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.
low rated
avatar
lostwolfe: [steam has all these other experiences on top of just being a store that it will take gog YEARS to replicate, given their timeframe on some of the developments that have happened to the site - and even then, those developments are going to be half-baked and wonky. witness the robot problem gog has. it's never solved that. that's not a /terribly/ difficult thing to spend time thinking about. and that's just ONE EXAMPLE of a feature that they could fix/change.]
Zowie catching strays :) (no I know you mean the spambots and/or maybe downvote bots)
avatar
Berzerk2k2: Never going to happen due to massive abuse that would happen once you could download offline installer files and trade games you own for games you don't own at the same time.
Considering GOG has piracy issues online anyway I don't see what the difference would be. There must be a way to treat digital games like physical ones.
low rated
avatar
rjbuffchix: Zowie catching strays :) (no I know you mean the spambots and/or maybe downvote bots)
i meant the downvote bots.

but the spam bots are a problem also, of course.

[edited in later: ah. the downvote bots didn't like that i don't like them. amusing :P]

[edited in later, also: remember downvote bots! we must not criticize our lord and saviour gog! nosirreebob!]
Post edited March 21, 2022 by lostwolfe
low rated
"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"; but do you GOG?

1. The single-player mode has to be accessible offline.
That's easy games like Starcraft 2 can just cut out single player content (like it's AI skirmish mode) if it seemingly detracts from a core focus of always online esports.

2. Games you bought and downloaded can never be taken from you or altered against your will.
It happened to another country but without having to search it up lets go with the current russia policies going on; with an online drm component (such as galaxy) epic has been able to cut off an entire country from their games.
With that one single point of failure (the matchmaking component) in company hands it means even with offline downloads the fact a small part is 'held' out of your reach or influence your software can and will be able to be taken from you or the experience altered against your will.

3. The GOG GALAXY client is and will remain optional for accessing single-player offline mode.
Wow your saying games that by the will of design don't use multiplayer for the purpose of drm will continue realizing the futility of trying to force DRM on stuff they've elected not to have control over (by not having it phone home through a matchmaking server). I'm sure that will continue to make a huge difference like if you have anything to do with it GOG.
low rated
avatar
rojimboo: I'm sorry but GOG's margins are either razor thin or negative, so your "succesful niche" isn't actually very succesful. The old guard, despite their best efforts, can only do so much and are probably picking everything up at 90% sales anyways.

ANd if a service is 99.9% something, would you throw the baby out with bathwater due to that 0.1%? Because this is what is seemingly happening here.
avatar
rjbuffchix: How many resources have GOG poured into imo wasteful endeavors like the client? I see you left that factor out of your financial analysis :) Other users can clarify better but I recall hearing years ago GOG replaced all the installers to include Galaxy, only to then undo all this work. In other words a colossal waste of time and probably money.

Additionally, this is admittedly anecdotal from my interactions with certain users, but it seems to me the old-school-minded users generally tend to have some of the biggest libraries here and buy extra games to giveaway. Or, at least they did until GOG keep messing up and compromising on the idea of DRM-free.

Care to take on a friendly challenge related to the above point? I dare you to name a single "new style" user that has bought Epic Fail games through the new app on GOG Galaxy 2.0 who also has high-triple-digit or even quadruple-digit number of games or buys extra copies of any GOG game (even on sale) to giveaway.

And if someone had a cancerous tumor, should they only have the doctor remove some of it? After all, they wouldn't want to seem like one of those wacky toxic people who would insist on complete removal. What are they, some kind of weirdo...better to be moderate and only remove some of the cancer, right?
I'm replying to this to let you know I upvoted you. Thanks. Kinda cringey analogy at the end, but overall good stuff..
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.
^ Agreed.

avatar
TomNuke: 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".
can sure feel that way sometimes
avatar
GOG.com: ...
I'm perhaps a little more flexible than some other people here (or just not as passionate about DRM-free), right now I'm not especially bothered by a few Galaxy-only cosmetics (or just try to write calmly :P unless I'm feeling like being a little le trole facetious or overdramatic), but I'm also not sure you'd even be able to get the "AAA" games you financially need by allowing more of these. What mainstream titles would show up if you gave the "okay" for more cosmetics, but also said "no" to more explicit DRM or HitmanGOTY-like features? Have you gotten other big-name offers similar to Hitman on the condition you allow DRM here?

