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

×
Community
General discussionWhich is holding back GOG more from getting "AAA" games here: lack of DRM or smaller userbase (vs Steam and co.)?(97 posts)(97 posts)
(97 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Posted August 02, 2019
No need to panic yet, folks. This year we already got "Bioshock 3" and "Vampyr". I still remember quite clearly how, some years ago, many people in the forum stated that we'd never get the Bioshocks here.

All things change. Videogame industry is going through a very bad phase, right now. These kind of "crisis" are somehow cyclical. Inevitably things will change, because they always do.
Untl then my only suggestion is:
Do you believe in GOG's drm-free project? Then keep supporting GOG.
Posted August 02, 2019
avatar
Kelefane: Just stick to old games. It's why some folks join GOG to begin with.
avatar
Emob78: There are plenty of old AAA titles not being released as well. ...
Yeah that's a thing that kinda frustrates me. Old (2, 5, 10 years) AAA's are usually fully patched (official patches at least) and already being pirated so why can't GOG get more of them? I seriously doubt GOG is rejecting them. Obviously, if they're not on Steam, companies may want them exclusive to their own services (Origin, Battle.net, etc.), but there are many on Steam that aren't here.
Posted August 02, 2019
low rated
avatar
tfishell: I always hear about how GOG doesn't get big-name publisher "AAA" games because GOG doesn't allow DRM, and while I no major reason to believe otherwise, I wonder - if GOG suddenly allowed DRM - if devs and pubs would actually suddenly be willing to invest time and money to bring games here when GOG still has a small marketshare compared to Steam and co. Is the lack of DRM or the small userbase holding back GOG more?
I think it's Steam's ability to let them sell to more people(current userbase is much bigger), the fact they allow DRM on their games(so you cannot keep it forever or pass it down to others after you die/etc), and possibly some other factors as well.

Even with Galaxy 2.0 coming I don't think many will switch from steam/epic/etc en masse unless GOG were allowed to sell ALL games at a similar pricepoint(AFAIK devs have agreements with steam/etc to not allow this or devs make GOG sell for higher to push people to steam/etc), and without those user numbers some devs won't sell here or sell much here.
avatar
DadJoke007: The only real advantage GOG has over Steam is that it's DRM-free, and that's one big advantage. The moment they allow DRM in games sold here, Pandora's Box will be opened and they will lose their only advantage.

At least I imagine it must be really tough to compete with Steam head-on, just going back to myself I would pick Steam over GOG any day of the week if such a thing would happen.
Question: If no store offered any good new games or old ones you don't have DRM free, would you ditch gaming altogether(except for old games you have already)?
avatar
Timboli: I also doubt that many of the GOG diehards would be willing to pay the high prices asked for AAA games anyway if here. I know I wouldn't, not in a month of Sundays ... never in fact.

DRM-Free and cheap is the mantra for many of us.
I wouldn't pay such prices usually either(with some exceptions) but c'mon....even in years past games were high priced, and some had much less gameplay or replayability than some games now &* people still bought them back then.
avatar
DadJoke007: The only real advantage GOG has over Steam is that it's DRM-free, and that's one big advantage. The moment they allow DRM in games sold here, Pandora's Box will be opened and they will lose their only advantage.

At least I imagine it must be really tough to compete with Steam head-on, just going back to myself I would pick Steam over GOG any day of the week if such a thing would happen.
avatar
tfishell: Okay but if GOG allowed DRM would they actually get "big name" games here (and not just as Steam keys)? I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm asking the likelihood of this happening.
I find it sad that even ASKING this got this post low rated.....some people are so blind in their hatred of DRM.
avatar
Timboli: What in fact would be the point of GOG?

Why would you want AAA games here, if not DRM-Free, why not just buy at Steam or elsewhere?
I'm guessing for some(though not all) supporting a good/nice store/site is more important than/as important as DRM free.
avatar
karnak1: In my opinion, and considering what's been happening with the industry lately, it's the 100% DRM-free stance that's "scaring" the AAA publishers. The dirty trick that Bethesda recently tried to push with "Doom 2" is a proof that publishers are really not willing to relax on DRM.

================

Interesting enough: the more years pass, the less I miss the steam-only games. Maybe it's the fact that I've enough quality games on GOG or the fact that 90% of AAA games nowadays are just overhyped, recycled trash which one seems to have already played 5 or 6 years ago :P
\What did they try and pull with Doom 2?

