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 discussion (archive)New Gaming Options: Follow-up Survey(519 posts)(519 posts)
(519 posts)
Pages:
1
4
5
6
7
8
10
15
20
25
30
35
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 15, 2013
We (still) want to hear from you!

We recently asked you guys for feedback based on some potential games that we may be able to sign in the future. The results were pretty clear--and we will be sharing them with you all soon--but we did want to ask you a single follow-up question with an actual real-world game example. One of the games that we would like to add to our catalog is Planetary Annihilation. This is an RTS with many modern gaming features, and we figured we'd use it as our test example.

<iframe width="590" height="332" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Xpze54xgqtg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Planetary Annihilation is distinctive for the following:

- Multiplayer and skirmish focused gameplay; there is no story-based single-player campaign, but AI skirmish matches provide a great single player experience.
- Optional persistent online features such as scoreboards, social features, achievements, and the online multiplayer campaign - a persistent galaxy-wide war; an account with the developer's online service is required in order to use these features.
- No activation, unique codes, or third-party accounts are required for single-player play or, LAN/direct connection multiplayer.
- A unique key is required for Internet multiplayer, and an account with the developer's service is only required for the persistent online features.

Now, that you know about the game's specifics, here's our question:
Post edited April 15, 2013 by G-Doc
Posted April 15, 2013
This kind of game isn't my cup of tea, but I don't have an issue with it being sold here. The main thing is if someone buys the game, they have a game that is fully functional without any limits, restrictions, or being tied to an account system. I realize not every game will have a LAN mode, but if it does, that should work also in an environment with no internet access available during install or while playing. Even if the main server for a game goes down, there are programs to allow people to create a VPN over the internet for gaming purposes, which would work for games like that.

I understand why people would be upset over needing a cd key or account to play online. I am less bothered by it because I feel a company wanting to block people that didn't pay for the game from having access to online features they are paying to run is fine. If the game itself would stop functioning if such a system went down, then it should be kept away from GOG. However if the game still works without that, I'd say let them be sold here.

Though any game that needs any sort of account for part of online functionality should have it explicitly stated on the store page as a notice so people are clear that its there.
Posted April 15, 2013
Hmm its an interesting question I think I'm ok with it

I mean ut2004 is a multiplayer focused title with lan and online mp with a key but you don't have to create an account for anything.

Planetary Annihilation is much the same except you may have to make an account to play online multiplayer?

Because it has offline skirmish as well as offline LAN I think this game is drm free still but has an optional online component but if there was no LAN mode I would say that was absolutely drm because it forced you to play online for multiplayer.

So I think all is good because it has offline LAN.
Posted April 15, 2013
avatar
Pheace: Those were mostly classics though where multiplayer was still a relatively small part of the game.

Account based multiplayer DRM can be seen as a slider really, where one end of the scale only has a small part of the game wrapped up in multiplayer, and the other end has most of the game wrapped up in multiplayer and very little left if you don't participate in that.

In that sense, acceptance is really just arguing about the degree people consider it DRM and how much they're willing to take.

It seems silly to argue that as long as 'part' of the game is DRM-free "it's fine". A concession has already been made there. A part of the game has been given up for those who don't accept DRM. After that it's just where you draw the line.
avatar
Fenixp: How do you suggest they do non-account based persistent world tho?
It's possible to open source the server code and allow the client code to connect to a server of their choice. Plenty of old-school games had a LAN server option that allow small communities of gamers to play these games long after the official servers are shut down. Developers and publishers these days don't want to do this, however, because it allows people to pirate the game on day 1. So, features that aren't DRM themselves function exactly like DRM.
Posted April 15, 2013
avatar
Feyjoo: I think if this game is going to join the GOG catalof it should be on the bottom of the list for a couple of reason.

1. No single player campaign, meaning theres no single player potential at all or effort to this game. Yes there are skirmishes with the AI but I don't feel like the developers are going to put any effort to AI. Also like Jamyskis said:

"If this is approved, what's to stop devs coming along with a multiplayer-focused game that requires account registration, claiming that there is a single-player mode, only to turn out to be some superficial training mode that is interesting for about five minutes. Games like this are like a mass plague on Steam, and seem to have these training modes just so that they can have the "single-player" tag as a honey trap for unwitting buyers to lure them into a fundamentally multiplayer game with an inactive online world."

2. If the single player is only a tutorial thing this game is going to be multiplayer only, meaning you have to get the key wich is a DRM (Ithought GOG was against DRM) and secondly the multiplayer community might end up been dead and this game fail. Another dead game in the shelves.

3. By checking the game wishlist on this website we all know there are more and better games that deserve the GOG catalog spot over this one.
Why devs, WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY?!?!?

No one care anymore about epic story-lines, epic campaings, epic single-player missions/customs and epic perduration over the centurys. Seems like we paying for some fast food today standards, something that has expire date and limited duration. No trolling, but I'm so sad right now. That sick of MMO-ALL-THE-WAY has to be somewhat stopped. It's like a bad virus destroying every good on their path.

The fact that I love so much games on GoG is because I play them anywhere, anytime and without any troubles at all. Online should be OPTIONAL, not an imposed way to play. But that's my opinion and don't want to offend mmo and online lovers, because there's space to everyone in this world. But THIS broke all my expectations of a return of an epic old school RTS.

Gonna cry in a corner, brb.
Posted April 15, 2013
I would personally buy it because it features Single player skirmishes against decent AI.

