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
20
25
29
30
31
32
33
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 22, 2013
avatar
SPTX: My stance is that good or not is irrelevant because of what publishers make them be. There is no guarantee GOG can do a good job at filtering what people may deem good or bad DLC.
This will happen if DLC becomes allowed with no proper standards set.
Who decides what is good or bad DLC? (http://www.gog.com/forum/general/new_gaming_options_survey_results/post245). Who's set of "proper standards" are we to follow? Yours? Are you going to dictate what is good or bad?

avatar
SPTX: Have you not ever thought that what you were doing a mistake buying some stuff? Not allowing this is also a way to protect you.
No, never. Or to rephrase - when I feel something is a mistake buying, then I... well.... I don't buy it. Controversial idea, I know.

Also - I once bought a bag of apples. One of the apples were sour... I do not like sour apples, and I thought they all were sweet. I wish you had protected me then. However, I agree that it is fair to say all stores should stop selling apples. I may buy another sour one some time if this continues.
Post edited April 22, 2013 by amok
Posted April 22, 2013
avatar
SPTX: Have you not ever thought that what you were doing a mistake buying some stuff? Not allowing this is also a way to protect you.
And here I thought mistakes are something to learn from, strictly on a personal basis... Thanks for offering to protect me, I appreciate it (no sarcasm here, I presume you do mean what you're saying), but I think I'm old and experienced enough to be able to handle my own mistakes by myself. And, unfortunately, the biggest mistake I've ever made in my life came from me not doing something I could've done, hence my position on the topic. I think the majority of people here are smart enough to filter the content themselves. If something is bad, it'll be criticized, will sell poorly, and GOG will eventually fix it. Denying people potential good things because they supposedly can't decide for themselves - on the global level - is... well, I was going to say something clever about healthy food, but amok beat me with those apples. XD
Posted April 22, 2013
avatar
JMich: My stance is that neither Expansions nor DLCs are automatically good/evil, and that the consumer should have the option of choosing for him/herself. At no point in time was an expansion automatically good.
While I would also love for all post-production content to be included for free with my initial purchase, if that is not possible, I prefer to have the option to buy it instead of not having the option to do so.
So, what is your argument to not allow me the option to buy DLCs from GOG?
avatar
SPTX: My stance is that good or not is irrelevant because of what publishers make them be. There is no guarantee GOG can do a good job at filtering what people may deem good or bad DLC.
You are also implying that post production stuff is indeed post prod and not cut-out content.
My position is simple, opening the floodgate will lead to abuses. You can call me tinfoil hat all you want, but this is what will happen if DLC becomes allowed with no proper standards set.
Have you not ever thought that what you were doing a mistake buying some stuff? Not allowing this is also a way to protect you.
Fear not! For We are GoG.

If any bad DLC gets released on GoG, we will arm up with Fondue forks and a steaming cauldron of Caramel. Then we will hunt down and Caramel coat and Popcorn those responsible... Our Fondue forks will fall upon the ill-fated, ill-conceived DLC swiftly!

And really, we will be deciding the outcomes of all these things you stated by whether we support them through purchases, or not.

And now, a word from our Sponsor: Reality – It may come and go, but it eventually catches up with us...

If these are the things we have to worry or complain about, we are fortunate, indeed.

And now, we return you back to your regularly scheduled Thread...
Posted April 22, 2013
avatar
SPTX: My stance is that good or not is irrelevant because of what publishers make them be. There is no guarantee GOG can do a good job at filtering what people may deem good or bad DLC.
You are also implying that post production stuff is indeed post prod and not cut-out content.
My position is simple, opening the floodgate will lead to abuses. You can call me tinfoil hat all you want, but this is what will happen if DLC becomes allowed with no proper standards set.
Have you not ever thought that what you were doing a mistake buying some stuff? Not allowing this is also a way to protect you.
avatar
GhostwriterDoF: Fear not! For We are GoG.

If any bad DLC gets released on GoG, we will arm up with Fondue forks and a steaming cauldron of Caramel. Then we will hunt down and Caramel coat and Popcorn those responsible... Our Fondue forks will fall upon the ill-fated, ill-conceived DLC swiftly!

And really, we will be deciding the outcomes of all these things you stated by whether we support them through purchases, or not.

And now, a word from our Sponsor: Reality – It may come and go, but it eventually catches up with us...

If these are the things we have to worry or complain about, we are fortunate, indeed.