============

Imo that 90% number is a TAD hyperbolic. ;)
avatar
jonridan: Witht DRM, GOG would simply collapse because everyone here would stop buying, and everyone not here would simply not bother.
If they offered games cheaper than other sites i'd likely still buy, albeit i'd buy less and at cheaper prices.
Post edited August 02, 2019 by GameRager
Posted August 02, 2019
low rated
avatar
Timboli: I know what you are asking, but it is more thought bubble than thought experiment. :)
avatar
tfishell: eh maybe. I keep hearing folks tell newbies that DRM-free is the main thing keeping GOG from getting new games; I keep thinking it's the small userbase b/c "nobody" wants to bother releasing here for a few bucks when they can make millions on Steam alone. I guess it is what it is. They do have CyberPunk2077 to fund the next few years of business at least ;)

avatar
djoxyk: OP must be looking for a way to shut down gog :)
avatar
tfishell: gog must die and we must crie
1. True, but if GOG keeps relying on CDPR money to stay afloat all it would take would be one flop game or CDPR to stop making games so often and they'd lose that money source.

2. Pie?

(American Dad ref, btw)

avatar
tfishell: I always hear about how GOG doesn't get big-name publisher "AAA" games because GOG doesn't allow DRM, and while I no major reason to believe otherwise, I wonder - if GOG suddenly allowed DRM - if devs and pubs would actually suddenly be willing to invest time and money to bring games here when GOG still has a small marketshare compared to Steam and co. Is the lack of DRM or the small userbase holding back GOG more?
avatar
hedwards: Isn't being DRM free basically the only original principle that they're sticking to? They've got new games, unfinished games, bad games, games without goodies and various weird pricing schemes.
But it's the most important one for many.

Also fwiw they also have the buggy site/forums.

avatar
rjbuffchix: Lack of DRM and small userbase are things that go hand-in-hand with each other. That is, ownership of games is a niche thing in this day and age (very sadly). I don't think GOG is being "held back" per se; I think the relatively small userbase is a fact of DRM-free because by contrast most mainstream people just want to rent their games and play battle royales. The small size of GOG is not cause for alarm though, because they can succeed by catering to a niche market, much better than they could by being an inferior Steam clone (this is why the constant focus on Galaxy is at best misguided imo).

Epic's store is kind of a special case because of their near-unlimited resources. Barring GOG or a similar small store putting out the next Fortnite on their own, I don't think it is possible to "compete" on the mainstream stage. And for as much hype as Epic gets, it is really the Steam monopoly that rules the roost, colors the direction of mainstream PC gaming, and is seen as "the default". The mental/cultural programming has become so ingrained to equate Steam AS PC gaming, that I don't think anything can undo it at this point. Hence the better strategy of catering to a niche market.
The problem with gog's small size/niche market, though, is that as time goes on the various titles that appeal most will reach market saturation on GOG, and that is mainly why they now sell indie titles as well.

avatar
tfishell: gog must die and we must crie
avatar
Timboli: Is that the truth of you finally sneaking out?
It's a joke/line from American Dad(US tv show).

avatar
Timboli: Then again, if the likes of Hexen and Heretic etc, don't have any DRM, then why aren't they here? Clearly it would seem some kind of dislike or bias is going on. Maybe the pricing model or some other aspect of the deal ... or just against GOG in principle?
Steam/etc have larger userbases to sell to, and devs might get to keep more money with such on steam....who knows 100% for certain.

avatar
karnak1: In all honesty I mostly blame gamers for accepting and endorsing such practices. Sellers will try to sell, that's a fact. But they only do it, because someone is buying :(
Eh, those who love only DRM free still have sites to fall back on and media to consume. Let people play what they want and try to influence new devs/projects as best as one can.
Post edited August 02, 2019 by GameRager
Posted August 02, 2019
avatar
Timboli: The customer could control what is and isn't acceptable, but many just blindly give into urges ... ruled by lust rather than a brain.
Not to be too rude, but you say that as if it's that easy for people to give up such wants and desires.
Posted August 02, 2019
avatar
karnak1: In my opinion, and considering what's been happening with the industry lately, it's the 100% DRM-free stance that's "scaring" the AAA publishers. The dirty trick that Bethesda recently tried to push with "Doom 2" is a proof that publishers are really not willing to relax on DRM.