And that is the whole point of GOG for me - I can rest assure that if GOG or the game's server ever goes down, I'll still be able to pull the game out and play it many years later.
Posted April 15, 2013
wow no what a game , its just a mmo with one time payment and bots
Posted April 15, 2013
avatar
hucklebarry: I feel like I could word this better, but hopefully it makes sense as one opinion.
I understand your point, but it's merely a personal preference in my opinion. For you, in a way, that means the game is DRM free. It's like I could have played the original Unreal Tournament and only played single player against the bots. But to me, I'd never have gotten, nor appreciated UT without the multiplayer.

I also don't feel LAN fully replaces online multiplayer with proper matchmaking. LAN requires either local setup (or no doubt what some will do Hamachi etc), a local group of people predetermined to play the game and aware of that before the game begins, whereas in Internet multiplayer you can just log in and go online and expect to find scores of matches where you can just jump in.
Posted April 15, 2013
I answer no for the first part and yes for the second part of the survey question. I am not interested in online RTS in general, but I welcome it on GOG.com as long as activation/DRM are clearly detailed. As an alternate example, I would have been interested in Anno 2070 on GOG.com even though that game has pretty draconian DRM (which I don't even expect GOG.com to remove) and the core gameplay doesn't even really justify Internet connection. However, its peripheral online features are pretty neat, and it's a good game. I got it off Steam, but I would rather have gotten it here.
Posted April 15, 2013
For me personally it's important to have "AI skirmish matches". I just love bot games (and LAN) as an offline backup.

EDIT: The survey only asked one question. Is that right?
Post edited April 15, 2013 by xbeanx3000
Posted April 15, 2013
Big Fat No from me. Multiplayer game with no story plus mainly online play this could not be further from the reason I joined GOG. I hope I am not in minority for this. If MMO and the player clients these attracts gets in here I would definitely not enjoy the forums and and community half as much.
Posted April 15, 2013
avatar
Pheace: 'Only for parts where it's necessary'. That's basically where it hinges then isn't it. But if the gameplay is built around that necessity. If the majority of the game is in that necessity. Is there still a point to saying you have a DRM-Free game?
You know what, you're right. I am still going to vote yes as I genuinely don't mind this particular case and am not really a fan of 'slippery slope' argument, but yeah, drawing the line might prove quite hard. Then again, if the line is drawn incorrectly, I'll just stop buying games here so meh
avatar
johntonsoup: It's possible to open source the server code and allow the client code to connect to a server of their choice. Plenty of old-school games had a LAN server option that allow small communities of gamers to play these games long after the official servers are shut down. Developers and publishers these days don't want to do this, however, because it allows people to pirate the game on day 1. So, features that aren't DRM themselves function exactly like DRM.
Isn't that kind of what they're doing tho? Hosting persistent games on their servers, yet giving players option to host their own?
avatar
sqlrob: Yes. SimCity is all social features, not DRM (to hear EA tell it), so would you approve of it being here? If so, why? If not, how is it different from this?
Ummm... Let's see, how is it different... Hmmm.. .I don't know, because you can't launch Sim City without an account, whereas here you'd have access to vast majority of features, except for those that are implicitly always-on? :D
Post edited April 15, 2013 by Fenixp
Posted April 15, 2013
avatar
Fenixp: You know what, you're right. I am still going to vote yes as I genuinely don't mind this particular case and am not really a fan of 'slippery slope' argument, but yeah, drawing the line might prove quite hard. Then again, if the line is drawn incorrectly, I'll just stop buying games here so meh
As said, I'm fine with this too, I think as far as GOG goes, in the case of a multiplayer/account based game, this is probably the best way they could offer it. I just don't think that anyone should hold any illusions that this is not a concession of sorts for DRM-free gaming. Even if the nature of the gameplay in itself is something that sort of forces it.
Post edited April 15, 2013 by Pheace
Posted April 15, 2013
avatar
Pheace: As said, I'm fine with this too, I think as far as GOG goes, in the case of a multiplayer/account based game, this is probably the best way they could offer it. I just don't think that anyone should hold any illusions that this is not a concession of sorts for DRM-free gaming. Even if the nature of the gameplay in itself is something that sort of forces it.
I don't always agree with everything you say, but in this conversation you have been spot on. This particular blurb adequately addresses what some of us (or at least I) have been thinking.
Post edited April 15, 2013 by photoleia
Posted April 15, 2013
avatar
johntonsoup: It's possible to open source the server code and allow the client code to connect to a server of their choice. Plenty of old-school games had a LAN server option that allow small communities of gamers to play these games long after the official servers are shut down. Developers and publishers these days don't want to do this, however, because it allows people to pirate the game on day 1. So, features that aren't DRM themselves function exactly like DRM.
avatar
Fenixp: Isn't that kind of what they're doing tho? Hosting persistent games on their servers, yet giving players option to host their own?
My understanding is that the persistent features are only on their servers. You can still host multiplayer games on your own private server. I don't personally care about the persistent features in this case (I'm not big on leaderboards and the like), but it still annoys me when I log into a game and see a menu option that I know will never work again. Basically, a feature that the devs thought were fun and important now no longer works.

That said, I could be wrong and this game allows you to pick your own leaderboard server.
Posted April 15, 2013
Planetary Annihilation is pretty much the only game i am REALLY waiting for. I mean waiting for with the same intensity as i waited games as a kid. Sure there are other good games coming out - but come on! Its Planetary Annihilation - the new coming of Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander!

I really hope the stars are right for this one.
Pages:
1
4
5
6
7
8
10
15
20
25
30
35
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)New Gaming Options: Follow-up Survey(519 posts)(519 posts)
(519 posts)