And now, we return you back to your regularly scheduled Thread...
Great, now you made me hungry for chocolate fondue! :( FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED me, Seymour!
Posted April 22, 2013
avatar
azah_lemur: By being "fair" I understand not supporting anti-consumer and money-grabbing practices of game developers such as day-one DLC or DLC with little to no value or impact on the game (cosmetic, additional weapon and such).
I have a different idea of what "fair" is. For me it's fair if GOG offers DLCs and let the consumers judge which ones are worth their money and which aren't instead of denying them the opporrunity of doing so.
Posted April 22, 2013
avatar
JMich: Give me a timeframe and a number of "scammy" expansions you wish me to post then. Do you want normal and deluxe editions, with option to upgrade from normal to the deluxe, made pre-1995? A dozen or so from the master itself, Origin.
Want me to post map packs? Take a look at Master Levels of Doom (or any other Doom "expansion").
You prefer another fps example? Duke it Out in DC.
What about the GOTY edition of NOLF that included a huge mission not available for the regular version of the game? If you wanted to play it you had to rebuy the game. It wasn't really an expansion, but still BS. Oh damn, publishers these days are so evil.
Post edited April 22, 2013 by Neobr10
Posted April 22, 2013
avatar
vulchor: What ever happened to GOG's pledge to give us the most complete edition of game possible?
avatar
PenutBrittle: It never existed. Seriously, show me where they ever said that, because everyone keeps saying something similar but there is zero trace of this "pledge".
People keep telling you that because it is true. I don't know how long ago they removed it from the main page, but it used to be right there on the main page under the reasons you'll love it here pop-up.
Posted April 22, 2013
avatar
vulchor: People keep telling you that because it is true. I don't know how long ago they removed it from the main page, but it used to be right there on the main page under the reasons you'll love it here pop-up.
Neither I nor Jmich could find this mystery statement via the Wayback Machine. It wasn't in the reasons you'll love it pop-up on any of the years I checked.
Posted April 22, 2013
avatar
SPTX: My position is simple, opening the floodgate will lead to abuses. You can call me tinfoil hat all you want, but this is what will happen if DLC becomes allowed with no proper standards set.
Have you not ever thought that what you were doing a mistake buying some stuff? Not allowing this is also a way to protect you.
I'm "old" enough to choose what i should or shouldn't buy. I don't need anyone else filtering it for me, thanks.
Posted April 22, 2013
avatar
vulchor: GOG was about high standards and the golden age of gaming.
avatar
Neobr10: I'm very sorry to bust your bubble, but GOG is a company and companies are about making money. Period.
Companies can and do in many cases exist for more purposes than chasing the almighty dollar at all costs. GOG, for instance, fills a niche market. Let's keep it niche, not mainstream.

avatar
vulchor: Sure there are newer games from developers that respect your gaming rights, and these games are welcome here too. But sliding down the slope that offering DLC and Online multiplayer games (with or without cheap, shoddy single player to appease) for the sole purpose of having a larger game catalog risks alienating those in the community that are the largest proponents of this site.
avatar
Neobr10: Let me ask you one thing about the online part: should all UT games be removed from GOG forever? Because they fit your description perfectly. UT is an online multiplayer game with a "cheap, shoddy single player to appease (well, SP is nothing more than multiplayer with bots). GOG should remove it too, right? Because it certainly doesn't fit your standards of old school gaming.
There is no online service associated with UT. It featured LAN plan and direct connect.

avatar
vulchor: I agree that many many people on this site that support these changes wouldn't care if games had DRM either. They're the ones that want their Steam keys.
avatar
Neobr10: You know that DLCs and DRM are completely different things, right?
Where are you getting confused with my straightforward statement?
Posted April 22, 2013
avatar
vulchor: Companies can and do in many cases exist for more purposes than chasing the almighty dollar at all costs. GOG, for instance, fills a niche market. Let's keep it niche, not mainstream.
And why exactly will GOG not be a niche service anymore just by offering DLCs? Sorry to bust your bubble again, but DRM-free is actually a niche market. Most gamers don't mind DRM, which is why Steam holds the majority of the digital market share.

The issue here is that people who want DRM-free games and want to buy good DLCs simply have no option. They can either buy it from DRM infested stores or not buy at all. Why should GOG deny DLC to these guys who want DRM-free content?

It's a matter of expanding the market, which doesn't mean that it'll become mainstream.

avatar
vulchor: There is no online service associated with UT. It featured LAN plan and direct connect.
You should have phrased it better then. This is what you said: "But sliding down the slope that offering DLC and Online multiplayer games (with or without cheap, shoddy single player to appease)". UT does fit in that description.

avatar
vulchor: Where are you getting confused with my straightforward statement?
Why are you implying that many people who voted for DLCs will accept DRM? There's a huge difference between offering DLC and being DRM-free, but you seem to have ignored it.
Post edited April 22, 2013 by Neobr10
Posted April 22, 2013
avatar
vulchor: Companies can and do in many cases exist for more purposes than chasing the almighty dollar at all costs. GOG, for instance, fills a niche market. Let's keep it niche, not mainstream.
avatar
Neobr10: And why exactly will GOG not be a niche service anymore just by offering DLCs? Sorry to bust your bubble again, but DRM-free is actually a niche market. Most gamers don't mind DRM, which is why Steam holds the majority of the digital market share.

