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

×
Thanks for all the feedback you gave us after the previous update. You’re awesome and it shows the GOG insights piques your interest. Today’s article is about a topic that we know is very important to you – our commitment to DRM-free gaming and what it exactly means.

GOG was built on trust, which is at the very core of our identity. It is evidenced by our 30-day refund policy or releasing games DRM-free, among other things. At the same time, we understand DRM-free might mean different things to different people, especially when modern games blend offline and online experiences.

When GOG first launched, the gaming market looked very different from what it is now – retail was the main place to buy games, and digital distribution was just taking baby steps. DRM, the copy protection software created to protect licenses against unauthorized disc copying, was a huge source of annoyance for gamers often restricting how they can access their content. From the beginning, part of GOG’s mission was to provide gamers with a simple way to access and play games, without the need to fiddle with files or deal with any DRM. Making sure you can play games purchased on GOG offline, make backup copies, and install them as many times as you need is even more relevant now, as things like game preservation become an important topic for the whole industry.

Today, while some of the most infamous DRMs of the past are thankfully long gone, it doesn’t mean the constraints are fully gone. They just have a different, more complex face.

Games are evolving and many titles offer features beyond single-player offline gameplay, like multiplayer, achievements, vanities, rewards. Many such games are already on GOG and will continue to join our catalog. But it also raises the question: is this a new frontier for DRM?

And this is the crux of the matter. Some think it is, some don’t. Some hate it, some don’t mind it. And to be fair, we didn’t comment on it ourselves for quite some time and feel this is the time to do so:

We believe you should have freedom of choice and the right to decide how you use, enjoy, and keep the games you bought. It manifests in three points:
1. The single-player mode has to be accessible offline.

2. Games you bought and downloaded can never be taken from you or altered against your will.

3. The GOG GALAXY client is and will remain optional for accessing single-player offline mode.


We fully commit to all those points. Aside from this, we reaffirm our continuous effort to make games compatible with future OSs and available for you for years to come.

As for multiplayer, achievements, and all that jazz – games with those features belong on GOG. Having said that, we believe that you have the right to make an informed choice about the content that you choose to enjoy and we won’t tell you how and where you can access or store your games. To make it easier to discover titles that include features like multiplayer, unlockable cosmetics, timed events, or user-generated content, we’re adding information about such functionalities on product pages. In short, you’ll always know.

We always took a lot of pride in the freedom we provide gamers. While we know DRM-free may have a different meaning to everyone, we believe you have the right to decide how you use, enjoy, and keep the titles you get on GOG. With games evolving towards adding more online features, we want you to understand our DRM-free approach and what it means to us. It is an important topic – let us know what you think.
avatar
Gersen: Of course there is the "law" and there is, as you said, "common-sense", nobody is going to sue you if your children are playing a game you purchased for yourself, and even if they did I doubt any judge will took it seriously, but technically it is possible.
They wouldn't want to. That would be against their own interest. If that made the news, it might cause enough public outcry to change the law.
Post edited March 18, 2022 by Magnitus
avatar
Alexim: Will there be more important updates on Galaxy? If we look at the various updates over the last few years, they have honestly been quite disappointing in terms of content.
avatar
elcook: Yes, we're working on improving your experience with GOG GALAXY as well. We have mentioned this also in GOG 2022 update #1 saying "Our approach right now focuses on making the main view in GOG GALAXY more dynamic and live". Expect some information about this in the near future.
Great, can't wait to hear more about it!

I hope that in this update or in the next ones there will be an overhaul of the Galaxy version of the GOG profiles, to make them more attractive.
high rated
avatar
mrkgnao: You're talking about looking at the branches in galaxy, I believe. I was asking about differentiating between the two cases without using galaxy.
avatar
chandra: Beta branch is available only in GOG GALAXY.
So perhaps you might want to indicate those games that have beta branches with a note on the game page. Otherwise, our only way of helping you to keep our games up-to-date is to assume that all the cases of discrepancy are human error.
low rated
Cyberpunk 2077 - Piggyback Interactive Map

What's the stance on this, since:
"1. The single-player mode has to be accessible offline."

And this is just the one I know, I'm sure there is at least a couple posts listing offending games for one if not all three of your points.
high rated
avatar
mrkgnao: You're talking about looking at the branches in galaxy, I believe. I was asking about differentiating between the two cases without using galaxy.
The only way I know is to look at the third party GOG DB. You can check the branch when you click on the Build ID.

For example:

https://www.gogdb.org/product/1445170412/build/53590421743480431
https://www.gogdb.org/product/1445170412/build/54137876502108061

If the branch is not set, then it's not a beta build.
avatar
mrkgnao: You're talking about looking at the branches in galaxy, I believe. I was asking about differentiating between the two cases without using galaxy.
avatar
Hustlefan: The only way I know is to look at the third party GOG DB. You can check the branch when you click on the Build ID.