================

Interesting enough: the more years pass, the less I miss the steam-only games. Maybe it's the fact that I've enough quality games on GOG or the fact that 90% of AAA games nowadays are just overhyped, recycled trash which one seems to have already played 5 or 6 years ago :P
avatar
GameRager: \What did they try and pull with Doom 2?
It wasn't only with Doom2. It was the original Doom trilogy. My bad.

https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/26/8932238/doom-classic-2-3-bethesda-net-account-required-meme
Posted August 02, 2019
low rated
avatar
karnak1: No. Because most AAA devs have known for a long time (specially because most of them probably pirated games in the past) that the average user (with just a minimum of internet searching) can easily download a "drm-free" (*cough cough*) installer for 95% of PC games on the market (inluding those previously protected by Denuvo).
Not all are morally allowed by their morals to do that, however...and companies know that.

avatar
spitfire1966: So, are you saying that devs have zero concern about users setting up shop on GOG to copy (and even 'sell') their offline installers to other users? Come on, what's to stop anyone from doing this and I am quite certain it's already occuring. It would be safer for jerks to do this other than infesting their devices with viruses downloading 'pirated' games from sketchy sites.

At least with GOG offline installers, you can be assured that the games are 100% clean. Wouldn't that be a lot more attractive for thieves?
MANY GOG games are there already on such shady sites(albeit not the latest versions for all games)....those who sell here know this and choose to look past it.
avatar
karnak1: And before GOG (when steam had an almost complete monopoly on new games) I used to download pirate versions of certain games I wanted to play (which I've since bought on GOG). I never caught any virus or malware. I'm far more afraid of Google than I am of "cracked" games, TBH.
Unless one DLs from shady sites with rar locked torrents or similar one usually won't get a virus from such....it is just anti-piracy propaganda spread by companies and those who are also anti-piracy usually.

(To all: I am not advocating people pirate by making this statement)
avatar
rjbuffchix: That's actually a really interesting compromise. Of course, it would require the explicit admission that Galaxy acts as a DRM requirement in some cases. That has certainly not happened yet, and would expose that many "DRM-free games" are in fact only DRM-free for singleplayer but have DRM required to access multiplayer. I am all for calling a spade a spade but I think it would be confusing for customers who have been under the impression that Galaxy is DRM-free gaming only to then be told it is DRM for some games. As pointed out by multiple users, GOG's unique selling point is DRM-free, not Galaxy. So while they could potentially gain more games, it would really erode brand identity to do so.
avatar
spitfire1966: If GOG allowed devs to delay the availability of offline installers to maximize revenue of a title's release (a year or two?), I believe it could be a reasonable compromise for all of GOG's users. Those who are okay with a temporary Galaxy requirement could purchase the game at release, and those who are adamantly opposed could wait for the offline installers to be made available.

This could potentially be a win/win for everyone, including GOG. Just trying to think outside of the box.

Edit:

Actually this would be a win/win/win for everyone (potentially). Users okay with a tempoary Galaxy requirement, users who are competely opposed but are willing to wait a while for offline installer availability, and of course GOG itself by attracting more titles to it's platform.

Call me crazy...or even a GOG heretic, I don't mind.
IF(A BIG IF) they did the drm thing ONLY for new AAA games on galaxy and still allowed all other games to be sold DRM free it might be feasible.
Post edited August 02, 2019 by GameRager
Posted August 02, 2019
avatar
GameRager: The problem with gog's small size/niche market, though, is that as time goes on the various titles that appeal most will reach market saturation on GOG, and that is mainly why they now sell indie titles as well.
That's reasonable (heh) enough, though I can't help but feel there is more of a focus here on getting indies rather than getting old AAA's. In some cases, the old AAA's are available at other stores; in a few cases, I am told the old AAA's are available technically DRM-free at other stores.

The lines between indie and AAA are blurred in quite a few cases (a massive experience like Kingdom Come: Deliverance is not a typical indie game, and was considered a must-buy to me. Once it was clear that offline updates were getting provided, the DLCs were must-buy's too...btw, nice amount of player freedom in that game).

