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

×
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
Nice, time to study the results.

Edit: Slide 4 and 5 are the same it seems, who messed up?

Edit 2: Any chance we also get an estimate of how many people answered the surveys? 100s? 1000s? 10000s? 65535?
Post edited April 19, 2013 by JMich
Glad the results are in.
Post edited April 19, 2013 by RayRay13000
Interesting results. I initially voted no on beta builds but regretted making that choice later. Since folks seem to be overwhelmingly in support of such a move, I just hope that GOG's infrastructure is ready to support potentially frequent updates to multiple titles. But it would be great if it meant that we could have beta access to titles such as Starbound.
Post edited April 19, 2013 by SCPM
Thanks for sharing, GOG. Looks like people were okay with everything except season pass DLC and MMOs.
avatar
GOG.com: We remain committed to bringing you guys the best games from all of gaming history, on both PC and Mac.
Then why Daikatana? /me runs

Seriously though, thanks for posting the results.
Well, the results seem more or less what we saw on the forums, no big surprise. Still an interesting read.
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).
I'm glad to see Planetary Annihilation win by a big margin. I feel games that allow single player and LAN play without any restrictions are fine for GOG. Putting the questions into a specific game like this was a better example for people to judge than things like the small Omerta DLC packs for $5 each.
avatar
GOG.com: 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.
Could that be because you asked about a subtly different situation to that of Planetary Annihilation? The survey's question was whether you should sell games which 'have persistent online features...and which require 3rd party accounts'. Planetary Annihilation, as I understand it, does not require you to use said third party accounts. I've just noticed that the question could be read as 'games which have online features (which are tracked on the developer's end and require 3rd party accounts)', which was presumably what was meant. Obviously my original understanding of the question would have the answer 'no': it's a form of DRM. That could be why there was such a big difference between the results.

It might be worth redoing the 'abstract' question, with a slightly more careful phrasing.

(Sorry if I sounded condescending in this post, by the way. I didn't mean to be, but couldn't figure out a better way to say it.)
avatar
GOG.com: 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.”
I don't see it as conflicting at all. For me, the key is that the first said "require 3rd party accounts" and the second "Optional persistent online features".


EDIT: And ninja'd.
Post edited April 19, 2013 by adambiser
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).
Yep, if the first episode doesn't get the sales, then the devs could easily pull the plug on the rest of the series. This doesn't bother those that don't buy into such games, but it is unfair on those that do.
I'm totally okay with the outcome of the survey, especially with your guys conclusion.

And thanks for sharing the results.
I think the reason why we were so cautious to multiplayer features the first time round is because they can easily contain a red herring.
Not the results I would have wanted. The key to access online features feels like it kills a few things going forward but atleast it opens up a few alley ways for the single player experience to remain untained.

And ofc, DRM free!