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
xerxes866: Point 2 is simply not true. Case in point, Gog has allowed Siltherine an absolute bug machine, to recode many games. I understand that game need to be updated. Please don't destroy them in the process. What Gog has now, is a product list of games that are bug factories. This will not change as long as Gog is associated with Siltherine. Also these games are not anything like the original. Example: Master of Magic never was this unstable. It so bad I don't want to use any of my Gog games knowing that they are probably filled with bugs.
Point 2 mention "Games you bought and downloaded", that's kind of the point DRM-free, if you download the offline installer they will work as the day you originally downloaded them no matter what changes the devs decide to do on the current version of the game.
avatar
tag+: Hi mrkgnao. Did you get any reply? I bet a no
avatar
mrkgnao: Not yet.
Regardless, someone at GOG noticed and many of those offline installer discrepancies are being fixed, starting here:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_what_did_just_update_thread/post27701
low rated
avatar
mrkgnao: Here is one example. Humble Bundle currently has a shooter bundle that offers 8 mostly well-respected steam games (Hedon Bloodrite, Project Warlock, Dusk, Amid Evil, Ion Fury, Dread Templar, Hrot and Hellbound) for $12:
It's kind of silly to compare a "pay what you want" bundle with a shop selling games at the normal price. Not to mention that the original idea of "pay what you want" is normally not to pay as little as possible to get the games dirt cheap but to try to support the devs and/or charity by paying more.
low rated
avatar
xerxes866: Point 2 is simply not true. Case in point, Gog has allowed Siltherine an absolute bug machine, to recode many games. I understand that game need to be updated. Please don't destroy them in the process. What Gog has now, is a product list of games that are bug factories. This will not change as long as Gog is associated with Siltherine. Also these games are not anything like the original. Example: Master of Magic never was this unstable. It so bad I don't want to use any of my Gog games knowing that they are probably filled with bugs.
avatar
Gersen: Point 2 mention "Games you bought and downloaded", that's kind of the point DRM-free, if you download the offline installer they will work as the day you originally downloaded them no matter what changes the devs decide to do on the current version of the game.
Yes, but then consider there are updates to those games. And there is no changelog (or an obfuscated one which doesn't actually tell you what has changed) and no way to get old versions. Do you risk downloading the new one or not...
Post edited March 24, 2022 by nightcraw1er.488
low rated
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: Yes, but then consider there are updates to those games. And there is no changelog (or an obfuscated one which doesn't actually tell you what has changed) and no way to get old versions. Do you risk downloading the new one or not...
Risk what ? you can keep more than one version, you are not forced to delete the old one if you download a new one.
low rated
avatar
Linko64: Having a focus on a marketing strategy is not selling out.
Having a marketing strategy is not selling out but when describing a business to potential customers a focus on marketing strategy and management team is certainly an indication that there is a focus on money and that there may be high growth expectation investors. High growth expectation investors are as bad as shareholders in terms of incentives. Compare Zoom Platform's about page (reads like it is there for investors) to GOG's about page (reads like it is there for customers).

But maybe you can help us out here, how is Zoom Platform funded?
Post edited March 24, 2022 by joveian
low rated
avatar
rjbuffchix: Bluntness/plain-speaking in response to a clearly antagonistic (albeit passive aggressive) comment != anger. More like "let's cut through the bs and talk facts."
avatar
tfishell: Yeah that's why I edited my comment, figured the other stuff I said was unnecessary and heat of the moment.
Fair enough, I missed that.

avatar
tfishell: For consideration: if GOG goes under, where do you go? Where's the "backup" place to congregate?

In fact if such a discussion board, site, or whatever (not Zoom discord since you mentioned disliking that format) - some place dedicated to discussing DRM-free - already exists, as you seem to have suggested, consider creating a dedicated thread for it here to promote it.
Good questions. I am unable to create a separate space myself, for various reasons. I don't mean for that to sound like a cop-out; it is just the reality of my situation for the time being and foreseeable future. So to answer your question, I would be reliant on someone else establishing a space and would actually go to the Zoom discord, yes, even in spite of disliking that format. As I may have alluded to, but probably not specifically enough, with my comment that we are going back and forth on, it is more about the community than the specific format.

That is to say, I would be looking for the "next biggest" DRM-free community even if it was on a format I didn't like, because I think that is the most effective at keeping DRM-free discussion generally in one place, which promotes much better participation. To me, that "next biggest" community is Zoom-Platform. I could see someone, maybe, making the argument that Twitter in general could also qualify under my standards, though again I and I assume most other "old guarders" dislike that format even more than Discord and it wouldn't be as clearly organized.
avatar
mrkgnao: Here is one example. Humble Bundle currently has a shooter bundle that offers 8 mostly well-respected steam games (Hedon Bloodrite, Project Warlock, Dusk, Amid Evil, Ion Fury, Dread Templar, Hrot and Hellbound) for $12:
avatar
Gersen: It's kind of silly to compare a "pay what you want" bundle with a shop selling games at the normal price. Not to mention that the original idea of "pay what you want" is normally not to pay as little as possible to get the games dirt cheap but to try to support the devs and/or charity by paying more.
Why is it kind of silly? It goes to show a big disparity in list price. The theory behind a pay what you want model is one thing, but are the customers actually paying extra? Is there data showing that they are?
Post edited March 24, 2022 by rjbuffchix
avatar
mrkgnao: Not yet.
avatar
SCPM: Regardless, someone at GOG noticed and many of those offline installer discrepancies are being fixed, starting here:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_what_did_just_update_thread/post27701
Good to hear.
low rated
avatar
rjbuffchix: Why is it kind of silly? It goes to show a big disparity in list price. The theory behind a pay what you want model is one thing, but are the customers actually paying extra? Is there data showing that they are?
Because it's comparing apple and oranges, you are comparing the normal price with a special time limited promotion.
low rated
avatar
rjbuffchix: Why is it kind of silly? It goes to show a big disparity in list price. The theory behind a pay what you want model is one thing, but are the customers actually paying extra? Is there data showing that they are?
avatar
Gersen: Because it's comparing apple and oranges, you are comparing the normal price with a special time limited promotion.
The price I quoted (> $50) is the lowest GOG time-limited sale price ever, not the regular price. Furthermore, nothing prevents GOG from allowing key resellers to create such bundles with GOG keys, except GOG itself.
Post edited March 24, 2022 by mrkgnao
low rated
avatar
Linko64: Having a focus on a marketing strategy is not selling out.
avatar
joveian: Having a marketing strategy is not selling out but when describing a business to potential customers a focus on marketing strategy and management team is certainly an indication that there is a focus on money and that there may be high growth expectation investors.
I believe those pages are probably aimed more at developers/publishers, who are potential partners, rather than customers. I would argue marketing and visibility are likely very high priorities for publishers who are looking to spread awareness of their games.

