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

×
Please take a survey and tell us what you think!

Last week, we launched the first ever DLC on GOG.com (for tactical-strategy game Omerta: City of Gangsters). The launch was a bit rushed on our end, and we did a bad job communicating what it was, and why we're adding it to the store. That was a screw-up on our part, and we're sorry. We've read all of your comments (and there were a lot!) and it's lead us to wonder about DLC and other new models of gaming that are happening right now. There's a survey at the bottom of this newspost, where we'd like to hear more about what you think GOG.com should do in the future, but don't jump down there just yet.

First, we wanted to explain the reasoning behind offering DLC for sale. It boils down to this: the number of newer games that have DLC keeps growing every year. As publishers and developers look at ways to remain profitable--look at how many big studios have gone bankrupt in the last 3 years if you think that's not a challenge--they're exploring new things like DLC, episodic content, and so on. GOG.com loves games, and we're committed to bringing the best games in history--classic or new--here to the site for you to enjoy. To sign some of these newer titles, however, we need to make a decision: do we sell DLC for these newer games, or do we not offer DLC and, increasingly, find that what we sell doesn't contain all of the content available for the game, content that hardcore fans of the game will probably enjoy?

We thought about it and decided that the best thing for us to do was to offer you the freedom to choose. We don't like telling you what to do with your games, whether it's how you want to back it up or how often you want to reinstall it, and it felt like refusing to sell DLC for new games was another instance where we were limiting your freedom. In our minds, if you don't like DLC, you're free to ignore it; if it represents a good value to price to you, then, you're free to buy it here--DRM-free, of course--from GOG.com.

For classic games, our goal always remains to bring you the definitive version of the game--with all expansion packs--at one price. Sometimes, for one reason or another, we don't get the expansion packs. At least, not right away (::coughcoughSidMeier'sAlienCrossfirecough::), but the goal remains that way and it won't change.

New games are different, though. Classic games aren't being actively developed, and they aren't being updated with new paid content, so it's easy to negotiate a single fixed price. For new games, that's not the case, and we can't promise a fixed price for all of the expanded content ever for a new game. We will try to get you all of the DLC that we can for free, but let's be realistic: developers release paid DLC because they want more money. Offering it for free is not always in the cards. Offering it for free 6 months, a year, or 18 months after the launch? That's more likely to be possible, and it's certainly something that we would love to be able to do for all of our games. We can't promise anything, but that's another goal for us.

So, as we mentioned above, we didn't do a very good job letting you guys know about this ahead of time, and as such your response was--unsurprisingly--pretty strong. To help determine what you want us to do in the future, we've prepared a short survey for you about DLC, episodic content, and other possible new areas of gaming that GOG.com might venture into offering you. Please take a moment and answer the survey, and leave us a comment below. We'll pick 10 winners who comment below and give them any game from the catalog--even Omerta and its DLC, if you like. :)

tl;dr version: We're sorry about how we communicated to you during DLC launch. We hope you'll give us feedback on what new things GOG.com might start selling in the future.

The survey is now closed. Thanks for your time and your insights, everyone. We'll take a close look at the outcome. This will surely help us in making GOG.com an even better service custom-tailored to its users tastes and expectations. Again, thanks for your opinions!

As promised, we'll pick 10 posts from the comment thread and give their authors a game of their choice. We'll PM you to ask you what would you like to get.
Post edited March 15, 2013 by G-Doc
I don't have a problem with DLCs or season passes being added to GOG only if you will not stop releasing classic games on normal pace. I understand that GOG wants to grow and targets to have wider spectrum of games, including newer titles. This will attract wider audience, most likely youger customers and hopefully introduce them all those old goodies GOG has to offer. But primary focus should be on releasing classic titles, there are so many left to give freshness to the site for months and years to come.

As long as expading with newer titles doesn't interfere and hold you back on expanding with classic games - you have green light from me. GOG won't be some sort of generic distributor when having wide offer of classic titles.
Post edited March 17, 2013 by KarmaTV
My survey was a stream of yes answers because I like CHOICE and making my own mind up about my purchases. Just offer it for sale and let me worry about the rest!
I guess it'll be best to at least give these new options a test-run, I can't see why it wouldn't work. As everyone's been saying, this isn't a site dedicated solely to old games anymore anyway so there's nothing wrong with evolving with the more DLC-ridden market. As long as for the most part the games remain DRM-free then I'm sure the majority would be happy!
There are still thousands of good old games missing from your catalogue. Games that we'd happily pay for! Why do you want to be just another generic, online store? We can buy those AAA 's and those DLC's anywhere. Give us what we really want, give us those good old games!
avatar
bokbing: There are still thousands of good old games missing from your catalogue. Games that we'd happily pay for! Why do you want to be just another generic, online store? We can buy those AAA 's and those DLC's anywhere. Give us what we really want, give us those good old games!
Absolutely correct.
In fact there are enough newer games with season pass and "online-only"-option in other shops.
avatar
lubwak: snip
the problem with all that is that 'good' and 'quality' (unless we are talking pure technical quality, i.e. no bugs and runs) are a matter of perception. One man's junk is another man's treasure. So just who's value judgement do you suggest should be followed? Mine? Yours? The French Monk's? KillSpawn78's? TotalBiscuit's?
GoG.com should only sell complete games. No standalone DLC please.

Note the OLD in GOG - we do not need new games like Omerta - these games are not GOOD.

