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
10
15
16
17
18
19
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 20, 2013
avatar
Adzeth: , and you should always put the cheese on the lettuce and not the other way around.
More and more,
there appears to be,
a hint of a conspiracy

of cheese

afoot in these Forums.
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
Adzeth: , and you should always put the cheese on the lettuce and not the other way around.
avatar
GhostwriterDoF: More and more,
there appears to be,
a hint of a conspiracy

of cheese

afoot in these Forums.
When conspiracy of milk is not enough...

GOG clearly needs to sell something in order to have money to acquire more old games. Selling the games themselves probably doesn't bring them as much money as needed, so they're trying to sell something else in addition to those. I guess, the more they sell, the better. (Maybe one day they'll get ultra-rich and buy a certain company that bought a certain other company that released some of my favourite games ever...)
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
etb: Thanks for help guys.

And what is the difference between expansion pack and DLC?
avatar
Adzeth: The delivery method. DLC is something you download, an expansion pack is something you buy from a physical store. It gets really confusing since you can buy some expansion packs digitally (so they're DLC) and buy some DLC in physical stores (so they're expansion packs). Anyway, the general consensus is that DLC is bad and expansion packs are great, and you should always put the cheese on the lettuce and not the other way around.
This, basically. There are some who do not realise that what DLC is an abbreviation for DownLoadable Content. There are no value judgment on what the extent of the content is by itself.
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
etb: Thanks for help guys.

And what is the difference between expansion pack and DLC?
avatar
Adzeth: The delivery method. DLC is something you download, an expansion pack is something you buy from a physical store. It gets really confusing since you can buy some expansion packs digitally (so they're DLC) and buy some DLC in physical stores (so they're expansion packs). Anyway, the general consensus is that DLC is bad and expansion packs are great, and you should always put the cheese on the lettuce and not the other way around.
That's a bit misleading though. I doubt you intend it to be misleading but clearly the functional definition of "DLC" within the context of GOG asking about it can't simply be the delivery method, or in fact the delivery method whatsoever.
GOG doesn't do boxed copies, everything they present is via download so when they ask about the inclusion of "DLC" in their service they are clearly asking about something else.

This expends to your lettuce and cheese commentary as well because using the definition you present no one who is an actual GOG customer (i.e. purchases things from GOG) supports "expansion packs" over "DLC".
Yet it's readily apparent that most of those who are discussing the subject, including GOG themselves, aren't using such definitions and when the details of what they're discussing are examined it's clear their concerns aren't founded on/focused on a simple difference in delivery medium.
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
sivartwoa: snip
The problem is that "value" of a DLC is very subjective. On person may think that buying the Pink Horse Armour DLC to use for their crossdressing knight s/he is playing in Kingdoms of Oblivion is the ultimate wet dream, while another may think that it is biggest waste of money ever.
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
RoseLegion: snip
I'm not the one who caused the misleadingness. GOG could just as well ask if people would be okay with them selling expansion packs. The confusion comes from people thinking DLC means "bad additional content" and expansion pack means "good additional content".
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
sivartwoa: snip
avatar
amok: The problem is that "value" of a DLC is very subjective. On person may think that buying the Pink Horse Armour DLC to use for their crossdressing knight s/he is playing in Kingdoms of Oblivion is the ultimate wet dream, while another may think that it is biggest waste of money ever.
Agreed, which is why it's important to consider it from a context that exists earlier than/outside of the context provided by the purely subjective theme of end user choice. (That choice should still be there of course, but it's a poor metric for evaluation because of how subjective it is).