As an example, refer to this page, which is explaining the benefits to developers/publishers of joining Zoom Platform:

www.zoom-platform.com/services
low rated
avatar
Linko64: Having a focus on a marketing strategy is not selling out.
avatar
joveian: Having a marketing strategy is not selling out but when describing a business to potential customers a focus on marketing strategy and management team is certainly an indication that there is a focus on money and that there may be high growth expectation investors. High growth expectation investors are as bad as shareholders in terms of incentives. Compare Zoom Platform's about page (reads like it is there for investors) to GOG's about page (reads like it is there for customers).

But maybe you can help us out here, how is Zoom Platform funded?
I mean, if you want to talk About Me pages, there are a few things on one of them that have not been true for a while, lol. For one, you are comparing a company attached to a billion-dollar group to a much smaller party. The fact this has happened multiple times on here speaks volumes about the current state of things. That's a pretty wild move. I don't want to sound rude, but your whole post is made of assumptions, without any knowledge or prior asking of questions, you can find most of the info and get an idea of size pretty easily. The main goal, as with any of us here and around here, is DRM-Free and preservation.

Feel free to join the discord or hit me up outside of the forums, every time I've answered a question or replied to someone posting incorrect info on this board I've been offered a ban and 'legal' so, yeah I'm pretty easy to find :) More than happy to talk about it (assuming I'm not buried by work haha) hope you understand!
Post edited March 24, 2022 by Linko64
low rated
I know many people is against GOG Galaxy as a requirement for multiplayer gameplay, but that is the modern solution for online gaming, is not something that GOG can change, add others multiplayers solutions is something only developers can add and it's not worth it because most players uses launchers, it's the unconfortable truth, we are almost extinguish :/
low rated
avatar
rjbuffchix: Why is it kind of silly? It goes to show a big disparity in list price. The theory behind a pay what you want model is one thing, but are the customers actually paying extra? Is there data showing that they are?
avatar
Gersen: Because it's comparing apple and oranges, you are comparing the normal price with a special time limited promotion.
Even if it was "the normal price" (rather than on sale as mrkgnao would go on to point out), the fact that DRMed stores get better time-limited promotions is still an illustration of the point being made. Probably the best example of this I have ever read about was roughly a decade ago when Square Enix had a massive amount of their AAA games bundled on Scheme selling for $75 total for a limited time. Despite various sales impressive in their own right, the fact remains we have never seen anything close to that happen here or on any other DRM-free store, not with that many games of that scale all at once, despite there being a long span of time in which it theoretically could have happened. Therefore, the point stands that we already pay a markup for DRM-free games.

Note too that in the past I have pointed out I am relatively fine paying more for DRM-free as I view it as a type of bargain; to me a game like Fallout: New Vegas DRM-free would be worth 10 times the full price it sells for these days. I honestly believe people don't understand the value of what they're getting. But if we are looking objectively I think it is clear the DRMed platforms continue to be cheaper. Actually, one could argue it is due to the massive amounts of power that Scheme and Epic Fail have that they are able to offer games on sale or free, so surely this disparity in pricing between DRM and DRM-free is intentional and not just a funny coincidence...

Another example: prior to it coming here to GOG too, the (non-AAA, indie) game Legends of Amberland was originally releasing on Scheme. When multiple people asked the developer to make a non-Scheme version, even though the version on Scheme would supposedly be playable without the client (as, some of us don't want to support a DRMed platform like Scheme), he released a support the developer edition on his own developer site, with a higher price than the Scheme version. As, evidently, he wanted people to buy the Scheme version (I assume it is better for user engagement/metrics/etc, which is a self-repeating cycle but I digress).
low rated
avatar
KetobaK: I know many people is against GOG Galaxy as a requirement for multiplayer gameplay, but that is the modern solution for online gaming, is not something that GOG can change, add others multiplayers solutions is something only developers can add and it's not worth it because most players uses launchers, it's the unconfortable truth, we are almost extinguish :/
GOG could have -- and should have -- built their multiplayer API with the intention of being DRM-free: Use their servers if present, but with direct connect fallback. Full cross-platform (non-platform) functioning. Etc. Instead, they built it with client lock-in in mind, along with ownership checks APIs and whatnot.

GOG can be to blame for this. They totally could have built the Galaxy multiplayer system to be the solution to what ails us instead of ailing us further.