Simple as that.

Don't get too greedy, GoG and stick to your original guns - good, classic games with tons of extras, DRM-free.
In terms of offering DLC and episodic content and whatnot, I say go for it. There isn't much of a reason to offer additional content.

But the stuff that requires third-party logins and--probably--always online components? That just seems to go against your modus operandi of offering games that just work. You'd be introducing new annoyances that have thus far been absent from your catalog.
@ amok You made a good point, aye, but there is a difference between Starcraft: Brood Wars and Some Mass Effect additional weapon DLCs. There is a difference of various nature in each case, but why not make different criteria for that purpose? There could be criteria like Game content, Area of content, Innovative content etc. This could also, now it came to me, be based on simple wiki-like projects. Everyone could make an account and grade a game. Even here. Or on an external website. Or a third-party company that I mentioned before. It is important to make a draft of the idea and then specify/modify details...

@ Kronner It is a matter of financing - read the message again. If they do not find ways to finance themselves, they will close. The competition is strong and the devs still want money for the titles they make available on GOG.

@ rest I completely agree that third-party software and online-based DRM (all DRM, for that matter, but web-based DRM especially) are a big NO-NO. With such things game sjust stop working after some time, whether these are officially supported servers or third-party activation servers. Devs offering such games do not allow us to BUY games, they provide BORROWING SERVICES of unspecified time-range.
avatar
amok: [
the problem with all that is that 'good' and 'quality' (unless we are talking pure technical quality, i.e. no bugs and runs) are a matter of perception. One man's junk is another man's treasure. So just who's value judgement do you suggest should be followed? Mine? Yours? The French Monk's? KillSpawn78's? TotalBiscuit's?
GOG''s. We trust them (not always correctly) to look for good quality stuff, but they do seem to have reasonable judgement. At least they do at least seem to listen when people ask for certain games (SS2) or get annoyed if they make a mistake (like now), so if their judgement go wrong at least they will listen to feed back. If the site is changing they have to tighten there standards even further, for a while at least.
I don't understand what are DLC and seasons passes.
If you want sell expansions for games it's ok for me BUT
they must not require online activation and they must be DRM Free
I don't think GOG should support DLCs. Generally I am for freedom but in this case that just doesn't work.
DLC usually means very little Content for a high price. People but it anyway and so certain studios carry on releasing them. They bring profit or not? I am exited about GOG because it stays for a company which takes a stand against this practices. They have the might to do so because they have grown big in the recent years and I am sure there are companys out there which say: Ok, lets just release a bundle version of our game where most DLCs are integrated to be able to put it on GOG too.
avatar
lorenzochiari: I don't understand what are DLC and seasons passes.
If you want sell expansions for games it's ok for me BUT
they must not require online activation and they must be DRM Free
DLCs are basically small expansions. Some DLCs may add for example 5 hours of gameplay content, but some may add only a new skin for a character or 1 new weapon to the game.
Season Pass means that besides paying for the game, you'll also pay for the season pass, for example 20$. Buying a season pass generally guarantees you that you'll receive all upcoming DLCs for a given game. It's basically a prepaid bundle of DLCs which costs less than buying those DLCs individually.

Sometimes season pass is not about DLCs, but about prepaid series of episodic games. For example you can buy the "Cognition - Season Pass - Episode 1-4" for 30$, you'll receive only the first 2 episodes now, because the 3rd a 4th episodes are not finished yet, but once they are, you'll receive them for no additional cost.
For me, the top priority for GOG.com is the DRM free game distribution. What is new and compatible today, becomes old and uncompatible tomorrow, without any maintenace.

Starting by this premise, there are many kickstarter games that are DRM free, games I pledged also because they will be on GOG.com and not Steam Only. I don't use STEAM cause Steam is a DRM.
Kickstarter games have extra content and planned DLC wich have additional costs for bakers; so I'm agree to include DLC and eventually season passes, if they are implemented withoud DRM and if remains opened the future possibility to sell a GOTY like edition once the DRM have spent their purpose.

For alpha funding, well, there are games like Underrail which I'd like to see on GOG, but not at the cost of having a steam like client who forces you to stay online or update the game to the last version.

I say no to Multiplayer becouse I hate multiplayer (so is a personal reason), and I say no to third party accounts because I consider them as DRM.

EDIT: in short words, until they are a DRM free VG distribution method, I'm fine
Post edited March 17, 2013 by chronos
avatar
Nirth: Actually that's what I assumed it did. So it's a risk? It sounds like a desperate attempt at some money scheme for the publishers to be honest. I gather season passes aren't popular or has it been a success?
avatar
silenthunter382: They aren't popular but they are a success. which baffles me.
I'm assuming the season passes are for collectors and completists, who will simply buy every bit of DLC for their favourite game anyway. For such people, it doesn't matter about the quality of the DLC, just that they have it as soon as it is released and they can say they supported their favourite game.

The downside with DLC and Season Passes, is that it's putting an arbitrary worth of additional content. If they sell a season pass for $40 worth of content, then they are only obligated to provide $40 worth of content. There's no incentive to release any more content. DLC itself is simply a downloadable expansion pack, and where as before companies had to create enough additional content to make an expansion pack viable, DLC does away with that thanks to micro transactions.

I miss the days when companies would create new material just to keep a game alive and worth selling, often bundling it with the original game or the next expansion pack that was due out...