A better assessment is how well the company is supporting their game. Is this "DLC" actual ongoing development along with bug fixes and extended content or is this a money grab where the term "DLC" is used to obfuscate a greedy company having pre-parsed the game client with the intent to sell it to you piecemeal.
avatar
RoseLegion: snip
avatar
Adzeth: I'm not the one who caused the misleadingness. GOG could just as well ask if people would be okay with them selling expansion packs. The confusion comes from people thinking DLC means "bad additional content" and expansion pack means "good additional content".
I agree that GOG could (should?) have used a more specific term than "DLC" it's a very vague term that causes a lot of problems but it's still misleading within the context of this thread (one pinned to the survey GOG presented) to say that the matter being discussed is purely defined by the delivery method. It is manifest that GOG wasn't asking about delivery method, nor were many (most?) of the posters who object to "DLC" talking about delivery method.

Further there have been a number of people in this thread who've raised concerns about the "DLC model" which have nothing to do with the subjective concepts of which additional content is "good" or "bad".

The individual you were replying too sought clarification of the matter being discussed and the definitions you provided actually obfuscate rather than clarify when applied to the contest of this thread, which is the context for the question asked.

Again I agree that "DLC" is a bad term because of it's epic vagueness, and I further reiterate that I do not believe it was your intention to be misleading but for someone seeking to have the discussion in this thread brought in to sharper focus the response provided would have been counter productive.
Post edited April 20, 2013 by RoseLegion
Posted April 20, 2013
Just saw this, and to put it bluntly, bleah. Very disappointed at the results. That's all.
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
RoseLegion: "... to support the developer and help make the game better." <--- I feel you're overlooking this key aspect.

I don't know of anyone who's saying "an unfinished game huzza!" but some, myself included, care about certain titles and would like the opportunity to provide feedback on their development as it happens in the hopes that we contribute in some small way to a more polished and rewarding game play experience when the game comes out.

Further supporting the Devs is a rather big deal, in the current age of money grubbing EA.. er excuse me "AAA" style gaming being willing to step up and support Indy devs and those gaming projects (like The Witcher 2) which buck the trends of current industry "wisdom" is very important. It is a choice that literally impacts the shape of how gaming changes in the future and I for one want to contribute to that conversation rather than leave it up to the EA's of gaming to decide what and how we're allowed to play.
I agree that providing feedback during development and supporting developers who buck the industry trends to make the games they want to play is a good idea. That is why I support Kickstarter and Indiegogo projects. Crowd-funding, however, is not the same thing as pre-ordering. Crowd-funding is a collaborative effort where the investors and developers work together in the creative process. The fact that those investors may choose to receive a sample of the product after production is a side-benefit. Pre-ordering, on the other hand, is a simple transaction and the buyer has no rights aside from delivery of what was promised. Investing and purchasing are two, distinctly different things.

Oh and a smaller side note, all the pre-orders I've seen on GOG were discounted so no one payed full price for them. I haven't played Omerta so I've no comment on it specifically but it's important not to misrepresent the facts.
While you are technically correct, you are splitting hairs, here. The sale price for pre-ordering is a percentage discount on the full price of the to-be-released game. I'm sure I haven't seen every price for every pre-order that has ever been offered, but I have yet to see one for 33% (or more) off the MSRP.

My original posting was in response to the suggestion that GOG would be including pre-ordered games in their catalog. There was no discussion about crowd-funding (for which there already exist other websites), nor would it be reasonable to expect such. GOG.com is a retail site. Up until now, they have sold only fully-finished games. Other retailers have taken to selling unfinished or partly-finished games, and that has been to the detriment of their reputations. I feel that GOG's decision to follow the example of other retailers is a mistake. The majority of those who voted in the polls apparently disagree with my viewpoint, and that is their right. Just because an idea is popular doesn't make it a good one, however, and we have ample evidence to prove that point.

I hold nothing against you for your opinion, but I do disagree.

-Khalaq
Post edited April 20, 2013 by Khalaq
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
MichaelFurlong: Yes I may be slightly OC, but it sure as hell does not make me wrong.
avatar
StingingVelvet: I'm just saying it influences your opinion.

Others have handled your analogies well, so I'll leave it to them.
Mmm, there is not as much aggression behind my statement as may come across.
It influences my opinions of course. There is nothing wrong with playing a game and not caring that there are features of that games which you won't be experiencing. There is equally nothing wrong with wanting to play a complete experience and getting aggravated that doing so can be difficult.

