Never

Thing is: a lot of smaller dev's might not be tied w/ someone like Microsoft. They're going to have more free will & be willing to bring it here, as they likely need every sale they can get - unlike say Bethesda.

Bethesda, who probably needed to be bought-out after FO 76 flopped hard; and both Bethesda & Zenimax bought so many studios & ramped-up insanely for Starfield and ES6 - needed $. Microsoft bought them...and likely, they might not have tons of freedom now in where they put games, being owned by Micro$oft.

Microsoft don't have any games of their own here on GOG period. Microsoft don't need GOG; GOG needs Microsoft. Microsoft have their own XCloud, Game Pass, and games that want to put onto Steam to actually support - b/c these services will bring them $.

If anything here: we PC gamers need/want Microsoft stuff on GOG just to get DRM-FREE versions of these games.

Yeah, it's good to complain, whine, talk, discuss, and whatnout about our grievances about DRM, anti-tamper like Denuvo, lack of LAN support in games, online-only games, MMO's, client-services, death of 2nd hand market on PC, future of online-only everything, streaming game services like Stadia, OnLive (RIP), XCloud, etc - but do we really think this will stop the online-only freight train that's eventually coming, once everything gets much more & better connected around the globe?

You should see the prices for some games on console stores...they make those prices look tame by comparison.

As for giving money to Todd....spitballing ideas here: one could wait for a deep sale so Beth/MS get less money, and then maybe also send some/all of the difference to the original devs?

-

The point is more that if they can sometimes do so with less resources(money/time/people), then AAA companies should be able to do so as well.

There's other ways to get them.....such as buying an old disc copy and cracking the DRM(which is legal in some countries).

Who knows.....but it can't hurt to try....and even if not, there's still the benefits of sharing one's feelings on such with like minded people. But if we give up entirely, then the chances of things happening(as I said before) go even further towards 0 than now.

Yep, they seems to be Bethesda's methods here.

And given how awful FO76 turned-out and how many studios they bought to ramp-up for Starfield and ES6 - yep, makes tons of sense they'd drop stuff like Prey 2017, Wolfenstein Alt-History games (except YoungBlood) and The Evil Within games in here on GOG. They needed to make $ at every corner, given how much $ was probably gone out the window from FO76 flopping and studio-buying and ramping up for future titles (i.e. Starfield and ES6).

My thing is: now w/ Microsoft owning them & with Microsoft pushing the heck out of Game Pass, XCloud, and XBox Series S/X - I don't know if we'll see a lot more Bethesda stuff hitting GOG. Which, of course, will be not-so-good for DRM-FREE fans and/or GOG fans.

And if a Bethesda-game is cheap on GOG for launch (i.e. 70% off or better) - that might be the time to get it. Once the game's been in-demand, more sequels come, etc etc - you can bet they'll charge more for DLC's and Complete Editions. Bethesda has a tendency to cheap-out base-games in sales (following the common EA and BioWare tactic), but you can roll the dice on "Well, will the Season Pass be on sale fairly? Will the Complete Edition be on sale?" w/ Bethesda. Good luck, it's likely a possible crap-shoot. Though, the super duct-taped engine & crumbling foundation of the Creation Engine (based of GameBryo) here powering NV is Bethesda's work, initially.

But, yeah - quests; new assets; and stuff of that sort....yep, all Obsidian. And what a great job they did w/ all that stuff.

FO:NV is great and easily the best of the modern Fallout games (i.e. FO games since FO3), IMHO. The narrative, writing, characters. dialogue, humor, choice, and all of that stuff that really matters - yep, NV embarrasses FO3 and FO4 in those regards. Modders fixed a lot of UI, AI, and other oddball issues w/ Bethesda's GameBryo versions and Creation Engine. They really didn't have that to rely on with FO76, as it's technically an online-only game and they right now really ain't allowing for Mod Support.

A lot changes, when they went here w/ the online-only aspect. With single-player games - eh, most don't care what you're running for versions, mods, whatever...as it only effects your solo game, all alone. But, when MP gets involved - well, this is when it could get into a real mess of a show, if this stuff was allowed; as most needs to all being running the same versions of the game, same mods, etc etc. Might not happen for a while - but yeah, it's inevitable.

BioWare probably and unfortunately falling, being all under EA's wings, is probably going to happen first though.

I haven't been around the console market in months, almost a year. From what I recall, it was overpriced, as in price-quality ratio was way off.
Todd needs to come up with even better lies, especially now. But I'm not worried, as he's a champion in this field.

While you keep asking for AAA's like Bethesda to bring their stuff like Skyrim to GOG and support GOG's features - but, the question is not if they have the resources. We know they have the time, the power, and the money.

But, the question is: "Will they?" And if they will, the question is "When?" Especially now that they (Bethesda) are under the Microsoft banner, do you think this is going to happen? Do you really think Skyrim and FO4 are coming here to GOG soon? Especially when stuff like Game Pass is Microsoft's real push here?

Me, I'd guess: "Not anytime soon."

