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
13
14
15
16
17
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
Chiming in to add my opinion.

I REALLY hope GoG wont betray their principles to get some easy sales. There are VERY specific reasons I shop here instead of for example steam or other online options. If you take away those reasons you lose me (and I'm guessing a lot of others as a customer.

If you have such a hard-on for "regular" pc-retailing, make a sister site OR make a very specific section of gog where you only offer these new/lesser games, and keep it separate from the actual good old games.
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
Khalaq: 1) This is a violation of one of GOG's core principles: offering only games which are "complete."
[citation needed]

Seriously, to everyone out there claiming "complete editions" is a core principle, show me where it says that anywhere on the site. Please.
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
Khalaq: 1) This is a violation of one of GOG's core principles: offering only games which are "complete."
avatar
PenutBrittle: [citation needed]

Seriously, to everyone out there claiming "complete editions" is a core principle, show me where it says that anywhere on the site. Please.
Back in the Old Days, when we bought games, few of them were complete on release too, but these new fans of the Good old Games wouldn’t know what it was like back then, so forgive them their unknowingness.

We used to have to wait months for patches to be released. Battlefield 42, for example had lots of 100 megabyte downloads that took over 24 hours on a 56k modem. I think they are still releasing patches for the original StarCraft.

Content was added to almost every game after they were initially released. Take a look at Fileplanet’s archives for the multitudes of patches that were released post-release of the games themselves. Complete games? heh... :D
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
GOG.com: 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!
All in all pretty satisfactory, I would like to draw attention to one other aspect of your point #5.
While I 100% agree that any games considered should be at least as offline friendly as Planetary Annihilation it's important to reiterate both aspects of that, 1) Providing some single player game modes (even in a multiplayer focused game the possibility of an AI skirmish and/or campaign is still important). 2) LAN, Direct Connect, Play by e-mail, et al. It is vital that any game sold be sold in a form which is not dependent on the developer/publisher to continue playing. Persistent features are one thing provided they are a choice but fundamental game play should never be bound to the continued operation of company servers (or indeed of the Development/Publishing company itself ).

I voted "yes" on Planetary Annihilation because based on what I read my understanding is that it fits the above criterion. It is important that I make the requirements and motivations for my vote explicitly clear because even a nice addition like Planetary Annihilation steps close to the edge of acceptability, and lacking any of it's "you don't have to register or play with us/on our servers" aspects it would become an unequivocal no.
Based on reading comments in the prior threads I do not believe I am alone in this sentiment and I personally presume that this explains the difference in tally between the two related votes in the survey.

Cheers (and thanks again GOG for being such a standup company)
Legion
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
SPTX: Huh... no. Still no for me.
3rd party software isn't needed and therefore not wanted. It inherently goes against several principles GOG stands for. Principles that are the reason I talk about GOG and tell people to avoid steam like the plague.
avatar
Gaunathor: Okay, you have to explain that to me, because I don't understand it. How is a optional 3rd party account, that isn't required to play the game at all, inherently going against several of GOG's principles? Not to mention, which principles? DRM-free? If not having the account doesn't limit your ability to play the game, it can't be considered DRM
But that's exactly what it does. Such account is required to access a feature of the game. Not having access to that feature is having a part of the game stripped off.

avatar
GhostwriterDoF: Back in the Old Days, when we bought games, few of them were complete on release too, but these new fans of the Good old Games wouldn’t know what it was like back then, so forgive them their unknowingness.

We used to have to wait months for patches to be released. Battlefield 42, for example had lots of 100 megabyte downloads that took over 24 hours on a 56k modem. I think they are still releasing patches for the original StarCraft.

Content was added to almost every game after they were initially released. Take a look at Fileplanet’s archives for the multitudes of patches that were released post-release of the games themselves. Complete games? heh... :D
Are you seriously comparing patches with DLC? Are you out of your mind?
Post edited April 20, 2013 by SPTX
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
Khalaq: I still believe that offering unfinished games (pre-order) here on GOG.com is a huge mistake.

1) This is a violation of one of GOG's core principles: offering only games which are "complete."
2) Until a game is finished and released, there is no guarantee what the final product will look like or even if it will be playable. (Hello, SimCity.)

Despite that, I have been outvoted by the masses, the same group who paid full price to pre-order Omerta and Aliens Colonial Marines. While not every game which has made it to GOG.com has been top-notch, the quality of their catalog was way above average. I fear those days are now over.

-Khalaq
"... 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.

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.
I only bring this up because presuming that the people who answered the survey differently than you are willing to blindly pre-pay full price for a bad game and thus don't have much judgement (as your final paragraph clearly implies) really misses the point of the conversation as offering access to closed beta builds and feedback forums is in no way equivalent to simply pre-ordering a game, regardless of the quality of said game.

Cheers,
Legion
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
Gaunathor: Okay, you have to explain that to me, because I don't understand it. How is a optional 3rd party account, that isn't required to play the game at all, inherently going against several of GOG's principles? Not to mention, which principles? DRM-free? If not having the account doesn't limit your ability to play the game, it can't be considered DRM
avatar
SPTX: But that's exactly what it does. Such account is required to access a feature of the game. Not having access to that feature is having a part of the game stripped off.
So you'll be okay with it only if they remove the said feature? You'll be left with the same "non-account content", you're just making sure people who wouldn't mind having an account get less. I don't really see the benefits of that.
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
GhostwriterDoF: Back in the Old Days, when we bought games, few of them were complete on release too, but these new fans of the Good old Games wouldn’t know what it was like back then, so forgive them their unknowingness.

We used to have to wait months for patches to be released. Battlefield 42, for example had lots of 100 megabyte downloads that took over 24 hours on a 56k modem. I think they are still releasing patches for the original StarCraft.

