Not as slippery as you think.

If I were to purchase Fallout 5 on release day under that agreement and then it got delisted 6 months in, that doesn't cut me off from the game I already purchased and they would still be legally obligated to give me the DRM free copy I purchased under that agreement. And if they tried to back out of that agreement, then I am allowed to request a refund from them and even press charges if they try and fight it.

I understand them not following through on updates in a timely fashion and them dragging their butts on stuff, but that is a totally different thing than them full on turning their backs on what they legally promised you in black and white with zero justification to do so.

As far as them extending it, just getting that 6 months would be a courtesy on their part and would get LOTS of pushback if they tried to extend it and, as a user of this service, I would require that DRM period spelled out legally in writing as part of every purchase so they HAVE to put up front how long that lasts and legally can't modify it after the fact without also having to issue refunds if they breach the terms of the purchase like that.

Fun fact, when a company modifies the terms of service, the users can actually use that as grounds to terminate that service without paying any termination fees they normally would and can even request refunds for not delivering what was paid for. Even Sony had to pay a settlement over their backing out of Linux support on the PS3 and that is just an added bonus of a feature, not one of the main selling points of the hardware of the time.

Would you really take them to court over it? And if you would, how many others do you think would do the same? And couldn't they, with the backing and even pressure of the publishers, just settle for those few users and leave things unchanged in general?
Also, I was saying what would happen down the road with such an agreement. Maybe it would be 6 months for the first games, but any such legally binding statements would be on a per game basis, so what about the next batch, and the one after that, and the one after that? Could make it a year then, three later, forever after that...

Would I really time them to court over it? Not likely but I would demand a refund otherwise and I would make sure to join any class action lawsuit that came from this.

And it would also put GoG in a position where they will be making the news either way, they can either side with the publisher and kill their business in the eyes of many perspective and current users of their service or they can side with the users and might anger a developer but get countless other users attention and in a positive light when it comes to using this service.

It would be on a "Per Game Basis" but would give GoG a massive incentive not to extend it as well to avoid the negative press associated with it and the moment they start extending it it kills their entire niche their service exists within.

The 6 month period would be exclusive to the games on release when the game sales are the most important for that game and likely by the point even the steam versions are cracked anyways.

Also, how many users do you think would refuse to purchase the games until the DRM free version is released or have the DRM period extended beyond that initial 6 month period?

Not saying that some developers would try and screw around, but I am saying it would be within GOGs best interest make sure they find out if they do and the publicity of GOG holding them to account would actually get them more customers in the long run.

But as I said, this would be the ONLY compromise to DRM I would accept on GoG, outside of that, GoG would have no niche to fill. Why go for a DRM only game on GoG when they already have that option on Steam, Epic, or Microsoft? The whole point of GoG is DRM free and you OWN what you paid for outright, the second they remove that option from the table for a game, they remove themself as being an option for that game.

The publishers aren't going to enter into contracts in which if they delist they're still obliged to spend more money to drastically alter their product for existing owners. GOG's not going to guarantee a non-DRM version to customers in that instance, or they will be financially liable to refund monies to customers. The best you'd expect with a "DRM removed later" scheme is you'll be stuck with a DRM version if they never come through with the non-DRM one. Currently afaik no devpubs are required to keep games updated after they're delisted here, and a DRM removal wouldn't be treated as anything more than an updated version for the customers. A lot do keep them updated because it's good PR, but it's not a contractual agreement.

I can't really hold those against GOG because:

1. The Galaxy client is optional, you'd need it only for things where it really makes sense like multiplayer.

2. It is quite understandable they don't want to officially promote the idea of mass-downloading one's games, considering the extra load it would cause to GOG homepages and the download servers (the latter could be alleviated by offering a bittorrent download option, like the Humble Store does), if lots of people did it all the time. At the moment they are merely tolerating it that some GOG users do that.

3. No other digital stores offer "mass downloaders" either,

Overall, to me it is enough that they don't try to actively prevent such third-party tools from working, it would be a shame if they did as those tools are another reason why e.g. I prefer buying my games specifically from GOG (currently 2671 games in my GOG account, plus 77 items in my wishlist).

GOG is the only store I know from which I can realistically expect to download hundreds of games and play them even without the store being around anymore (there may be similar third-party download tools to other DRM-free stores as well, I recall there being one at least for Humble Store but it is only partially a DRM-free store...).

Unless it makes the users complain that GOG's client has less features than their competitors'.

I agree it would be nice to be able to completely remove demos from one's library, they really are redundant after you have purchased the whole game. This is why I never add demos to my library anymore, even if I wanted to try it out.

At least you can hide the demos (and other unwanted titles), which I guess does the same thing...

Then comes with your issues of games from Amazon gaming showing up as you not owning them or owning higher version of a game doesn't somehow also count as owning the stripped down release of it and so on.

Maybe so, albeit I personally can't really say why e.g. the competitors' homepages would be somehow superior to GOG's, and many of them don't even offer forums at all.