I hate to be yet again pessimistic but I can't help but continue to believe your biggest issue is market share (if not also being collateral damage from CDPR's CP2077 fiasco as TheGrimLord suggested in another thread) and unfortunately I don't really see a good solution for that - most people are happy with Steam (and have to dragged elsewhere kicking and screaming via exclusives), and I assume it's pretty hard to get new customers. Very few people care much about DRM-free, but what would allowing Steam-like DRM here really do for GOG financially? Seems like a bit of a rock and a hard place.
avatar
GOG.com: we reaffirm our continuous effort to make games compatible with future OSs and available for you for years to come.
Can you do more with "old games on new machines" for older AAA games? I think GOG's future may be in the past with that, especially if you can bring big-name titles here for which people will double-dip. Or maybe you'll have to focus on higher-priced indies, which is what you may be doing for now. https://www.gog.com/en/games/new

We got more Piko games but I assume GOG didn't have to do technical work themselves on said games.
avatar
GOG.com: 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.
good to read, hopefully it's true
Post edited March 21, 2022 by tfishell
I have to wonder if market share is really the issue. They were able to sell more copies of Witcher 3 here than on Steam for a while, for example, so it's not like there's no one here. They're never going to be the 800-pound gorilla Steam is, but that doesn't change if they abandon DRM-Free (if anything, it gets worse).

I also think that's the best way for GOG to go forward. Older games (COD War Chest would be good, for example) would be a fine way to keep relevence, especially as more games get borked by Windows 11. What HAS to be done is to stop turning games away for being "too niche." I don't give two pints of piss about visual novels (though I don't begrudge their existence), but I'd take a few old-school platformers or Cave shooters long before I'd even look at a VN.

As to cosmetics, adding a few extras for Galaxy users is hardly the same as taking all of them out and having a barebones experience.
low rated
avatar
tyl0413: So basically GOG is at the "as long as there's something on the disc that runs offline it's all good" stage just like console.
In some ways (imo) they're worse:
at least console game makers/pubs don't seem to mind if one lets their family members play the games they bought

I wonder how badly GOG must be doing, if they went from such stances (even if not set in stone) of "sharing within the same house is OK" to the above linked stance.
low rated
avatar
RawSteelUT: I have to wonder if market share is really the issue. They were able to sell more copies of Witcher 3 here than on Steam for a while, for example, so it's not like there's no one here. They're never going to be the 800-pound gorilla Steam is, but that doesn't change if they abandon DRM-Free (if anything, it gets worse).

I also think that's the best way for GOG to go forward. Older games (COD War Chest would be good, for example) would be a fine way to keep relevence, especially as more games get borked by Windows 11. What HAS to be done is to stop turning games away for being "too niche." I don't give two pints of piss about visual novels (though I don't begrudge their existence), but I'd take a few old-school platformers or Cave shooters long before I'd even look at a VN.

As to cosmetics, adding a few extras for Galaxy users is hardly the same as taking all of them out and having a barebones experience.
I do have some OCD tendencies so maybe the market share problem just sticks with me, but GOG makes like 40 mil / year compared to Steam's 4 billion a year. Plus EGS competition which wasn't around when Witcher 3 released.

I basically agree with everything else. Maybe GOG needs an "Express" process for established devs and publishers who have a decent track record, and whatever else can be automated (and people would be okay with; unfortunately the bot seemingly hasn't worked out well). Be less hands-on so more games can come here.
avatar
RawSteelUT: I have to wonder if market share is really the issue. They were able to sell more copies of Witcher 3 here than on Steam for a while, for example, so it's not like there's no one here. They're never going to be the 800-pound gorilla Steam is, but that doesn't change if they abandon DRM-Free (if anything, it gets worse).

I also think that's the best way for GOG to go forward. Older games (COD War Chest would be good, for example) would be a fine way to keep relevence, especially as more games get borked by Windows 11. What HAS to be done is to stop turning games away for being "too niche." I don't give two pints of piss about visual novels (though I don't begrudge their existence), but I'd take a few old-school platformers or Cave shooters long before I'd even look at a VN.

As to cosmetics, adding a few extras for Galaxy users is hardly the same as taking all of them out and having a barebones experience.
avatar
tfishell: I do have some OCD tendencies so maybe the market share problem just sticks with me, but GOG makes like 40 mil / year compared to Steam's 4 billion a year. Plus EGS competition which wasn't around when Witcher 3 released.