Content was added to almost every game after they were initially released. Take a look at Fileplanet’s archives for the multitudes of patches that were released post-release of the games themselves. Complete games? heh... :D
avatar
SPTX: Are you seriously comparing patches with DLC? Are you out of your mind?
To answer your first question, no, although some of the patches of old did add more new stuff than the DLC packs we pay for nowadays. And, now that you mention it, patches were the first downloadable content. Still the answer to your question is, no.

To answer your second question, yes.
Posted April 20, 2013
I voted No on most things, but now I realize I should have voted No on everything...Don't get DLC Gog...just don't, because that's going to encourage game makers to make unfinished games so they can put stuff into DLC a month later!!!
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
MichaelFurlong: Would you feel weird buying a book to sit down and read if you found out that there are conversations and smaller chapters missing? Sure you may get a decent story out of it, but you want to read the whole damn story first time round.
avatar
BadDecissions: I don't think that's a good analogy. Try this instead: an author writes a fantasy novel. It sells well, so she writes a few short stories set in the same world and featuring the same characters and publishes them in various magazines (I'm thinking specifically of Ellen Kushner, if that somehow helps.) You can say that no longer have the "complete experience," but in fact, you have a perfectly complete, coherent novel, and you can decide for yourself if you now want to spend extra money to get more of the same.
Nah, those would be stand alone, small expansion packs. They are separate pieces that can be read separately. Sort of like those NWN expansions. You read the book/play the game and see that there is more related, complete material to complement what you have already enjoyed.

Something that adds an NPC to a game, or a handful of sidequests, or a weapons pack require you to play the game again, they are completely different. They require you to play the whole game again to enjoy them, so you may as well wait until you can get a complete edition and then play it all at once.
Post edited April 20, 2013 by MichaelFurlong
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
MichaelFurlong: Yes I may be slightly OC, but it sure as hell does not make me wrong.
I'm just saying it influences your opinion.

Others have handled your analogies well, so I'll leave it to them.
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.
To be more accurate shit like ME3, Leviathan, (or lair of the shadow broker or arrival in ME2, or even BDtS in ME1 tho the last is the least extreme case) etc are horrible money grabbing because they cut out plot developments in a RPG series sold on it's persistent player driven choices/events.

We're not talking trivial cosmetic fluff here we're talking an active hacking up of the game and parsing out it's core content into multiple pseudo "micro transaction" pieces to coerce gamers into paying for the same product over and over again just to get the full experience. The current "DLC" (horrendously vague and ill defined term) paradigm practiced by most 'major' studios like EA essentially boils down do "how much of the game can we withhold and still make the sale". They don't make expansions, MoTB for NWN2 was an expansion, Brood War for SC was an expansion, or Tribes of the East for Heros etc. These things extended the arc and the game play rather than filled in gaps after the fact. As if that weren't enough many of these "add-ons" are available as part of pre-ordering the games, demonstrating that they have finished game play and story content created prior to launch which the studio then spends extra effort to code as a separate piece of code/software rather than taking the (mildly) less resource intensive route of including it within the game.

There is a really fundamental difference between extended content being added as an aspect of ongoing development (which by the way would include fixing game breaking bugs like the improper plot flags present throughout the entire Mass Effect trilogy not just creating new stuff to sell) and the current practice of omitting content from the primary game to create extra micro sales during pre-order and launch.

0.02 FRN
Legion

ps ~ the ME centric presentation of this post is simply used as an extension of the game cited prior to my reply, it should not be construed as picking out the ME series as the only gaming title participating in this onerous business model because EA is most certainly not alone in these sub-par practices.
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
TheJoe: GOG's done a great job of convincing developers that DRM-free is the best way to do things, but they're not willing to convince developers that DLC is the next ugly beast we have to exterminate. Well we got somewhere at least...
I doubt anyone really likes DRM... ambivalent, sure, but likes? Not really.

However a lot of people like DLC, myself included.
avatar
RoseLegion: ps ~ the ME centric presentation of this post is simply used as an extension of the game cited prior to my reply, it should not be construed as picking out the ME series as the only gaming title participating in this onerous business model because EA is most certainly not alone in these sub-par practices.
But see this is your problem. There is nothing wrong with disliking Mass Effect 3's business model or handling of DLC. I actually agree that's an example where a developer went over the line in what it offered on day one. I waited to get the collector's edition at a discount because of the day one story DLC issue.

However, this is not "DLC" in general. This is a specific case. This is where "DLC haters," to use an unfortunate term, appear a bit nutter because you cannot loop all of it together and make a judgment. Likes games themselves and the expansions of old the price, quality, size and value all differ. You can say "Mass Effect 3's DLC was shitty business" but then say "Skyrim's DLC was awesome" or "Saint's Row's DLC was good business wise but kind of boring" or whatever.

Judge it all on its own terms. Some of it is quite good, some of it is okay, some of it is shit. Like ANYTHING else. It's the "GOG should never sell it and pretend it doesn't exist because it's all horrible" mindset that looks, frankly, ridiculous.
Post edited April 20, 2013 by StingingVelvet
Posted April 20, 2013
Steam loving idiots... Here comes Steam DRM to GoG.com thanks to to many Idiots that want to make GoG.com like Steam.
Posted April 20, 2013
avatar
FlyByU: Steam loving idiots... Here comes Steam DRM to GoG.com thanks to to many Idiots that want to make GoG.com like Steam.
I'm a Steam-ignoring idiot and I voted "yes" in most cases... Was there a question about an obligatory DRM-like client for GOG games (or, ANY obligatory client if we're talking about it)? Because that's what pulling me off in Steam.
Pages:
1
5
10
13
14
15
16
17
20
25
30
35
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)New Gaming Options: Survey Results(520 posts)(520 posts)
(520 posts)