To me GOG forums appear to be surprisingly lively and populated, with lots of different discussions and shit (even after banning political discussions), considering how GOG is considered to be a small player on digital game stores.

Maybe I would prefer if GOG used some well-known forum software like phpBB or whatever is the generally preferred forum software nowadays, but to me the current GOG forums work "well enough", especially as they recently fixed the issue that people with many games couldn't access the "forum replies" page, to see easily which threads had replies to them.

If I compare the GOG forum user experience to another web forum I often visit, which apparently uses some forum software called "Xenforo", I actually prefer GOG as that other forum has more annoyances that really bug me.

For instance, quite often when I write or edit my message and try to publish it, it just gets stuck there. If I click the send button several times, it might write several identical messages in succession.

Also, if I start to write a reply but then decide nah I don't want to send it, there isn't seemingly any way (that I see) to cancel that message. It isn't published yet, but whenever I go to that same subforum, it shows that same draft message in the edit field. It doesn't go away until I write another message to that same subforum. That is quite annoying as I have sometimes accidentally sent a message which included both my new reply, and that old draft message (by default the forum software merges those two messages if I reply to another message, and I have to manually remove the earlier message from my new reply).

At least the GOG forum doesn't have shit like that...

As for the polish on GOG store pages, at least adding the review scores to games has been a good move from GOG. Nowadays when I peruse unknown games on GOG sales, it is much faster and easier to make up my mind whether I should considering buying this and that game, by watching the various review scores, and also the GOG user reviews. I recall that experience used to be much worse, I had to pretty much go to other web pages to read reviews of those games and whether I should consider buying the,

If I e.g. see that "Mighty!" icon at the review section, the game is very likely to get at least into my wishlist, maybe even the cart. :) That helps GOG too to get more sales.

When it comes to the Galaxy client, the little I have used it, to me it seems fine compared to Steam, EGS, UPlay, EA etc. At least with light use I don't really see anything inherently wrong with it compared to those other clients. Maybe if I used those clients more I'd start seeing differences but to me they all seem pretty much similar for the basics (downloading and installing new games, purchasing games through the clients etc.).

It's less of a "slippery slope" and more falling off a 500ft cliff vertical drop:-

- There's nothing to stop developers from already utilising time-limited DRM on Steam but most don't because they simply don't want to. The main reason they go back and remove only Denuvo from Denuvo'd games (but often leave Steamworks DRM in for years on end) is Denuvo DRM licensing costs are ongoing & annual, not 'free' like Steamworks.

- GOG will have to spend more money they don't have developing a GOG DRM API + making the client compulsory. And "scene groups" will start putting out pirated GOG games virtually the same day they get launched here just to prove a point. An absurd waste of resources all round.

- The store will lose it's Unique Selling Point / branding value and many of us will drop it in an instant. The "No Steam, No Buy" crowd will continue to buy the Steam versions. God knows who the target market is supposed to be for "I'm happy with DRM'd AAA's but I'm waiting for GOG to introduce them instead of me just buying the Steam version today". People are here purely because of DRM-Free (other stores sell old / classic games too and "curation" hasn't really meant much since GOG scrapped GOG Mixes (the closest actual equivalent to Steam Curators)).

- GOG still won't get any more new Ubisoft / EA / Rockstar / Battle.net, etc, games here due to "you must use our Ubisoft Connect / Origin / Rockstar launcher / client / online account in addition to your 3rd party store (Steam / Epic) Launcher" being a permanent non time-limited requirement on all stores. What use is "promising" to remove 1x layer of DRM (the store launcher, ie, Steam + SteamWorks DRM) when modern Ubisoft games typically come with 3x more layers of 3rd party DRM on top of that ("All versions require Ubisoft Connect, Denuvo Anti-Tamper, and VMProtect DRM") and half the reason they insist on their own Ubisoft Connect isn't copy protection but rather telemetry. Same with Microsoft - you can add all the "GOG DRM with 6 month timer" you want here, games like Age of Empires 4 that come permanently wrapped in Arxan (Microsoft's equivalent of Denuvo) or Forza Horizon 5 ("all versions require a Microsoft account") or Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary ("All versions require a Microsoft account for both singleplayer and multiplayer.") obviously aren't going to be here anyway.

- GOG also won't get any AAA's stuffed full of post purchase monetization, ie, in-game Microtransactions will permanently need DRM (ownership checks of MT content / "booster packs" / lootbox unlocks, etc) beyond just 6 months, and they aren't going to write a special version just for GOG, nor give away all the content to base game owners. DRM isn't just a startup check in such games, the entire game has it "baked in". That Bethesda had to go through and remove all the creation Club "hooks" from Skyrim and package it more like an old fashioned "Game Of The Year" re-release, is more a rare one-off than anything that will typically become mainstream for AAA's.