For example:

https://www.gogdb.org/product/1445170412/build/53590421743480431
https://www.gogdb.org/product/1445170412/build/54137876502108061

If the branch is not set, then it's not a beta build.
Thank you. That's what I was looking for.
As people continue to [erroneously] repeat that cosmetics don't matter, that "It's just cosmetic" is OK for gating content behind online activations:

Perhaps GOG should just make all of the cosmetic DLC free? Afterall, it's just cosmetic, it doesn't matter. Why would anyone pay for it? What's the difference between it being $0 and $1? Or, at the very least, make all these cosmetic-only DLCs require online activation to use them? "Cosmetics don't matter" in the DRM equation, these people are saying. How about they all only install when running via Galaxy, and remove themselves after a session so there's no terrible risk of them running offline. [Note: This is hyperbole to show how silly the opposing argument is.]

History lesson: The whole concept of DLC (small digital expansions) was established by purely cosmetic content! (See: Oblivion Horse armor.)

Jim Sterling is just one of many games industry writers who's dissected the issue. Of course, many of the same people who apologize and allow for "it's just cosmetic" will take personal fault with the deliverer of the argument ("Jim's a grating personality" slash "Why would I listen to a person who is sometimes an SJW" slash "They've transitioned and are ugly now"). Jim's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce5CDrq4dGg

GOG, if you want to make a statement affirming DRM-free gaming, how about you actually make such a statement instead of contorting to make the opposite statement?
Post edited March 18, 2022 by mqstout
low rated
avatar
mqstout: As people continue to [erroneously] repeat that cosmetics don't matter, that "It's just cosmetic" is OK for gating content behind online activations:
I also really hate this "it's just cosmetic" argument.

Real argument is: "This is an optional DLC whose price is that you install GOG Galaxy."

It is the same as "Tyranny - Portrait Pack" except the price is not in monetary units, but in your willingness to try Galaxy tool. You are free to not "buy" this DLC if you think that price is too high.
low rated
avatar
bombardier: Real argument is: "This is an optional DLC whose price is that you install GOG Galaxy."
Not quite. I'd be OK with that if it were a one-time price ["can only be bought via Galaxy, and from there is added to your account for offline installers"]. These schemes all require persistent log-in, or logging in again each time you install. And the product can and will be revoked if you cannot repeat that. (That's DRM.)

I still wouldn't like it, but I'd be OK with it.
avatar
bombardier: Real argument is: "This is an optional DLC whose price is that you install GOG Galaxy."
avatar
mqstout: Not quite. I'd be OK with that if it were a one-time price ["can only be bought via Galaxy, and from there is added to your account for offline installers"]. These schemes all require persistent log-in, or logging in again each time you install. And the product can and will be revoked if you cannot repeat that. (That's DRM.)

I still wouldn't like it, but I'd be OK with it.
That really is the salt in the wound, it's not like once you've claimed the loot it's now tied to your save data or otherways unlocked in a way you can backup, no, it has to make sure you simply can't have it if you try to detach from Galaxy.

It's a cynical way of forcing people onto the "completely optional client", nothing more.
low rated
The only way 'cosmetic rewards' can be done that is consistent with the principles of DRM-free is for them to be provided as separately downloadable DLC packs, that do not require any sort of access control mechanism to be built in to the game.
low rated
avatar
bombardier: Real argument is: "This is an optional DLC whose price is that you install GOG Galaxy."
A far better analogy is "Hey guys, we just re-released Dragon Age Origins Ultimate Edition on disc. We were going to include the former pre-order bonus Blood Dragon Armor inside the game for everyone, but instead we put it on a separate disc. Half of you are amazingly special people and will be given this disc, whilst the other half are undeserving peasants and will not get the disc despite paying the same money. The criteria that separates the two is "how ever so slightly differently you carry your discs home from the store from each other"...

If that sounds absurd, it's because it genuinely is...
low rated
avatar
TomNuke: Appreciate the post, GOG, and same to you, SmollestLight, for trying to engage with the community here and answer some questions to the best of your ability. I can only imagine what it must be like to deal with this everyday.

For me, however, I think it's time to call it quits and leave this community for good. Simply put: This community is internet cancer, and I don't want to deal with it, or be a part of it anymore. The worst thing about GOG is what we're seeing here in this thread.

I've read through this entire thread to the point of this post I'm making, and it's been pure internet cancer. In this thread I've seen people openly state that they're repeatedly PM'ing GOG staff and probably to the point where it could be considered harassment, people whining and saying the most over dramatic things because of a few promotional cosmetics that are linked to Galaxy in Cyberpunk, and just a whole bunch of other bull****.

