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

×
low rated
avatar
Breja: More downvotes! We need to make sure people who don't share our point of view are punished!
My,PLEASURE:)
avatar
Breja: More downvotes! We need to make sure people who don't share our point of view are punished!
avatar
Tauto: My,PLEASURE:)
.....
Well, seeing as you're taking requests today...
Can I have some upvotes? :D
avatar
HereForTheBeer: I'm thinking it's a tool to help get more developers onboard with DRM-free: "Look, you can offer your stuff through a client without the need for DRM." If that's the goal and if it succeeds without causing too much of a mess otherwise, then I think it will average out to be a good thing.

Time will tell.
Oh goody, so the client becomes required to play/continuously update these games?


Note related to the post above.
Personally I shop here as I don't want a client, don't want unfinished products, nor do I want any other steam-like feature. If I was interested in any of that, I would use steam. And yet every so often these things suddenly appear. This is why there is annoyance at the release of each of these items, it is a perfectly reasonable reaction to something that those of us who are here to avoid.
avatar
HereForTheBeer: I'm thinking it's a tool to help get more developers onboard with DRM-free: "Look, you can offer your stuff through a client without the need for DRM." If that's the goal and if it succeeds without causing too much of a mess otherwise, then I think it will average out to be a good thing.

Time will tell.
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: Oh goody, so the client becomes required to play/continuously update these games?

Note related to the post above.
Personally I shop here as I don't want a client, don't want unfinished products, nor do I want any other steam-like feature. If I was interested in any of that, I would use steam. And yet every so often these things suddenly appear. This is why there is annoyance at the release of each of these items, it is a perfectly reasonable reaction to something that those of us who are here to avoid.
Not quite what I meant, but I'm pretty sure discussion of the client (read some of the developer's notes in the relevant subforums) has had at least a little bit of influence on the games' arrival here. Doesn't mean that they must be tied to Galaxy, but that it was possibly part of the draw.

For what it's worth, I don't want a client, either. If this new program starts to push some games into being Galaxy-only then I'll have a problem with it and will not support those titles. Multiplayer via Galaxy is a different matter, and one of the developers addressed that point. Until then, watching carefully.
avatar
Matruchus: Heh, I don't undestand why people are still complaining about these things. Gog's steamlike transformation started with introduction of regional pricing two year ago, then came partial regional censorship on some games, introduction of galaxy the copy of steam client. Its a natural step if they wan't to grow as a company. I don't really see how early access on gog came as a surprise (especially since it was mentioned as an option before). The main thing is that the client is not forced for usage on single player games and that they for now remain drm-free. If those two things change then you can put a Steam sticker on the webpage of gog but not before.
People have complained at every one of those steps you mentioned. Regional pricing is still hugely controversial in the forums.

It doesn't make a difference, but that doesn't mean GOG customers liked any of those changes.

I do think that releasing essentially unfinished games and promising to support them is surprising.
avatar
micktiegs_8: Waiting for Zeroxx to pop up and do the same thing. I love have back and forth 'discussion' with that one.
avatar
zeroxxx: Spell my name correctly at least. Are you capable? Guess not.

Which discussion again? I forgot since I am trolling stupid people way too much.

avatar
Breja: More downvotes! We need to make sure people who don't share our point of view are punished!
avatar
zeroxxx: Because it's plain stupidity. GOG's early access is curated, unlike Steam, yet people are still complaining.

They're business and not catering to stupid point of view randomly.
'Curated' doesn't matter. All the problems of EA are still there. What's GOG going to do if the developer stops updating the game? How is GOG going to handle compatibility testing across all their test PCs for each release?

