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: Survey Results(520 posts)(520 posts)
(520 posts)
Pages:
1
5
8
9
10
11
12
15
20
25
30
35
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 19, 2013
Survey Results: See what the future of GOG.com holds!

A few weeks ago we asked you to fill out a survey about some of the possible new areas of gaming that GOG.com might move into in the future. We also promised that we’d share the results with you, and they are below. Before we get to that, though, we did want to let you know what these mean to us:

1. We remain committed to bringing you guys the best games from all of gaming history, on both PC and Mac. This means that while we’re exploring ways to bring you new games, we also are committed to bringing classics back to life as well. This year alone has seen Omikron, System Shock 2, the Leisure Suit Larry series, Strike Commander, and even Daikatana!

2. DLC is a controversial issue, but something that has been in gaming—by another name—since the very early days. You guys seem to understand that it’s not possible for us to sign new games with all of their DLC (before it is even made) bundled in, and it looks like you’re willing to either buy DLC or not as you find it interesting. As part of our continual efforts to improve the user experience on GOG.com, we will be looking at new, better ways to present DLC in our catalog as well.

3. Selling episodic content before the “season” is finished is also something we’re looking forward to bringing you in the future, and you seem to agree.

4. Season passes—for both DLC and for episodic content—clearly have a mixed perception here. Season passes—if we do offer them—are something that we’ll approach with deliberation to make sure that we’re confident that the content that is promised will all be delivered.

5. Finally, we have somewhat conflicting information on the persistent multiplayer features; when discussed in a very abstract fashion (as it was in the first survey), it’s a very clear “no.” When mentioned in a specific game that we’ve shown you, it’s an equally clear “yes.” What we’re going to be sure of, going forward, is that we’re very careful that any game that we bring you guys with persistent multiplayer features will be at least as offline-friendly as Planetary Annihilation is.

One of the defining characteristics of GOG.com is that the games that we sell have no DRM; this isn't going to change, and we will continue to evaluate the games that we bring to you to make sure that they're not only great games, but great games that we think will fit in well with how we do business.

<iframe src="http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/19169133?rel=0" width="590" height="472" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" style="border:1px solid #CCC;border-width:1px 1px 0;margin-bottom:5px" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen> </iframe>

Thank you for responding to our surveys in such large numbers. GOG.com would be a mere shadow of itself if it wasn't for its incredible, open, friendly, and active community--that is you!
Post edited April 19, 2013 by G-Doc
Posted April 19, 2013
While I'm not fully in favor of the results (though I mostly am), I can't help but commend GOG for releasing the actual, no-bullshit poll results to the public. This kind of transparency with customers is NOT at all present on services like Steam, and this is really important for maintaining a good trust level with said customers (no, the cult of Valve and similar blind sheep do not count, as they are clearly not reasonable, level thinkers... I'm not saying that's nearly all Steam users though, I use it just like many... some games require it).

GOG is further cementing their gold standard with this, and will remain my #1 choice for games that are available on multiple services. THANK YOU GOG!
Posted April 19, 2013
avatar
Infin8ty: Alpha and Beta releases: Sure, the developers need some cash to finish the game, the devs need testers, why not? Again, just be careful, sometimes devs promise things they don't fulfill (still fresh in my mind is Miner Wars 2081). Care must be taken. Best Alpha I got into: Minecraft. Still like the game. Can be good, can be bad.
avatar
jalister: What was the story with Miner Wars 2081? I almost got into that a while ago.
Primarily (for me) it was the fact that they didn't follow through on everything they seemed to promise. They said:
"•Open-world Environment
◦Fully destructible and persistent (dig through asteroids, destroy space stations ...)
◦Seamless transition between outdoor and indoor environments
◦Full Solar System traveling (billions of sectors)"
As well as being a "sandbox" game.

In reality, the "open-world environment" and "billions of sectors" are essentially barren with only about one asteroid. That was at release anyway, I haven't played it really since then, but from what I've read, this is basically the same. The game is not "sandbox" nor really "open-world", it's linear with a large world.

Also, it was insanely glitchy, even after release, to the point where you're AI co-op partner would just sit there not moving when he needs to be in a certain position to advance the game. This is in addition to it's terrible optimization (I realize it's voxel-based and that there are a ton of voxels to deal with, but when I lag with a GTX 580 OC, 8 GB of RAM, and OC 3.7 GHz 6-core CPU, there's a problem).

