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
It seems that surveys are only complicating the issue.

The idea is simple: we chose GOG because it stood firm with it's "no DRM" stance. If you drop that, frankly, you are no better than other online retailers, next thing you're gonna become just a reseller for Steam keys.

It's not that we hate online multiplayer or something like that. We just want to make sure that 10 years from now, or 20 years from now our games will be perfectly playable. For singleplayer no-DRM it's a no-brainer, of course it will work. For LAN multiplayer, yeah why not. For online? Fat chance. Considering dedicated servers (open console, connect 123.45.56.78) is a thing of the past, for multiplayer games we are at mercy of publishers. When wil they pull the plug on servers rendering the game useless? One year after release? Four years? When sequel comes out? We just don't want that stuff, just give us a playable game.

Why some games can slip by with serial keys and some cannot? A big factor is whether there's singleplayer content. I bought NWN here for singleplayer campaigns only and had a blast. Without multiplayer, NWN would still be a source of fun. Disable multiplayer on game like Battlefield (yeah, I know it's not on GOG) and you got a useless game you paid for.
Nobody else asked for Linux Support from GOG.com?
Its all well and good valve via steam is now offering linux games but i'd prefer there was competition and another way to purchase linux games other than steam. Also the fact most of the newer indie games being sold by GOG have linux versions yet they arent available for purchase on the site.
avatar
F4LL0UT: Oh God, people WANT broken Alpha/Beta versions which will keep them from fully enjoying the full game once it's released but they DON'T WANT multiplayer games. Horrible world we live in.
avatar
keeveek: What do you mean? Alpha funding means when the game is finally released, you get the full version with no extra charge.
He means that witnessing the game going through stages of developments strips it of its "magic". A bit like when you learn about dev/level design yourself.
avatar
dredhammer: Nobody else asked for Linux Support from GOG.com?
Its all well and good valve via steam is now offering linux games but i'd prefer there was competition and another way to purchase linux games other than steam. Also the fact most of the newer indie games being sold by GOG have linux versions yet they arent available for purchase on the site.
Ubuntu support, actually.
Post edited April 19, 2013 by SPTX
avatar
macnbc: Disappointed with the results.

Sometimes I worry that people would vote yes for DRM if asked if it would allow more games on the site, simply because people would rather have more games.

I personally would rather have a smaller, high-quality, comprehensive selection than to lower standards just to get everything out there. I always liked GOG because they had those standards, or at least used to, but I worry that the survey results will just lead the site further down the road of Generic Online Distributor Trying To Compete With Steam.
I completely agree.
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
HypersomniacLive: 100% agreed and said so in the thread of the survey.
Treating the active involvement in making the final release a better game for everyone as a higher priced privilege is beyond my comprehension.
Couldn't agree more. Alpha/beta builds are generally sold for less than the final versions. That's consistent with pre-orders of any kind - the buyer is taking the risk on the final product being junk, so you pay less, or get some sort of goodies, to make up. I don't consider bug reporting much of a goodie...

The one place I can think of that charges more for alpha/beta access is Kickstarter, which encourages people to feel part of the development process. Maybe that's where GOG is getting the "more money" thing from, since there are quite a few big Kickstarter projects in the mid-range future that would hold a lot of appeal for GOG's audience.

Even charging more, GOG could ensure the success of this move if it vets the games well - make sure any early-release game is a great one, and there's effectively no risk for people to mitigate.
avatar
keeveek: What do you mean? Alpha funding means when the game is finally released, you get the full version with no extra charge.
avatar
SPTX: He means that witnessing the game going through stages of developments strips it of its "magic". A bit like when you learn about dev/level design yourself.
But it's quite the opposite... If you help funding a game made by smaller studio, you're a part of "testing" and "backers", and you have real influence over how the game will look like. For example, with Project Zomboid, alpha funding community has big impact on future updates.

I would feel good knowing that "this piece of game is there because I suggested it". It also helps you to "find" a game really suited for you.

Of course, I mean smaller studios, indie studios in particular, not bigger game like Bohemia and Arma 3.

It depends how you look at it, it's nothing bizzare or ridiculous. I gladly paid for Project Zomboid alpha and I played it for more hours than many finished games. And every update brings even more awesome stuff.

Also, alpha funding usually uses both "techniques" - you pay less than for a final product, or you pay more, if you want to be a supporter. So if you are really confident "I will play that game when it's finished", it's nothing wrong to alpha fund it - it's extended preorder. Sometimes games might not get finished, though.
Post edited April 19, 2013 by keeveek
avatar
keeveek: But it's quite the opposite... If you help funding a game made by smaller studio, you're a part of "testing" and "backers", and you have real influence over how the game will look like. For example, with Project Zomboid, alpha funding community has big impact on future updates.

I would feel good knowing that "this piece of game is there because I suggested it". It also helps you to "find" a game really suited for you.

Of course, I mean smaller studios, indie studios in particular, not bigger game like Bohemia and Arma 3.

It depends how you look at it, it's nothing bizzare or ridiculous. I gladly paid for Project Zomboid alpha and I played it for more hours than many finished games. And every update brings even more awesome stuff.
Doesn't change the fact that you lose the magic of discovery when you get an unfinished product in your hands. That was the point.
Note that I am not against that since I am myself now too much aware of what happens behind the scenes, but for the normal people, it's just a way to spoil themselves the pleasure of playing the game, and they should be somehow protected against that.
avatar
F4LL0UT: Oh God, people WANT broken Alpha/Beta versions which will keep them from fully enjoying the full game once it's released but they DON'T WANT multiplayer games. Horrible world we live in.
avatar
keeveek: What do you mean? Alpha funding means when the game is finally released, you get the full version with no extra charge.
I know. It's just that in case of singleplayer games I have NO interest in playing them before they are finished (and since GOGers are not much into MP I presume that it's alphas/betas of SP games they want to play). I've played a few beta versions over the years and not once has it been a good idea. Heck, sometimes even playing the gold master version is a mistake and one should wait a few months until a game has seen a few patches. So it blows my mind that people are so eager to play versions which the developers/publisher consider as "not ready for shipping" - in a world where people enter rage mode when there's a few bugs in a new game.