The answer, of course, is that they're not going to be able to do any of the things we've come to expect from GOG post-sale due to the buggy, unfinished nature of EA games. I can understand why GOG wanted to take this route and get some of that sweet EA money, but that doesn't mean this is a smart move, and it certainly doesn't mean that anyone gets to tell people complaining about this to shut up just because they're picking their EA games somewhat carefully.
avatar
Matruchus: Heh, I don't undestand why people are still complaining about these things. Gog's steamlike transformation started with introduction of regional pricing two year ago, then came partial regional censorship on some games, introduction of galaxy the copy of steam client. Its a natural step if they wan't to grow as a company. I don't really see how early access on gog came as a surprise (especially since it was mentioned as an option before). The main thing is that the client is not forced for usage on single player games and that they for now remain drm-free. If those two things change then you can put a Steam sticker on the webpage of gog but not before.
avatar
Elmofongo: Personally I jus think that because of this new feature, GOG is going to focus more on adding more "In-Development" games and less on getting old classics like Command & Conquer and Total War games prior to Empire.

Or at the very least newer AAA games like Batman Arkham Asylum, Dragon Age Origins, etc.

The quality of these games can very wildly to which only a select few are good for everyone.

I mean how many people are gonna buy and play a game here like this:

http://www.gog.com/game/little_inferno

Compared to people that wants a games like this to be here:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/4700/

http://store.steampowered.com/app/47810/
Yeah - there has to be some reason GOG is doing this, but that reason may simply be 'Steam has EA, we must have EA also'.

I'm glad that GOG isn't afraid to experiment. But I'd really like to see more actual games here.
Post edited January 29, 2016 by Gilozard
avatar
Matruchus: Heh, I don't undestand why people are still complaining about these things. Gog's steamlike transformation started with introduction of regional pricing two year ago, then came partial regional censorship on some games, introduction of galaxy the copy of steam client. Its a natural step if they wan't to grow as a company. I don't really see how early access on gog came as a surprise (especially since it was mentioned as an option before). The main thing is that the client is not forced for usage on single player games and that they for now remain drm-free. If those two things change then you can put a Steam sticker on the webpage of gog but not before.
avatar
Gilozard: People have complained at every one of those steps you mentioned. Regional pricing is still hugely controversial in the forums.

It doesn't make a difference, but that doesn't mean GOG customers liked any of those changes.

I do think that releasing essentially unfinished games and promising to support them is surprising.
Oh, don't understand me wrong. I was one of the most vocal persons against regional pricing and the client but I did come to an understanding that at the end it doesn't matter what I or you think. At the end gog will always do what is best for them as a store. And if that means implementing steam early access here (+ refunds and a bit of curration) so be it. At this point the only thing that is still here is drm-free and im not sure if that is still untouchable. At the end only time will tell how this will fall out.
avatar
Gilozard: I'm glad that GOG isn't afraid to experiment. But I'd really like to see more actual games here.
People seem to have the impression that if GOG does something like this it means they get/release fewer games. But, as JMich's numbers show, this simply isn't the case. It's not a zero-sum process. They're still getting as many - if not more - games as they ever have.
avatar
zeroxxx: Because it's plain stupidity. GOG's early access is curated, unlike Steam, yet people are still complaining.
Curated LOL

Because GoG's past history of 'curation' has such a stellar record so far.
GOG? I like GOG. Good guy. Good Ol' Guy.

GOG forums on the other hand... ehhhh :p
So after 14 days you think a game is OK and keep it then later the devs disappear or change the game by removing features or not able to implement a promised feature/features or never fix a broken part/bug what then? You buy the game based on what it was when you paid then if it changes to something other than that and is no longer the game you paid for do you still get to be refunded?

No one has a crystal ball to see how a game will develop so offering only a 14 day refund is pointless! The development could drag on for months/years and it should be a refund up until the day before a game is actually 'released', THAT should be the GOG.com way, looking after the consumer, not the 14 day crap currently being offered! Any dev can just change the goalposts at any time and not deliver what was initially touted as 'the game' leaving people with a potentially different game from what was originally revealed and hiding behind the 'Work in Progress' excuse and 'things' may change and screwing you in the process, but that's my opinion!