Another big thing that pissed a lot of people off (even on DRM Steam) was the in-game DRM (especially since there was no offline mode). So you basically had DRMception (bad things, man, bad things).

As people look at it now as a linear (not open-world or sandbox) game, it seems pretty good. I think they've also updated it a bunch to fix some of the issues I had originally.
Posted April 19, 2013
Showing the results of the polls, and being up front about it. Another reason why GOG is my go to place for games. I commend both GOG and their business practices as a whole.
Posted April 19, 2013
Just a few thoughts on this.


I would prefer 'game of the year' editions rather than buying dlc piecemeal but it is better if the choice is available I guess for people to pick up the content they like.

Having to go through another vender is a big no no for me as that seems alot like drm and you wonder if the features that come with such a 'service' will continue to be supported. So definitely no to anything like EA's simcity.

Games that offer multiplayer should come with a guarantee that the server code will eventually be offered to the community in case the company no longer wants to support those servers in future like EA has done with a number of there games which are only 2 years old.
Posted April 19, 2013
avatar
mistermumbles: Still not wild about episodic games - simply due to there being the potential risk of them not finishing what they started - and games in alpha/beta status, especially since the latter seem to be stuck in development more than most (or so it seems to me).
How often does this actually happen though? Every Telltale game I've bought was finished.

Also how is this any different to the many "full" games that sequel bait yet never see a sequel?
Posted April 19, 2013
avatar
SirEyeball: snip
Personally, I think the difference in results between the abstract question and the Planetary Annihilation question is because... you know, when you mention games with persistent internet connection or having to register to third party servers, the first games that comes in people's mind are Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, Assassin's Creed 2, Mass Effect 3 or the latest Sim City... games that have aberrant DRM. And I think people mass voted "no" to the first, abstract, question because they don't want these games to ever be sold on GOG in their current DRM riddled state.

But when you present the question with a game like Planetary Annihilation, a game that can be played offline in single player against bots, or multiplayer with direct connection or in LAN, and only requires a registration and legit key if you wanted to use their servers for easy match making/achievements, people realized there was several shades of gray between the aberration that are DRM like those of Sim City, and Planetary Annihilation which still gives you the complete package even if you're not interested in using their servers, and that in wanting so bad to refuse access to Sim City, Diablo 3 and company, we would have also refused access to Planetary Annihilation, which hardly deserved that.
Posted April 20, 2013
I'm part of the "conflicting" results.

For the serial key question: You can still play online with a direct connection feature, you just need to arrange matchmaking outside of the game. Thus, Planetary Annihilation does not require a serial key to play online.

For the persistent online feature question: Apparently I misunderstood the question because of a bad wording. I thought it wasn't just about persistent online features, but also about requiring a 3rd party account in general. The former is OK, but the latter is a big no-no for me.

The only time that I've purposely violated those principles was for Frozen Synapse, and that's because having an independent server is the only way possible to prevent cheating in this game, so I believe it's justified. Still, that's sad.

I'm a bit surprised that, except for the real case question, the results are never more extreme than 70%/30%. That's a lot of people that hate DLC to the point where they don't even want to see them offered at all. Sad, but very interesting as well...
Posted April 20, 2013
yes to all questions then. good.
Posted April 20, 2013
The way I see DLC:

1. GOOD DLC =
if it updates the game with new content, areas, stories, characters.
if it's cost is reasonable
if it is meant as an “expansion packs”

2. BAD DLC =
if it add's just a little bit content and demands high price for it
if it was meant to be dlc BEFORE the game was released
Post edited April 20, 2013 by benmar
Posted April 20, 2013
DLC is a slippery slope. If it were up to me I would only include games on gog that were older and therefore if they had DLC it was all available and it would be bundled with the game, not separate. You would never own a game on gog but not own all the DLC for it.

This is why I really hated things like Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri not having the expansion pack on gog. It was great that they fixed the situation, and all things considered it was probably better than nothing to have the game only on gog rather than not have it, but still, having a game that isn't "complete" really brushes my OCD the wrong way. Old games shouldn't have this problem because they aren't being updated any more, so if there is DLC I should have it.

I don't think new games should be on gog at all, or if they are, they should basically come with a guarantee that all future DLC will be given for free to owners of the game. I really don't like the fact that it seems gog will be steaming ahead (pun very much intended) with season passes. This may be the way everyone else is going but gog should be different.

