, implementing functionality that GOG would never have thought of, with the possibility of GOG incorporating the best ones into the core application - that's free work for GOG and more options for every customer. Good example would be cloud saves, video streaming etc. - I'm willing to bet that if GOG doesn't implement them in the first place, this functionality will get into a useable state withing weeks of community contribution. And best of all, GOG does not have to actually accept these features and incorporate them into the main release.

b) Developers! If GOG provides both API AND source code for the application, devs can actually make their own additions of features they would expect of the client - again, with no cost for GOG, but with the benefit of GOG saying whether or not that particular feature is acceptable.

c) The security thing you seem to not give a toss about

d) Free debugging/bug fixing. If there's a bug GOG can't quite murderize - a common occurence in GOG's software - at one point or another, a community member will come out and do it for them. For free.

e) Talent hunting. Whenever GOG or CD-Project needs to expand their teams, suddenly they'll have a bunch of proven developers to choose from.

f)
avatar
shmerl: in case of Linux open source client can be packaged in system repositories
g) Popularity. If GOG wants to expand to Linux world and releases an open source client, they suddenly get a lot of converts from Steam and a shitton of sales.

Now let's take a look at the downsides:
a) ... ... ...
Oh, right.
Post edited June 06, 2014 by Fenixp
avatar
Niggles: Thats a bad thing to say. Many companies never go bankupt. Thats a very strong thing to say....
Saying "never" is the very strong thing to say IMHO...

Modern capitalism is not older than a few decades. And even in this short period of time we have seen bankruptcies everywhere. My remaining life expectancy is around 50 years. A lot can happen in that period...

If you are seriously not afraid of that scenario, why are you on GOG at all? In that case there is no real reason not to use Steam!?
avatar
iippo: Does it? Certainly we dont have any real details, but atleast the trailer was all rage about being optional.
avatar
rhoelzl: I interpreted that to mean that you will always be able to play SINGLE player, but they did not seem to say anything about multiplayer.

avatar
iippo: Galaxy isnt probably offering actual masterservers or such, but just the tools for finding players and connecting.
avatar
rhoelzl: Even that requires a master server which will probably be run by GOG. The server will not do very much, but it will still be an essential component of the system. That's why proper documentation of API and protocols (or even better open-sourcing the client and server) is so important. That would be the future-proof solution, where the server can always be replaced or the client be adapted to new technologies, standards, environments, etc..
Just to make certain, i am not opposed to open source. Rather i just wanted point out that there arent really any real info to know one way or the other.

It would be cool, if they made standard for "open" masterservers (anyone could add their own masterserver - but you need to select it separately) and ofcourse hamachi-like virtual lan / ip connection.

If they made and marketed these, hopefully future games might have such functions. Atleast indies - i am pretty certain COD's, BF's and such will remain forever in their own lobbies.
avatar
Niggles: I really don't see any benefit for customers in general except keeping people who are paranoid about "closed" software from being suspicious.I don't see any benefit for the greater user base. Im looking for practical benefits and not this trust thing some people go on about
Closed systems are like marriages. Youre happy with it, love it, place your trust in it thinking it lasts forever - until the eventual day it breaks down and there's nothing you or anyone else can do to fix it. because its closed. forever.

I should know.

--

the point is, if youre not seeing the obvious benefit of something being open software - then you just have been lucky enough not to run into real problems so far.
Post edited June 06, 2014 by iippo
avatar
shmerl: Games are different because their focus is not to manage the system (like installation) but to provide a gaming experience.
For those with short memories...
Post edited June 06, 2014 by jamyskis
I agree with the people who want it to be open. It will separate it from other DDs that are closed with DRM which makes it all the better. Open API is nice too so people can add whatever extra features GOG doesn't feel is a requirement (like turning off achievements or optional settings regarding auto-updating).