GOG might've gotten a better boost with Cyberpunk 2077 here and all - but that game also can be bought at other stores like Steam and Epic. And likely, fans are just going to buy their game on their favorite service. And most PC gamers, they probably bought the game on Steam, to throw all their eggs into the one-stop-shop Steam popular-as-can-be basket, as Steam's (for better and/or worse) the popular PC distribution service here.

I would be curious what the sales for GOG v. Steam v. Epic version on CP 2077 PC version might be, just for the heck of it.

Finding old disc copies might be fine for older games, but you're going to likely pay a premium; especially if it's out of print. Chances are, in this digital era, not much is any longer in print. Hope you can get lucky at GameStop, local Retro Store, Ebay, and/or any other places like those.

But, about finding retail copies - what good will that do for modern games? Most modern PC games are too big in size to fit on one DVD and even one Blu-Ray these days. A lot of times - you need to activate game on some online-service and download most of the game or all of it from said-service. Some newer games aren't even pushed at a retail level on disc anymore either.

We can keep trying, complaining, ask for GOG DRM-FREE versions, ask for Steam games to get both their Steamworks DRM patched-out of EXE files, ask for Steam games to get Anti-Tamper removed - but is this all really going to stop the future of streaming-game services, Cloud-Gaming services, and DRM-laced services?

We lost the gamers' rights war a long time ago.

The PC gaming dystopia is already almost here; it's on its way.

I'm on mobile atm, so I apologise for the rushed editing.
Yes, Gamebryo was Bethesda's "contribution" to New Vegas, albeit a shitty one. One of the worst engines I've seen. I often wondered how the game would've looked and played in some other engine. One can only dream, right?
I remember when the game got criticism, specifically the setting (desert as opposed to city), people saying it was boring and uninspired. Fast forward a few years and they received Fallout 4. A sudden shift in opinions occurred.
And to top it all off, Bethesda put up 76 up for sale. A very uninspired joke. Finally folk started to open their eyes. It's been in the making for years.

Modders had, in many cases, to do the job for them. It's part of the reason they made the GECK and other similar kits available to the public. That screams of laziness all-around. Modding should be an extra to a game, not something essential to make it playable. As an example, CDPR also released a REDkit for The Witcher 2, more like an extra, as the game was fully playable without the need for interference. That says a lot.
And the UI they used for Skyrim for example was downright atrocious at least in my opinion. I've rarely seen let's players stick with the original UI, most of them decided to mod the thing.
While some might argue this offers the game(s) more replay value and whatnot, I see it as something lazy. A game should stand on its own. Bethesda, in the current state, is incapable of doing that. Been like that for a decade or more, yet people still do not learn and keep throwing money at them, blindly.

If The Outer Worlds is any indication, that gives us a pretty good idea, combat-wise - as that is very similar to FO:NV, but not entirely. Sure, some stuff's quite a bit different in TOW and all - but that game run, played, and whatnot quite well on Unreal Engine.

Its combat isn't spectacular by any means - but I think it's a lot better than what FO3/4/NV were doing. I actually loved the NV settings & game-world. It certainly had more personality and whatnot going on than FO3, IMHO. That's b/c FO76 remove a few important elements of those games: NPC's offering actual real questing; mods (for players to fix AI, UI, etc; and anything to add more content to the game); and an actual offline mode. Pretty much, all the things that have made Bethesda's even greater - well, went missing; right out the window. And since these games have so many systems and pieces, losing important pieces like these pretty much ruined FO76.

Pretty much - all of Bethesda's game worked b/c of their multiple systems on-going and everything I mentioned above. All of their games were always a "sum of its part make a greater whole" type of thing. It was doing lots & tons of things - and did a lot of them well. You know, similar to what the GTA's have done for years.

FO76 was also supposed to be FO4's MP portion originally (go see the No Clip video on FO76) - but got pulled form FO4 b/c it wasn't ready at that time (i.e. I do think FO4 was kicked out the door a bit early); and FO4 MP's got a life of its own as it kept ballooning in size; bigger than originally planned - so they split it and it became FO76.

I do think FO76 became its own thing b/c they were trying to capitalize on the online-only/MMO market; and b/c they bought out some studios that did some MP-style work. Well, that didn't turn out so good, now did it? [shrug]

Bethesda were never that hot at UI. Namely, Morrowind was probably the last time it was "Okay", as it was. Oblivion and Skyrim were leaning towards something more friendly to a controller and a console than say a PC-style KB/mouse set-up. Same problems also are in Fallout 3, 4, and NV - as the UI just isn't intuitive at all. Best bet - go find UI mods ASAP.

And yes, there's also the unofficial patches that fix lots of quest bugs and issues too.

And if it wasn't modders doing the fix - if there were performance issues and things of that sort....you often just had to wait for newer hardware to blow way past what was out there, to get their games running well.

And also, games like FO3/4/NV need you to mess w/ their INI file or use NVidia Panel just to both force VSync off (OMG, input lag's horrible with V-Sync On) and also cap it at either 30fps or 60fps (since the game's physics go nuts, if you aren't at either for a cap; or if you go above 60fps).