I'm rambling on here but the bottom line is that the industry is changing. It's not changing for the better. DLC, season passes, micro-transactions, DRM, limited activations or always online then the servers get shut down later.

GoG needs to stay different. If they aren't different enough then they will lose custom.
Posted April 20, 2013
"3. Selling episodic content before the “season” is finished is also something we’re looking forward to bringing you in the future, and you seem to agree."

Does this mean you will finally bring Cognition? And maybe Kentucky Route Zero if they're up for it.
Posted April 20, 2013
Seems like none of this stuff is going to affect me, so I can't really comment on GOG's decisions. Though I'll say this: I was sceptical about the whole rebranding thing, when newer games were brought here - because I originally came to this site for "ancient" stuff like Gobliiins. Yet half of my wishlist is currently filled with new/indie games which look perfectly playable to me... I'm not going to become a Steam customer any time soon, partially because I view it more as a social platform than a game shop, so being able to buy new games here is a great option for me. So, who knows what the new ideas will be like before they're fully implemented?

Just as long as GOG is going to eventually release the rest of the games I played as a child, and as long as they don't add DRM or force extra software for downloading/activating games (something that has scared me off quite a few otherwise decent gaming sites), I think I'm okay with whatever they do. I rarely buy games on the release day unless it's a classic game that I absolutely must have, I'm rarely interested in the kind of games that can have DLC, expansions or multiplayer, and with episodic games I can just wait for them to be completed and then buy the full pack. So, no problem so far. Classics are not going to suffer from this either way, so I guess I've got nothing to worry about?
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
mistermumbles: Still not wild about episodic games - simply due to there being the potential risk of them not finishing what they started - and games in alpha/beta status, especially since the latter seem to be stuck in development more than most (or so it seems to me).
avatar
Cormoran: How often does this actually happen though? Every Telltale game I've bought was finished.

Also how is this any different to the many "full" games that sequel bait yet never see a sequel?
Actually it's pretty common in adventure games, and not uncommon in indie RPGs. It's just that end buyers don't see much of these games at the moment, because their main selling options are on the developer's website. Once they're finished and compiled, the options open up, and buyers generally buy the whole game. eg. the Telltale games (available episodically on their own site, then released in whole-game edition to disc, GOG, and several other points of sale). Current ones would include The Journey Down, Shadows On The Vatican, Cognition and The Walking Dead.

The primary difference to "full" games that feature unfinished stories with no sequel is the length. Episodes are frequently about two hours long - many reviews complain about short length, that the episodes feel like only a piece of a game, or lack of storyline cohesion. They also tend to be a bad value proposition - the compiled whole game usually retails for significantly less than the sum of the parts, and the higher price points of whole games tend to allow steeper discounts. For instance, to equal the current Telltale sale if the games were in episodic form, episodes would have to be sold at 75-90 cents each. That's unlikely, even on GOG.

It all sounds a bit negative, but it isn't necessarily a bad system. Comics, manga and television are all successfully distributed in serial form prior to the release of cheaper, compiled editions. Creators can pick up money as-they-go, and fans get to see frequent chunks of what they like, without year-long waits. As with everything else in the gaming industry, the people with less patience end up paying more, and subsidizing those who wait. It's very economically sound, and the same reason why releasing several smaller DLC modules is so much more profitable than releasing an expansion pack.
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
Point Man: "3. Selling episodic content before the “season” is finished is also something we’re looking forward to bringing you in the future, and you seem to agree."

Does this mean you will finally bring Cognition? And maybe Kentucky Route Zero if they're up for it.
I actually bought Cognition, and thus far am rather impressed with it. I would love to see it here (and hopefully they offer GOG codes to those who bought it from the PO store). I like that each episode does feel like an episode of a series, along with an over-arching story line. Cognition is one of the few episodic titles I would love to see on GOG.
Posted April 20, 2013
I'd really like it if for newer games, there was a certain point after which the game was sold as a "complete" edition, including all DLC up to that point, and all future DLC.

I mean, it's silly for us (GoG and me) to not be able to make a transaction because I have to wait an extra year just to make absolutely sure that no more DLC will be released for a game. It would be great if you guys could do that legwork for me, since you have access to the companies that make the games, and give me an easy way to know that the game is now 'complete' so I can give you my money.

It may never come to pass, but I think that would be win-win for both of us.
Pages:
1
5
8
9
10
11
12
15
20
25
30
35
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)New Gaming Options: Survey Results(520 posts)(520 posts)
(520 posts)