I've even seen developers (like an XSeed employee in particular) who've just been badgered and harassed here by the GOG community for trying to answer questions about concerns people have. The community here is just so bad. Not everyone is like that of course, but GOG being a smaller community means that the bad are a lot more noticeable. It'd be a better place if some of these users were banned -- permanently -- from the forums.

It does just seem like there's a big difference in the civility of the GOG forums and the Steam forums. Maybe because a ban on Steam is a lot more of a threat than it is here? I don't know, but I genuinely feel sorry for the GOG staff here, because whatever they do, they'll never win with some of these people.

I'm done though. It really just sours my entire day when I come here and try to check out an "Unofficially confirmed GOG release thread" or something. Or you're interested in reading a news post posted by GOG, and what you see is the literal definition of verbal diarrhea from the community here. Just pure toxicity.

I really feel bad for GOG, because they'll never win. Ever. Being DRM-free already puts them in an uphill battle trying to earn support from other studios. Then they're going up against the juggernauts that are Steam and Epic Games. The community here hates you whenever you try to do something to expand your install base. Signing up for Marketing E-mails to receive free games? "*rages* **** you, GOG".

Cyberpunk 2077 having a few extremely minor cosmetics that don't even fit within the world aesthetically, and provide no gameplay benefit at all, means the game is infested (lol, yes, infested) with DRM and it's the worst thing in the world.

These are things that could help GOG gain market share, which would mean more games and bigger games for all of us, but the cancerous part of community here is ready with noose in hand or waiting to burn GOG at the stake because of it.

If you care about the store you should want to see it grow, because GOG growing is a benefit for all of us. And GOG can never stop being a DRM free store either, because there would be no reason for the store to even exist at that point. It would just be a worse Steam or EGS with no reason or purpose to ever buy anything on it.

How does anyone not see that? Open your eyes. But no, the community here will continue to drive this store into the ground. And while the store may continue to exist for years to come, it'll do so in a pathetic form (much like it already is now, but worse) with very little in the way of major software releases, and the same people here will be port begging for decade old games like Skyrim and whatever else.

You think this Zoom store or whatever it's called will come even remotely close to taking GOG's place as a DRM-free store? LOL, good luck with that. I typed in Zoom in Bing and Google and I gave up trying to find it...
Zoom-Platform, not Zoom. And yes, Jordan wants to change the name but they're going with "we're not that Zoom" for now. Definitely look into it. They have a ways to go, but there are definitely a couple of good games there with more to come. But yes, he definitely wants to change the name and I asked about that. Just not right now. It is very confusing though.
low rated
avatar
mqstout: As people continue to [erroneously] repeat that cosmetics don't matter, that "It's just cosmetic" is OK for gating content behind online activations:

Perhaps GOG should just make all of the cosmetic DLC free? Afterall, it's just cosmetic, it doesn't matter. Why would anyone pay for it? What's the difference between it being $0 and $1? Or, at the very least, make all these cosmetic-only DLCs require online activation to use them? "Cosmetics don't matter" in the DRM equation, these people are saying. How about they all only install when running via Galaxy, and remove themselves after a session so there's no terrible risk of them running offline. [Note: This is hyperbole to show how silly the opposing argument is.]

History lesson: The whole concept of DLC (small digital expansions) was established by purely cosmetic content! (See: Oblivion Horse armor.)

Jim Sterling is just one of many games industry writers who's dissected the issue. Of course, many of the same people who apologize and allow for "it's just cosmetic" will take personal fault with the deliverer of the argument ("Jim's a grating personality" slash "Why would I listen to a person who is sometimes an SJW" slash "They've transitioned and are ugly now"). Jim's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce5CDrq4dGg

GOG, if you want to make a statement affirming DRM-free gaming, how about you actually make such a statement instead of contorting to make the opposite statement?
this.

yes. thank you.
low rated
avatar
TheGrimLord: I'm just going to say that I remember the days when GOG's policy actually stated that a user didn't just own the game but that they could put it on a disc and give it to friends. I don't believe I'm mis-remembering, but we are obviously leagues away from that now. "If you buy it, it's yours."
avatar
chandra: Someone has already clarified this but let me reply as an official statement as well.

Any products purchased on GOG.COM are for personal use only, meaning only you (the owner of the GOG account said product is in the library of) can use it. You can download the offline installers and play it on any device you own or put it on a pendrive or something, but it should be you that uses it. Due to the DRM-free nature of our products we cannot, of course, control what you do once you download the offline installers, but our relationship with our community is build on trust, so we can only hope you make the right decision and keep the games to yourself :)
Thanks for that clarification.