Are you saying you disagree with the comparisons I gave?
Post edited April 20, 2013 by MichaelFurlong
Posted April 20, 2013
Thanks for sharing these results with us. I'm glad that GOG is willing to have an open discussion and listen to the customers. I am one of the people who voted no, so it looks like the majority has spoken and I lost. I just hope that GOG will listen to the the good suggestions that people have made about how to organize things so that the website does not turn into a cluttered confusing mess where it is hard to tell what is being offered for sale and what isn't.

I am one of the people who likes complete games with all content and I hope that these packages will still be offered. I will not be buying any newly released games and DLC from the big publishers like EA. I will buy these same games if they are offered later as a complete edition. There may be just a few exceptions to no new big AAA games for me. I might buy the new Witcher and Cyberpunk games at release or preorder because I know these will be good and you treat the customers right. For almost everything else, I will wait.

I will buy indie games that are new and I am kind of glad that we will have the opportunity to get DLC for some of these indie games. I would like to be able to support some of the smaller studios if they are doing it right with good expansion pack type content for games that I enjoyed. I was sorry that I had to vote against this to keep out the abusive practices of the big publishers. Indie game expansions are probably the only DLC that I will buy.

I have to wonder how well DLC will really sell on GOG. It seems like a lot of people who voted yes were saying "I wouldn't buy it myself, but other people should be able to buy it."
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
StingingVelvet: I really think a lot of DRM hate is from people who have mild OCD and need EVERYTHING for every game they buy and play. So for them shit like Mass Effect armor packs is horrible money grabbing because they can't help but either buy it or feel weird about not buying it.
I'm kind of like this in that I absolutely HATE pre-order DLC you can only get if you pre-order the game and that's it. Or DLC that only comes with a special edition.

Drives me up the fucking wall. I'm glad some companies eventually release to everyone though like CD Projekt RED and Creative Assembly.
Posted April 20, 2013
Absolutely hilarious and predictable. The people who were against DLC and the like and talked a big game about waiting to see the results. Now that the results are out and didn't go their way, clearly 'the questions were biased' and 'people don't understand' and blah de blah.

The results are in. You 'lost'. Welcome to reality.
Post edited April 20, 2013 by Crassmaster
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
Crassmaster: Absolutely hilarious and predictable. The people who were against DLC and the like and talked a big game about waiting to see the results. Now that the results are out and didn't go their way, clearly 'the questions were biased' and 'people don't understand' and blah de blah.

The results are in. You 'lost'. Welcome to reality.
Obvious troll
Posted April 20, 2013
Well, those results are a little disappointing. What made GoG special for me was that they avoided a lot of the silly consumer-gouging practices of a lot of modern games, such as DRM, DLC, etc. Of course the line can be somewhat difficult to draw between DLC and expansion in the modern age, considering all post launch content seems to be reliably delivered the same way as [bD]ownLoadable Content, technically making all post launch content 'DLC', but there is the general trend towards offering less for more. Stuff like costumes, or weapons or a single extra quest etc for prices comparable to what many older games on GoG are selling for at this moment. High-Content DLC are inseperable from expansions IMO as long as they aren't part of that insufferable 'day one DLC' trend nowdays, or DLC that is already-on-disc but requires an additional payout to unlock. It's that sort of stuff and the trend towards microtransactions that should not be on GoG. From what I have heard about the Omerta DLC offered on GoG, it is one of those 'bad DLCs', which gives me cause for worry. I can understand why people would want more content on GoG, but the type of DLC that GoG seems to be leaning towards seems to be the microtransactiony sort of garbage, which is absolutely not something I would want to see GoG start supporting as it's a predatory sort of buisness ractice that drives me away from a lot of modern games.
Pages:
1
5
10
15
16
17
18
19
20
25
30
35
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)New Gaming Options: Survey Results(520 posts)(520 posts)
(520 posts)