The issue here is that people who want DRM-free games and want to buy good DLCs simply have no option. They can either buy it from DRM infested stores or not buy at all. Why should GOG deny DLC to these guys who want DRM-free content?

It's a matter of expanding the market, which doesn't mean that it'll become mainstream.
I never thought about this way before. I'll concede. You guys deserve this ability. I just hope that complete editions don't become extremely overpriced because of this, or being forced to purchase a pack of all the DLC for a price similar or greater than the original game.

I never made an argument towards not wanting any DLC to become available, I just would like to see it all be included in the original game's purchase. I've witnessed so much fleecing of the consumer (with DLC) and giants like EA, Ubi, and Blizzard trampling over our privacy and ownership rights (with DRM (FYI, that is where I draw the correlation)) in the last 12 or so years, far greater than anything that I saw happening throughout the 80s and 90s, that GOG was like Pepto Bismol to my gaming industry nausea. I hope you all can understand that.
Posted April 22, 2013
avatar
Neobr10: And why exactly will GOG not be a niche service anymore just by offering DLCs? Sorry to bust your bubble again, but DRM-free is actually a niche market. Most gamers don't mind DRM, which is why Steam holds the majority of the digital market share.

The issue here is that people who want DRM-free games and want to buy good DLCs simply have no option. They can either buy it from DRM infested stores or not buy at all. Why should GOG deny DLC to these guys who want DRM-free content?

It's a matter of expanding the market, which doesn't mean that it'll become mainstream.
avatar
vulchor: I never thought about this way before. I'll concede. You guys deserve this ability. I just hope that complete editions don't become extremely overpriced because of this, or being forced to purchase a pack of all the DLC for a price similar or greater than the original game.

I never made an argument towards not wanting any DLC to become available, I just would like to see it all be included in the original game's purchase. I've witnessed so much fleecing of the consumer (with DLC) and giants like EA, Ubi, and Blizzard trampling over our privacy and ownership rights (with DRM (FYI, that is where I draw the correlation)) in the last 12 or so years, far greater than anything that I saw happening throughout the 80s and 90s, that GOG was like Pepto Bismol to my gaming industry nausea. I hope you all can understand that.
TET made a post awhile back, that basically said if a game reaches the end of its DLC cycle, they'll try and just make it a complete pack. I can't find the post right now though, and that's probably if the publisher is okay with it only.
Posted April 23, 2013
avatar
jalister: I don't like the buy in for "more" money to get early access to alpha or beta. On Desura you can buy in early for "less" money to get alpha or beta access.

I don't understand this new trend of paying more to help test a product. I received one particular alpha for 75% off the regular price. The game is in the early stages, and it is lacking features and has bugs. I'm enjoying playing with it though. While I did pay a lot less to get it in the alpha stage, I feel like I am still paying it back buy giving feedback on game play, bugs, and features.

I don't want to pay more than full price to play an unfinished game that will just take away the better experience of playing a complete game.
avatar
jpolastre: "Hello, dear customer. We just fired half our test and QA teams. Would you like to pay us for the privilege of doing their jobs?"
The only other logic I can see in it from a game company perspective would be they probably think if you paid more for it your more likely to test it since you sunk the money where as if you paid less a significant proportion might just not get around to testing it due to less financial loss. I'd be interested to hear the logic from a game company.
Posted April 23, 2013
avatar
zels: GOG, stop pretending that you're currently a viable option for new, big releases. You're good enough for for bit-sized games (<1 GB) but anything over that and your downloader crashes and burns.

Before you're in a position to offer big, new games redesign your frontpage to handle DLCs and fix your downloader.
I must admit I haven't used the downloader since they changed it, I used the run the older Adobe AIR version on my linux download box (lower power for running at night) and just run the downloads in my off peak internet quota (which was larger than my peak from my ISP).

Since they changed to a version I couldn't run on linux I just download manually.

Any modern browser (I use Firefox mainly) should be able to handle downloading large game files, though you won't get download resuming due to the content delivery network backend. Doing it that way I rarely get a download bomb out, though helps that my peak download quota is much higher than it used to be.
Pages:
1
5
10
15
20
25
29
30
31
32
33
35
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)New Gaming Options: Survey Results(520 posts)(520 posts)
(520 posts)