Meh, still just butting in to air a view which I'm sure has been aired plenty of times in the pages of this thread, which is far too much to go through in a hurry, but since in my earlier post I just expressed disappointment at the results and left it at that...

I'm disappointed because episodic content and the current form of DLC are trends that need to be stamped out, not encouraged by being taken in even by one of the last apparent bastions of fairness left in this business.

Want to make a game, make a game, all of it, not little bits and pieces released as soon as you can. It's a game, not a TV series to have episodes!

Want to add something to your game and sell it, then make it a massive adition, a large amount of new content and improvements of the original content as well. Release an expansion adding 40 hours to a 60-hour base game, at a minimum, on top of polishing said original 60-hour campaign/quest and sure, that's great, let's have it here. But the things sold as DLC now and the way they're sold (just think of day-one DLC) is just sickening... Soon enough they'll start selling bugfixes at this rate. Not CDP, hopefully, as they're doing right and releasing the Enhanced Editions for free, but otherwise... I mean, the sort of stuff often sold as DLC these days was made available for free once (say, Morrowind's official free mods?).

As for the multiplayer games tied to third party accounts, that's DRM, period. Mainly or even solely multiplayer (non-MMO) games, sure, but only as long as they can be fully played via LAN and/or private servers. If third party accounts are also available as an option, for those who want bigger crowds, achievements and whatnot, ok, can leave them there, but if those things are the actual focus of the game instead of just skirmishes, like is the case of that permanent campaign mentioned for the game given as an example, then definitely not. Anyone buying such a game and wanting to stay away from any form of DRM would end up paying mainly for stuff they'll never use, which is unfair. If they want to sell such games, the only way it might be fair would be if they'd sell 2 versions, one full-priced and offering full access and another one not offering access to these official servers, but being way cheaper as a result, to reflect the fact that most of the game's content is not part of the package.

Still, what is the definition of "being fair" in this case?.. Isn't offering different people different options for buying games more fair than locking them into some "unique" way of doing this? Again, if you're not interested in the new services/products, nobody forces you to buy them, so this is not unfair, either, right? The good old DRM-free games aren't going to disappear, either.

Being fair to the established customer base? Come one, show me one store that doesn't want to expand it - there's a limit on how much stuff each dedicated fan will buy, for tastes differ, so more customers are welcome, and more services are meant to attract them.

We've made a whopping 16-pages thread about something that hasn't happened yet. Starts to remind me of that whole "end of the world" stuff that happens every few years... GOG is not going to implement all of this overnight, they'll find a way to make a "test run", so we can see all of this in practice, and I'm more than sure this won't turn out as bad as many people here seem to think.

I think the larger issue here is that we all used to sing GOG's names to the heavens because of what they stood for.

But as time's gone on, and business practices are slowly changing we've split into three groups, the die hard GOG fans that still praise GOG as the saviour, regardless of what they do, the completely apathetic that don't care about the issues, and the pessimistic that are opposed to every and all changes for fear of the slippery slope.

It's this combination that's lead to these confusing results, nobody wants multiplayer only games, yet Planetary Annihilation (or whatever it's called) gets a pass because of the faith everyone here has in GOG and their decisions in these fields.

People don't seem to see that the old promise of GOG bringing us 'the most complete version of a game available' is being undermined right in front of us with all of this DLC, if GOG had carried on building up a user base without these things and legitimately scrutinized the content they're providing they could have become a symbol of Quality, it would have taken a long time, and it would have been very hard work but GOG could have made major waves in the industry but it feels like they're selling out, and it feels like the user base is either changing to the same enablers that have gotten us into an industry where content and Ideas are withheld just for the sake of a little more cash or is just full of mindless drones that follow GOG because take that gabe and your money making behemoth.

It really saddens me to think that we're at the top of the slope because I have faith in the users, and I have faith in GOG but it's starting to dwindle, and I don't really blame any one of the fantastic people at GOG I know they're hard working and they want the best, but the worst things come from the best intentions.

Dude, we already have MMOs on GOG. Gothic is an MMORPG with no single-player, but nobody complained.

If GOG followed a business plan based on this slippery slope theory and betraying their core values, they would have to lay of half their employees and maybe set up shop in one of their mothers basements.

I'm against persistent DRM that forces you have an internet connection to play or need a 3rd party installation or client to play.

I don't want any Steam game here or Sim City alike.

I don't mind keys to install a game or register it although I would prefer it was purely for registration.

Tell you what GOG. Just release Privateer 2 The Darkening and we'll say no more about it.....

Jesus christ people, there is such a thing as good DLC. Why should GoG exclude that? And why should they exclude MP?

It's not like they're suddenly going to quit selling old games or great single player games. you can actually have both.

Tralalalala

No wonder you bought some - scampywiak said there IS such thing, no that there isn't :)

I should not have had the last two glasses of wine.... sorry... ignore me the rest of the evening.

Ok, then. Now answer me one thing: did expansions exist to "cheat" us as well? Because in some cases there's pretty much no difference between an expansion and a DLC, except for the fact that expansions were sold in retail while DLCs are only available for download. Skyrim DLCs, for example, are much bigger than Morrowind's expansions.

Most Fallout and Borderlands DLCs could have been sold as expansions back in the day.

The name DLC must be honored, so editors use it for expansions too.
Morro expansions were true ones, well integered to the base game.
Skyrim I can't say, but about Borderland its DLCs are badly integered, there are problems of leveling, so they're not really expansions (we're like in a different game): they are big DLCs yes, with DRM limiting installs. I should not have buy the game.
Ok DLCs are not always tiny. DLCs is the name of the shame used by editors: tiny and/or expensive and/or badly integered

you do realise you are working by a definition not shared by the majority? (or everyone else...). It makes all continuing discussion with you more or less pointless as you define the problem is a way that it is impossible to argue with.

(- fruits can be quite nice, I do not like all kind of fruit though
- No, all fruits are bad
- But I like some kind of fruit... Apples, for example
- I do not consider apple a fruit. It is the editorial definition. All fruits are yellow and sour, therefor al fruit are bad.
- riiiiight...... )

anyway, continue, please. Still drunk here.