The indies I don't care much for are some of the really raw, unpolished ones (I know I know, insert jokes here about how I'm supposedly a hypocrite because I've said I want Grimoire on GOG). I want massive experiences, DRM-free, whether it comes from a AAA dev or an indie dev. I think that's a good goal to strive for.
Posted August 02, 2019
low rated
avatar
GameRager: \What did they try and pull with Doom 2?
avatar
karnak1: It wasn't only with Doom2. It was the original Doom trilogy. My bad.

https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/26/8932238/doom-classic-2-3-bethesda-net-account-required-meme
Thanks....lol, those memes....
avatar
GameRager: The problem with gog's small size/niche market, though, is that as time goes on the various titles that appeal most will reach market saturation on GOG, and that is mainly why they now sell indie titles as well.
avatar
rjbuffchix: That's reasonable (heh) enough, though I can't help but feel there is more of a focus here on getting indies rather than getting old AAA's. In some cases, the old AAA's are available at other stores; in a few cases, I am told the old AAA's are available technically DRM-free at other stores.

The lines between indie and AAA are blurred in quite a few cases (a massive experience like Kingdom Come: Deliverance is not a typical indie game, and was considered a must-buy to me. Once it was clear that offline updates were getting provided, the DLCs were must-buy's too...btw, nice amount of player freedom in that game).

The indies I don't care much for are some of the really raw, unpolished ones (I know I know, insert jokes here about how I'm supposedly a hypocrite because I've said I want Grimoire on GOG). I want massive experiences, DRM-free, whether it comes from a AAA dev or an indie dev. I think that's a good goal to strive for.
Some devs/ip owners might be locked into only selling on some stores/or for a set period, though......who knows why they do not with some games.
Post edited August 02, 2019 by GameRager
Posted August 03, 2019
avatar
clarry: Sorry, you are obviously the one with no clue. There are tons of multiplayer games that do not require accounts. Also, there are plenty of multiplayer games that have accounts but no DRM as such -- anyone can register an account and it's in no way tied to any sense of "ownership" of said game.

1) No, accounts are in general *not* required for multiplayer.

2) Some games would like to store persistent data about your player profile. The conventional way is to have an account for this purpose. That is not the only way. Also, even when accounts are used, they need not be ones tied to a game store that checks whether you've purchased said game before letting you play (that's very much DRM).

3) Web has nothing to do with multiplayer.
I clearly differentiated between online play and something like LAN. My whole focus was on online play with Galaxy.

So whether I am clueless or not, you will have to change your replies to suit.

In any case, I am not an ONLINE multiplayer, never have been. My only experience with multiplayer, is N64 or LAN, and that in years long gone by. Which is why I was asking for clarity, and not really done to call me clueless when I am asking for an explanation ... how rude .... ha ha ha :P
Posted August 03, 2019
avatar
Timboli: The customer could control what is and isn't acceptable, but many just blindly give into urges ... ruled by lust rather than a brain.
avatar
GameRager: Not to be too rude, but you say that as if it's that easy for people to give up such wants and desires.
I and many others I know, do it all the time.

What's so hard about doing it? .... unless you have no concept about the value of money, and plenty of it ... or maybe a gaming addiction that over-rides good sense.

As for your other replies in your previous two posts - sorry I can't see the sense or agree with any of them ... for the most part they are devoid of logic and fact, and based on feelings

Sorry if that offends you, not intentional, but I just could not relate to your reasoning. But hey, it's a free world for the most part .... I think.
Posted August 03, 2019
avatar
DadJoke007: The only real advantage GOG has over Steam is that it's DRM-free, and that's one big advantage. The moment they allow DRM in games sold here, Pandora's Box will be opened and they will lose their only advantage.

At least I imagine it must be really tough to compete with Steam head-on, just going back to myself I would pick Steam over GOG any day of the week if such a thing would happen.
As soon as they start with DRM here I'm out the door and taking the offline installers with me.
Posted August 03, 2019
avatar
rjbuffchix: Web connection for multiplayer != Account for multiplayer. On its face we can see this is true, as there used to be games in which accounts were NOT needed to access online multiplayer. To say nothing of options like direct connect. In short, the way to have DRM-free multiplayer is to not require a client or third-party accounts (like the Paradox games). Ideally, there would be OFFLINE options, LAN, splitscreen, hotseat...since even private servers aren't guaranteed to exist.
Okay, let's stick to online, not LAN.