Ah, yes, The Outer Worlds, I liked the general look and flow of it, I tested the PS4 version more than a year ago or so.
While not a fan of Unreal myself, it certainly works better than something like Gamebryo/Creation, no argument there.

I like both the urban and desert/rural setting, but as time went by I grew fonder of the latter. That is a personal preference and at times I think it has to with many factors, such as taking place on the West Coast, being closer to its roots, more grounded and alive. It actually feels lived in, whereas DC/East Coast is more of a perpetual warzone, even 200 years after the bombs fell. There are many inconsistencies in Fallout 3, but I'm not going into detail, not the time or place to do so.
I will say this though: strictly from a setting/the way the world is build, Fallout 3 blows Fallout 4 out of the water. Personally, I never imagined that possible years ago.

Onto the online aspect, since you mentioned Fallout 76, Bethesda was looking into this for a while. I remember around the time of Fallout 3 when people would ask how come there is no multiplayer element to the game, because that would certainly be a welcomed addition. Not only to the Fallout world, but to Elder Scrolls as well. What folk did not realise is that Bethesda was never prepared for such an endeavour, not capable either. They could barely hold the single-player portion of their games, let alone something as complex as multiplayer.
To my mind, Fallout has always been a deeply personal experience, multiplayer would not make sense in this universe, but that's just me.
That being said, Bethesda had to ride the wave and the craze, so eventually they came up with 76. I think deep down they knew it was going to flop, hence the agressive campaign meant to confuse people. It did the trick with some, but the majority pointed fingers and called them on their bullshit. You know, I find it funny that some people opened their eyes around this time, saying 76 is utter garbage and ruined the Fallout franchise. Fact of the matter is that process started years and years ago, in 2004 or so. That's quite something, running a franchise into the ground in 14 years more or less.
Anyway, here we are.

In order to develop a good UI, they would have to be PC-centric, which they aren't, I don't think that was ever the case, more like an afterthought. Also, they would need competent workers, visionaries, creators. Not the case, sadly.

Even now, in 2021, in order to make 3 and New Vegas playable on modern systems, one has to fiddle with settings, ini, dll files, and so on. New Vegas, at least in my case, needs nvse and NVTF to run at 60FPS. Otherwise it goes haywire. Yet that is one aspect that can be easily fixed.
Bad writing and poor world building can't be fixed though (I'm looking here at Bethesda's attempts), that is something that requires skill and ability to understand the universe around the game.

Reply to above:

I actually liked the destroyed DC and Maryland area in FO3; and even FO4's take on both Boston (base-game) & Bar Harbor Maine (Far Harbor DLC).

I know of Maine, despite not been there before; and Boston's very local to me. I've been to Fenway Park, Faneuil Hall, MIT, and other cool Massachusetts-based locations that are in there - so to see those with Bethesda's take on a post-apoc' version of that was pretty cool.

I think FO3 was also better at dealing out interesting quests & choices, too; especially when compared to FO4 (except Far Harbor DLC - the exception to the FO4 rule). We won't even mention the disaster that was FO 76 here in these regards and all. ;)

I think Bethesda makes interesting playgrounds, sandboxes, and open-worlds - but they really often don't give it the context, the would-building, the depth, the character, the narratives, and whatnot that someone like Obsidian (esp. during the Avellone era) would normally give it. A Bethesda world doesn't feel as lived-in, as say an Obsidian world; there's a huge disconnect w/ Bethesda games w/ its game-world; and its characters & stories.

I think what makes Bethesda games special is their sandboxes and tons of stuff to do without having to be online (and offline MMO-type of game, if you will); and their extensive mod community. Once you toss online into a Bethesda game - you basically just lost what makes Bethesda special: the offline factor. Once you toss online into it, it's no longer special; It just becomes another MMO...and this is also even more so true if there's no mod support there like with say FO76 and ESO.

Well if Skyrim/etc come here, I am guessing GOG will push for the most complete version they can....as they have made a number of bad or questionable decisions over the last few years, but one thing they seem to try to stick to is getting more complete versions of games(and if not that, then getting every DLC sold on GOG as well.....*cough* paradox *cough*).

Agreed, which is why I said that they'll likely bring it here once those other income sources run low/dry out.

I have a different approach....if a game is only available via eBay resellers for high prices and the actual rights holders don't sell it(online/on disc), I often (do not) take the y'argh matey route.

Retail copies have one bonus: the license attached to them and how the law sees such in a number of countries

For example, I can buy a disc based game and then download a copy "elsewhere" and use that.....and all legally.....as the disc copy I purchase is in effect a license to play that game.

Probably not, but it can't hurt to try.

In the meantime, I have my own solution: I remove the DRM myself.....which is also allowed under the laws where I live.

Methinks you're a bit too pessimistic.....sure, we're not doing well on our side(DRM free, etc), but the "war" isn't over.

And in the meantime, one can(and should) use the law of their area to get around things like DRM/etc, and give big corps like AAA game companies the middle finger.

Yup....on the digital store it's usually: limited selection, games more often sold ala carte(each dlc separate) than as complete, high prices(sometimes even during sales).

Agreed and well said