Lodium: the problem is evry person has a diffrent value of what this boycott shoud be
and some doesnt care at all and have little principles
Kohleran: Why does that matter. I'm boycotting for Galaxy 2.0 push down your throat reasons primarily. and that they don't listen at all to their base. And other things. If someone else is boycotting them over different reasons, so what?
GoG went from a company that I promoted to others to being ashamed I've given them the money that I have.
and they personally doesnt percive it as gog is pushing the galaxy client down their throat
Lodium: Offcourse if the snowball gets big enough
and there arent people that are jumping ship underway
im all aboard as well
B1tF1ghter: Every boycott starts small.
If too many people will have such mentality your "snowball will never get big enough for you to consider it big enough to join in".
Open your eyes already please.
GamezRanker: As for what level I am not willing to tolerate: things like if SP campaign content(such as the story expansion or character stuff for ME games) was preorder only or tied to a specific system(console/etc).
B1tF1ghter: You must hate Nintendo games then? After all they are "exclusive to a console".
GamezRanker: I think they did it more so because it is cheap/easy to make such preorder content, and making it exclusive in such a manner likely makes the "normies" preorder more.
B1tF1ghter: I think you misunderstand something. No amount of DRM is going to stop piracy. And the pirates always get full-content edition (eventually, it may take some time in some cases, in others it's immediate).
So no, there is literally no justification whatsoever in introducing DRM for the sake of lowering piracy to in turn enrich sales as it simply doesn't work like that outside of paper.
Lodium: I cant speak for the other stuff since i have not investigated those cases myself
but then again there are some that considers
that the multiplayer gog does is drm in kinda way
But when i ask people why this is so because
multiplayer in itself are about giving up a bit of a control at least as long as you join somone for a multiplayer session
no one can really answer me
they just keep repeating that they think multiplayer is drm free because they percive it as having more control refering to the old lan and other methods of multiplayer withouth a client
when in practice its only the host that have control
As a a guest i cant mod, save my character or my hard progress
and if i can its up to the host to give me permission
the only diffrence that instead of a random stranger or somone you know are hosting the multiplayer
its instead gog
The way i understand drm free
is that i do not need anyones permission to do what i want to the game
as long as it doesnt break the game makers rigths by selling copys or stealing art as my own or sharing copys
i can burn it, mod it, destroy it etc
And those things cant be done as a guest in a lot of cases
I did explain it personally imo quite nicely in another thread:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/drm_on_gog_list_of_singleplayer_games_with_drm/post373 https://www.gog.com/forum/general/drm_on_gog_list_of_singleplayer_games_with_drm/post396 Having one host to serve data to guests is a very basic cheat prevention.
If you feel up to the task go ahead and personally create mods for your beloved games that will create decentralized stat storage.
But you need to ask yourself a question at that point:
do you want a freedom to do ANYTHING to ANY game files or do you want absolutely fundamentally ANY cheat prevention.
Because if your multiplayer saves would not be verified at all by some sort of central authority then you could for example create infinite strength MMORPG character.
Cheats would be rampant.
There is plenty of documeted cases where netcode was done wrong and some important checks were done on client side instead of server side, for example hit detection.
I can give you 2 examples out of the blue: NFS World and The Division.
NFS World in particular allowed such cheats that if you encountered a cheater the game was basically unplayable (those who played that game would know what I'm talking about).
You can't have ALL the control of multiplayer related files. You just CANNOT HAVE IT or you will otherwise live in world of cheaters pointing fingers at each other like in that Spider-Man meme.
Hexchild: GOG shouldn't bend their knee to us.
That said, I think there are some notable differences.
When it comes to Devotion it's clear this boycott is on the side of non-censorship and free expression, and that the "gamers" referred to in GOG's PR tweet aren't.
B1tF1ghter: I think it says loads about GOG's attitude if they listened to not-proven-customers "gamers" while completely ignoring their totally real userbase on their own forums.
edit: fixed some typing errors and finished one sentence (forgot to do that originally)
Its stated in text on a site before you join the server wich means the host have given anyone permission to mod or cheat in the game and its on you as a guest and not the host fault shoud you feel any emotional trauma being cheated
its not the host problem that you have accepted those terms by joining the game then