I can agree with Direct Connect (over the web or phone line), which I had forgotten about, that yes every copy of the game needs to be unique, and of course that requires a form of DRM. However, that kind of pretty simple basic DRM seems fair enough to me, if basically every copy of the game from GOG came with its own serial number. You can bleat about it, but what are you actually bleating about?

Likewise with online multiplayer, where you login to a server via Galaxy. Galaxy should look at your account and see you own the game, and bingo you can do multiplayer. If it's not in your account, well too bad .... seems fair enough to me. What are you suggesting is ok?

avatar
rjbuffchix: Allow me to point out that there seems to be a fundamental difference in views on this topic:
You talk about "GOG enabling this" as if it is some magnanimous gesture on their part, and that we'd be left in the sad, multiplayer-less darkness if not for Galaxy to shed its enlightenment.
My view is that requiring accounts for multiplayer is a means of control. If we didn't care about control over the things we buy, we might as well just go to Steam or "better" yet, Stadia.
Sorry, but I don't see that they really compare. Sure they are somewhat similar, but I know which version I would rather have.

I guess GOG could just disallow any online multiplayer. But I have seem oodles of complaints when multiplayer is not present. So I guess GOG are treading a fine line and trying to please/enable/survive in the fairest way they are allowed to by the Publisher/Developer.

I see no wrong with that, as far as GOG themselves are concerned, and I expect we are the richer for it, if you follow the logic etc.

avatar
rjbuffchix: Needing to use the client or the account is an extra, unnecessary step that DIRECTLY affects game preservation. I have posted numerous times about how when you read the "checklist" quotes from FCKDRM.com, Galaxy's multiplayer ironically fails multiple, if not all, of the points. You wrote "I am not sure GOG can be held accountable for enabling this". Considering who runs FCKDRM.com, I'd say you can indeed be more sure.
Don't know the site, and game preservation seems barely impacted to me .... at least for single player.
Clearly multiplayer is impacted on some level, but who knows what the future will bring.
And honestly, if game preservation is down to users (gamers/players), I think we should be more worried about that.

avatar
rjbuffchix: Multiplayer games without any DRM-free options don't belong on a DRM-free store, imo. I understand why they're here. I understand that without them, there may be a smaller amount of titles to choose from here. I believe I understand why GOG made the Galaxy client and seems to push it on customers as hard as they do. Really, I get it.
I just think it erodes brand identity and confuses users. There are multiple times when people have pointed out a game is DRM-free for singleplayer but needs Galaxy for multiplayer. Wouldn't it be more coherent if a game was just "DRM-free"?
I don't see a consistency issue, if it's something you are aware of that is pretty common.

From what I have seen here, every game is DRM-Free, albeit that an element of it is not in a few cases. So long as you can play the basic game DRM-Free, than really to my mind, GOG have fulfilled their charter. We might wish otherwise, but hey, when do we ever get all we want.

That's life.

One needs to differentiate between what is fair and reasonable .... and what is desirable.

I'd love to give a copy of my games to all my friends and play endlessly online with them without any checks .... but that's not really fair and reasonable to the devs, just desirable.

And in my case for sure, I would gladly tolerate DRM for multiplayer to get DRM-Free singleplayer.
Post edited August 03, 2019 by Timboli
Posted August 03, 2019
Yes I'm sick of greedy developers and publishers raping my wallet.
Posted August 03, 2019
avatar
clarry: Sorry, you are obviously the one with no clue. There are tons of multiplayer games that do not require accounts. Also, there are plenty of multiplayer games that have accounts but no DRM as such -- anyone can register an account and it's in no way tied to any sense of "ownership" of said game.

1) No, accounts are in general *not* required for multiplayer.

2) Some games would like to store persistent data about your player profile. The conventional way is to have an account for this purpose. That is not the only way. Also, even when accounts are used, they need not be ones tied to a game store that checks whether you've purchased said game before letting you play (that's very much DRM).

3) Web has nothing to do with multiplayer.
avatar
Timboli: I clearly differentiated between online play and something like LAN.
And I did not say a single word about LAN. Every point still stands.
Post edited August 03, 2019 by clarry
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionWhich is holding back GOG more from getting "AAA" games here: lack of DRM or smaller userbase (vs Steam and co.)?(97 posts)(97 posts)
(97 posts)