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
5
6
7
8
9
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
I am not personally interested in this particular game, but voted with "Yes", nonetheless.

A modest proposal, though:

if you bring games with such strings attached, you should mention those strings on that Game's Store Page on prominent display and best in bold typesetting.

So, nobody can scream after the purchase: "You betrayers, you didn't warn me about that...give me my money back!"

As some would undoubtly do, otherwise. (heck, some will do nonetheless) ;o)
Posted April 15, 2013
I voted "yes" since I think it is not wrong to have such a title in catalog. However I wouldn't purchase the title since I do not care about multi player. I haven't researched well for what the game has to offer in single player skirmishes however unless it was under a very good price I would probably view the single player content as not worth it.
Posted April 15, 2013
I would never buy a game like this, just because I really don't like playing games online.

I have been using computers since the 90's and I have had my share of 12 yr old trucker mouthed brats for a while. I prefer to play games on lan with my partner and friends, or single player games, really, so it's just my opinion.

If you were to add it to your library it wouldn't make me feel any less about GOG. It's your company and I realize you need to make a buck or a million to stay sharp as a company. Just don't expect me to be paying for this stuff because I would rather have my fingers cut off. That's just my 2 pennies!
Posted April 15, 2013
I was really on the wall for this one. What pushed me over was it could be played in LAN without an account. But the rest of the game does require an outside account...
Posted April 15, 2013
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: I think "slippery slope" arguments only work if you assume that we're robots who won't listen to you. The very presence of this survey suggests that we clearly do. :)
avatar
Wishbone: I think the slippery slope argument is not necessarily applied to you. My concern is that allowing things like this will make it harder for you to make true DRM free deals with publishers in the future. The argument being along the lines of "You let that game with activation and online accounts get into your catalog, so if you want our game, you'll have to accept activation and online accounts for that too".
We're always free to say "no" to offers we don't like. We have in the past.
Posted April 15, 2013
I agree with the folks saying that anything with extra "strings attached" should have a prominent warning about what's required (key, account, proprietary MP servers) and what you would lose if you didn't have/have access to that. In the case of this game, it sounds like it would need at least two - possibly three? But I do say "yes."
Posted April 15, 2013
I picked "yes" but I don't like the approach of the game. No single player campaign? Seriously? Man, it's already overcrowded with f2p online multiplayer games, we do not need another one.
Posted April 15, 2013
-Persistent online features, no thanks even if they are optionals.

-Third-party accounts are required for single-player play. No, no, no, no, no. Do you understand?. I don't want registers to play. I just want install and play individual game without need internet conexion.

-Unique codes, I haven't nothig against if don't need it to play individual game or lan/direct connection multiplayer.

-Lan/Direct connection multiplayer only if Enhanced individual gameplay. Bioshock, for example, don't need it. All games with multiplayer should have this option.

Multiplayer must be like in old games, opcional and dispensable; like Baldur's Gate direct connection. I decide whether use it or not and the people that I want to play.

Multiplayer must be an opcional tool to enhanced individual and nothing more.

I don't want to play MMO games or third party Logins, just classic gaming (individual with opcional multiplayer).
Posted April 15, 2013
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: We're always free to say "no" to offers we don't like. We have in the past.
Well continue like that and all will be fine. No drm for single-player games !

As for this game I don't really mind as I am not interested. But online activation cannot be avoided for games with online components except when it is for co-op or "small" network games (i.e. no persistent world, no stats, no leatherboards...).
Post edited April 15, 2013 by sebarnolds
Posted April 15, 2013
The important part here is this:

"- No activation, unique codes, or third-party accounts are required for single-player play or, LAN/direct connection multiplayer. "

I can use the product to 100% capacity without interacting or limitations with an outside entity.
Posted April 15, 2013
avatar
BreOl72: I am not personally interested in this particular game, but voted with "Yes", nonetheless.

A modest proposal, though:

if you bring games with such strings attached, you should mention those strings on that Game's Store Page on prominent display and best in bold typesetting.

So, nobody can scream after the purchase: "You betrayers, you didn't warn me about that...give me my money back!"

As some would undoubtly do, otherwise. (heck, some will do nonetheless) ;o)
This is also a very good point, in fact the more prominent the better. I'd go so far as to say there should be a filter option check box which would simply remove all such games from the results page of any other search (if selected by the user of course). Player choice has been mentioned many times in each of these threads and the choice to not have results for this kind of game even display seems totally fair. Not only is it a good option for supporting player choice but it'll make a profit based point for game companies that bring their titles to GOG because there is obviously a contingent of players here who have no personal interest in such things and the larger game developers could very much use the reminder that a "multiplayer experience" even with "bleeding edge graphics" is no substitute for quality story, level design, robust UI, innovative game play, et al.
avatar
Wishbone: I think the slippery slope argument is not necessarily applied to you. My concern is that allowing things like this will make it harder for you to make true DRM free deals with publishers in the future. The argument being along the lines of "You let that game with activation and online accounts get into your catalog, so if you want our game, you'll have to accept activation and online accounts for that too".
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: We're always free to say "no" to offers we don't like. We have in the past.
This makes me smile =)
Post edited April 15, 2013 by RoseLegion
Posted April 15, 2013
avatar
TheEnigmaticT: We're always free to say "no" to offers we don't like. We have in the past.
Naturally, but you're also a business, and businesses have to make money. You said it yourself, you need deals like this to fund your "true calling" of bringing DRM free classics to the masses. What I'm saying is that deals like this may make it more difficult for you to sign the deals needed for that true calling, especially for newer games.

You may not like an offer, but when push comes to shove, can you afford to say "no"?
Posted April 15, 2013
BTW, excellent edge case. I think this represents about the farthest I'd want to see GOG go in letting things through: a game that has a number of points that are essentially DRM, but only because of the dependencies of the game design, and that does at least seem to be making an effort to cut back those dependencies to the minimum.
Posted April 15, 2013
Q. Is the game complete and ready to play "as is?"
A. Yes.

Q. Are you able to play the game "out of the box" without DRM or third-party activation?
A. Yes.

Q. Is this game interesting and/or fun to play?
A. Yes.

Seems to me like the game fulfills all of the requirements to be on GOG.com.

-Khalaq
Post edited April 15, 2013 by Khalaq
Posted April 15, 2013
I would not be interested in such a game and I would prefer that GoG continues to concentrate on games that focus on single player. And the mention of 'social' features is the death sentence for any game for me. I don't want any 'social' games here. Sure, the social component is said to be optional - but it's far too easy to make progress in the game next to impossible without relying on your 'friends'. Thus social features can easily become a back-door way to force the players to register to a third party account, because you just need the 'social boost' unless you want to spend hundreds of hours grinding. In a way, 'social' features contain a risk similar to 'free-to-play' games, which all too easily become 'need-to-pay' games. Both offer something as an option, which the developer then can make quasi-mandatory.

So: no thank you. Please do not waste release spots on such games. There are still lots good games without any strings attached out there that deserve to be released here.
Pages:
1
5
6
7
8
9
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)