I absolutely AVOID any EA / In Dev as I don't think allowing people to sell unfinished goods with the 'promise' of it will be completed to be acceptable, but that's my choice and again, my opinion!
I'm still hoping for a joint venture of Half Life 3 Early Access on Steam and GOG.
avatar
WebJunkie: So after 14 days you think a game is OK and keep it then later the devs disappear or change the game by removing features or not able to implement a promised feature/features or never fix a broken part/bug what then? You buy the game based on what it was when you paid then if it changes to something other than that and is no longer the game you paid for do you still get to be refunded?

No one has a crystal ball to see how a game will develop so offering only a 14 day refund is pointless! The development could drag on for months/years and it should be a refund up until the day before a game is actually 'released', THAT should be the GOG.com way, looking after the consumer, not the 14 day crap currently being offered! Any dev can just change the goalposts at any time and not deliver what was initially touted as 'the game' leaving people with a potentially different game from what was originally revealed and hiding behind the 'Work in Progress' excuse and 'things' may change and screwing you in the process, but that's my opinion!

I absolutely AVOID any EA / In Dev as I don't think allowing people to sell unfinished goods with the 'promise' of it will be completed to be acceptable, but that's my choice and again, my opinion!
That goes for "finished" (They stop getting alterations and addons they die.) competitive multiplayer games too. There are always changes that alter balance and such. One reason I stay away from them.
avatar
Gilozard: I'm glad that GOG isn't afraid to experiment. But I'd really like to see more actual games here.
avatar
GR00T: People seem to have the impression that if GOG does something like this it means they get/release fewer games. But, as JMich's numbers show, this simply isn't the case. It's not a zero-sum process. They're still getting as many - if not more - games as they ever have.
I don't count ported phone games or unfinished games as actual PC games, and we definitely have seen more of those coming out lately. :)

Part of what I don't like about this is that I wonder if part of the reason GOG is releasing more of those types of games is that they're having trouble getting games from the 2010-now period. 2010 was when online DRM and Steam really took off iirc and GOG doesn't really have a lot to offer publishers who are still selling their games on online stores with DRM.

There has been a definite shift in GOG releases and people notice that.
Post edited January 29, 2016 by Gilozard
avatar
Gilozard: People have complained at every one of those steps you mentioned. Regional pricing is still hugely controversial in the forums.

It doesn't make a difference, but that doesn't mean GOG customers liked any of those changes.

I do think that releasing essentially unfinished games and promising to support them is surprising.
avatar
Matruchus: Oh, don't understand me wrong. I was one of the most vocal persons against regional pricing and the client but I did come to an understanding that at the end it doesn't matter what I or you think. At the end gog will always do what is best for them as a store. And if that means implementing steam early access here (+ refunds and a bit of curration) so be it. At this point the only thing that is still here is drm-free and im not sure if that is still untouchable. At the end only time will tell how this will fall out.
Well, just because you're not giving GOG feedback about their decisions doesn't make it surprising that other people do provide their feedback.

I don't think GOG will stay DRM-free forever either, sadly, but I keep hoping.
avatar
zeroxxx: Because it's plain stupidity. GOG's early access is curated, unlike Steam, yet people are still complaining.
avatar
synfresh: Curated LOL

Because GoG's past history of 'curation' has such a stellar record so far.
+ Infinity

We have some real stinkers in the catalog here. GOG's curation is far from perfect.
Post edited January 29, 2016 by Gilozard
As a player I'd say this:
Steam does have a significant amount of the recent PC releases.
If we want GOG to cover new games, not just older ones, especially DRM free, developers and publishers have to be shown that it's worthwhile to release new games at GOG.
It's inevitable that GOG has to grow and add products and services that might not have fit the image well a while ago.

GOG will grow and the gamer community who do care about DRM free releases will have recent games.
It's a win-win as long as the DRM free releases remain mandated - ie not even Galaxy should be used as DRM.

As a developer:
Having competition to Steam ensures that developers will have a choice - having a single monopoly like Steam is not healthy in the long term, so I very much welcome GOG's recent direction and the company stepping up their efforts.
Post edited January 29, 2016 by IFW