I basically agree with everything else. Maybe GOG needs an "Express" process for established devs and publishers who have a decent track record, and whatever else can be automated (and people would be okay with; unfortunately the bot seemingly hasn't worked out well). Be less hands-on so more games can come here.
The problem with comparing people to Steam and Epic is that... Well, they're Steam and Epic! Steam is a massive service with a legion of fanboys and Epic can use its seemingly endless Fortnite money to buy timed exclusives. Hell, Bethesda just abandoned their launcher, and even Microsoft puts games on Steam. If MICROSOFT can't unseat Steam, it's not happening.

Long as GOG makes money, that's really the best they can hope for.
low rated
The ongoing Gran Turismo 7 disaster should serve as a warning as to what games on GOG could look like in the future:

Single player is accessible offline => Passed. During the server blackout you could still play Arcade mode offline, so they just have to pretend that Career mode has been designed to be online so it doesn't count as single player content.

It's OK to link a GOG game to a publisher account => Passed. Sure you'll have to grind to death, but all cars are obtainable with in-game currency so it's fine. Alternatively, you can purchase them with micro-transactions thanks to your publisher account. After all, a new car fits "it's just cosmetic" as much as one of the best weapon in CP2077.

We players should remember that every time we lower our standard by accepting anti-consumer practices, the game industry finds way to exploit us even more afterward.
Post edited March 21, 2022 by Lhun Duum
avatar
RawSteelUT: The problem with comparing people to Steam and Epic is that... Well, they're Steam and Epic! Steam is a massive service with a legion of fanboys and Epic can use its seemingly endless Fortnite money to buy timed exclusives. Hell, Bethesda just abandoned their launcher, and even Microsoft puts games on Steam. If MICROSOFT can't unseat Steam, it's not happening.

Long as GOG makes money, that's really the best they can hope for.
I think GOG's problem isn't the number of users, instead it's when games are released (and if they are released at all). If most sales for any game happen in the first 2 months or so, and GOG almost always gets a delayed release, then it's normal that they can't get a big market share, if we go by revenue.

Still, given how important DRM seems to be for devs and/or publishers, it might just be impossible to change this, which also means GOG will never become much bigger. Of course, most people treat entertainment as disposable, or don't think about it when it's so unintrusive like Steam, so the DRM-free part isn't relevant for mainstream appeal.
low rated
avatar
RawSteelUT: The problem with comparing people to Steam and Epic is that... Well, they're Steam and Epic! Steam is a massive service with a legion of fanboys and Epic can use its seemingly endless Fortnite money to buy timed exclusives. Hell, Bethesda just abandoned their launcher, and even Microsoft puts games on Steam. If MICROSOFT can't unseat Steam, it's not happening.

Long as GOG makes money, that's really the best they can hope for.
avatar
mdqp: I think GOG's problem isn't the number of users, instead it's when games are released (and if they are released at all). If most sales for any game happen in the first 2 months or so, and GOG almost always gets a delayed release, then it's normal that they can't get a big market share, if we go by revenue.

Still, given how important DRM seems to be for devs and/or publishers, it might just be impossible to change this, which also means GOG will never become much bigger. Of course, most people treat entertainment as disposable, or don't think about it when it's so unintrusive like Steam, so the DRM-free part isn't relevant for mainstream appeal.
I'd say there's a multitude of issues:
- GOG's release of a game is almost always behind in terms of initial release + subsequent patches compared to e.g. the release on Steam or another platform, and in some cases patches take weeks, if not months to be on GOG
- Despite GOG's large catalogue of games it's still tiny compared to Steam and only a small fraction of current-gen games are even released on GOG: I want DRM-free games with offline installers, but if those games aren't on GOG I either have to go to Steam or purchase a gaming subscription to get access to said games
- GOG did itself a disservice of epic porportions with the Hitman debacle : "We are so surprised that this game has DRM when we "evaluated" it and released it on our supposedly DRM-free store"and then doubled down with that stance in shifting blame unto the player and arguing semantics
Post edited March 21, 2022 by p1881
low rated
avatar
paladin181: I'm replying to this to let you know I upvoted you. Thanks. Kinda cringey analogy at the end, but overall good stuff..
Thank you. I gladly accept upvotes as well as downvotes from the bots :) Unfortunately despite me raising the counterpoints I did, I suspect the user I was replying to is as likely to address my valid questions as the staff has in this topic.
avatar
Magnitus: What if it is your spouse or underage children?
avatar
chandra: Still no, sorry! It's for personal use only. However, the other example you gave are something else (games played on one screen with several controllers), and anything game-specific should be considered as such.

In other words, if two people are playing one game on two devices, that is not oaky.
Just to confirm, different games can be played by spouse/children.

Or if the publisher/developer are happy for a single license to be used concurrently in a household (Devs of Torchlight were happy with this)