Which of course doesn't mean that I do not support the ability to help the developers to make a game by paying for it in advance. :p
Post edited April 19, 2013 by F4LL0UT
high rated
avatar
macnbc: Disappointed with the results.

Sometimes I worry that people would vote yes for DRM if asked if it would allow more games on the site, simply because people would rather have more games.

I personally would rather have a smaller, high-quality, comprehensive selection than to lower standards just to get everything out there. I always liked GOG because they had those standards, or at least used to, but I worry that the survey results will just lead the site further down the road of Generic Online Distributor Trying To Compete With Steam.
Completely agree.
Unfortunately we are, as someone called us somewhere above, the "vocal minority".
When will we get the results of the "one year survey" ?
I want PaySafeSupport!
avatar
F4LL0UT: I know. It's just that in case of singleplayer games I have NO interest in playing them before they are finished (and since GOGers are not much into MP I presume that it's alphas/betas of SP games they want to play). I've played a few beta versions over the years and not once has it been a good idea. Heck, sometimes even playing the gold master version is a mistake and one should wait a few months until a game has seen a few patches. So it blows my mind that people are so eager to play versions which the developers/publisher consider as "not ready for shipping" - in a world where people enter rage mode when there's a few bugs in a new game.
Believe me, there are communities gathered around some franchises and just want to be a part of it - help it being created.

Also, see my post above.
avatar
macnbc: Disappointed with the results.

Sometimes I worry that people would vote yes for DRM if asked if it would allow more games on the site, simply because people would rather have more games.

I personally would rather have a smaller, high-quality, comprehensive selection than to lower standards just to get everything out there. I always liked GOG because they had those standards, or at least used to, but I worry that the survey results will just lead the site further down the road of Generic Online Distributor Trying To Compete With Steam.
You didn't see the same survey results everybody else saw, did ya.
avatar
keeveek: Believe me, there are communities gathered around some franchises and just want to be a part of it - help it being created.

Also, see my post above.
I know, that doesn't mean that distributors (and especially GOG who are usually providing the final complete fully patched and refined versions of games) have to be part of that system. The hardcore fans who want to get that involved in the development of a game don't need GOG to help them with that.
Post edited April 19, 2013 by F4LL0UT
Thank you for sharing the info!
Well, I have a few comments to make here (some I probably made in response to the survey, before).

With regard to DLC, as long as GOG.com screens the DLC (and doesn't try to make money over poorly-designed or executed DLC (such as some of the DLC that has been released for Mass Effect 3, and thus poorly recieved), then I'm all for DLC. And I'm willing to wait for favorable reviews before I see it on GOG.com.

Episodic games: I've already mentioned Siege of Avalon (originally from Digital Tome) as an episodic game which I enjoy. The original game was distributed as a free download for the first chapter, with subsequent chapters being purchased over time, as they became available. Once all were available, the collection eventually became available as a whole, it was sold as an Anthology.

As for "season passes", I've already forgotten what someone told me they were, but I remember that, after their explanation, I was more in favor of them.

I'm not much on multiplayer games, especially games geared solely toward multiplayer online play. I am, however, open to more games where there is an option to augment the single-player experience with some sort of co-op multiplayer capability, especially with LAN and direct-connect options that do not require an internet connection. I may become more interested in multiplayer features, once I have better internet and no data caps (until then, multiplayer is just not an option I'm interested in).

Alphas and Betas: Well, depending on what company they are from, it may be possible that the company finds there are too many problems with a game, or poor response that the company abandons the unfinished game, or even goes bankrupt. In that event, having paid more for the game than would be normal, would be unfair to those who opted to purchase it.

Unique serial keys to play online: Some may consider this a form of DRM, but, I can understand that these become necessary to help the servers (even fan-run servers) from becoming confused if two people with the same serial key should try to connect (it's a way to make sure the same person isn't playing all characters, or both sides of a game, or playing the same copy of the game, twice. After all, I would like to hope that most of us appreciate the hard work that went into the game enough to purchase two copies if we're going to need to have two to play. (Perhaps GOG could add a purchase option to purchase a second copy, or second serial number at least, to distinguish between the two while connected to the same server - in cases where a serial number is required for multiplayer.)

I like GOG's comment that they will continue to attempt to make sure new games added to their collection are single-player friendly.

Perhaps the comments about this survey will also help GOG.com provide future surveys which are less ambiguous, and which explain terms we may be familiar with from sports/TV/cable, but which have different meaning when referring to games.

Thank you GOG,com for asking our opinions.
avatar
dredhammer: Nobody else asked for Linux Support from GOG.com?
Its all well and good valve via steam is now offering linux games but i'd prefer there was competition and another way to purchase linux games other than steam. Also the fact most of the newer indie games being sold by GOG have linux versions yet they arent available for purchase on the site.
I must agree there.
I am not expecting GOG to go all Linux over night. I have been fiddling with Linux for years and still I get it more wrong then the average 5 year-old, but why not begin by bringing in the Linux versions of those games the developers have already done the work on.

In reality you are cutting into your own profits and those of the developers by not offering those here.
Hell even call it bonus content, or a developers extra if you want.

You guys are the best, and we trust you to be even better.