- There also won't be an increase in titles coming to the store when "Update Fatigue" / smaller market share is far more of a reason for not wanting to launch on 10x smaller stores vs 1-2 larger ones than "lack of DRM on a DRM-Free store". We've had developers remove games here openly saying variations of 'It's not DRM-free that's why we removed our game, we just didn't sell well enough to cover the cost of having to maintain a 2nd set of GOG-specific updates, patches, achievements, etc.'

- We'll need at least 4 more community lists to track the following:-

1. "List of GOG Games abandoned / removed during the first 6 months that will be left permanently DRM'd"

2. "List of Games that have DRM on the GOG version and require Galaxy but are DRM-Free on Epic and work without needing the Epic Game Launcher".

3. "List of post 6 month launch GOG games for which DRM should have been removed, but is still accidentally left in". And that will happen due to the same incompetence / "we can't be bothered" reason for missing updates in games already here.

4. "List of GOG games that had DRM removed but still contain invasive anti-cheat rootkits that was quietly introduced at the same time as GOG DRM and do double duty" for which there'd be no obligation to remove if we pretend it's "DRM that's totally not DRM (tm)". People who want DRM-Free games don't want any of this crap in, not play word-games over it.

- Finally, people who want a "DRM-Free build" in the first 6 months will figure out it will be less hassle to buy the Steam version and apply Steamless / Goldberg rather than research 6-8 separate "Buyer Beware!" community spreadsheets for the DRM'd GOG version, which is quite frankly exhausting. Similarly, if 20-30 year old CD-ROM games started coming here with GOG DRM, I'd rather buy the disc and patch it myself and enjoy DRM-Free from day one. It would certainly kill off "double dipping" for many of us.

In short, "GOG sells DRM'd games" will be the kiss of death for this store, and it's definitely something to file under "Be careful of what you ask for, because you might just get it..."

Remember, I said the 6 months after the first release of the game onto the PC market was the only compromise I would accept for a game released onto GoG, nothing further.

I understand there is nothing stopping them from removing DRM on steam games but they also didn't sign and agreement with Steam to release them from DRM like they would be required to here.

With the DRM on here, I agree, developing games to require either a compulsory client would be difficult but could just as easily develop the game and the game itself just log into verify the games account information during that 6 months to run and still not need the client.

The store will definitely not lose its unique selling point. All our games are DRM free except MAYBE the brand new ones to market which WILL be within 6 months of purchase. And the scene puts out cracked versions of game as soon as they can anyways, they even have competitions between groups to see who can crack some games first.

What does bother people though, having to wait 2-6 years for a game to come out on here afters its already on steam unless they want to purchase it twice. This would remove that requirement to wait or purchase it twice if they can purchase it here and know that within 6 months that DRM will be removed.

The EA, Ubisoft, etc games can kick rocks because of their secondary launcher requirements. That wouldn't prevent other games from coming here.

The games that are permanently DRMed due to micro transactions and all would not have this feature as they would have to sign onto a legally binding deal that would require them to release the DRM within 6 months of purchase or they will to refund the games full cost back to its buyers.

As for the community lists.

1. "List of GOG Games abandoned / removed during the first 6 months that will be left permanently DRM'd"

The only ones on that group would be companies that shut down during that 6 month period and still would be liable for refunds to all the users for failing to deliver the product they sold. That would also open up the option for GoG to crack it themselves if the company went under entirely or GoG would have to refund it.

2. "List of Games that have DRM on the GOG version and require Galaxy but are DRM-Free on Epic and work without needing the Epic Game Launcher".

Why would GoG allow DRM on a game here that is DRM free on epic? And why would a developer release a DRM free version on Epic but not here? I think they would include a clause in the contract that should a DRM free version exist on any other service that it must also be released here.

3. "List of post 6 month launch GOG games for which DRM should have been removed, but is still accidentally left in". And that will happen due to the same incompetence / "we can't be bothered" reason for missing updates in games already here.

That would also be a list of every game that users can legally request a refund for as either GoG or the developer was in legally not delivering on the product advertised.

4. "List of GOG games that had DRM removed but still contain invasive anti-cheat rootkits that was quietly introduced at the same time as GOG DRM and do double duty" for which there'd be no obligation to remove if we pretend it's "DRM that's totally not DRM (tm)". People who want DRM-Free games don't want any of this crap in, not play word-games over it.

Either you already have examples of that happening NOW at which point it wouldn't change or you are creating examples that have no logical reason for happening because reasons. Again, allowing a DRM for 6 months doesn't mean root kits. I shouldn't have to draft a 25 page text of legal speak on here of exactly what would be allowed or wouldn't for this suggestion just to get across the point I was making.

- Finally, people who want a "DRM-Free build" in the first 6 months will figure out it will be less hassle to buy the Steam version and apply Steamless / Goldberg rather than research 6-8 separate "Buyer Beware!" community spreadsheets for the DRM'd GOG version, which is quite frankly exhausting. Similarly, if 20-30 year old CD-ROM games started coming here with GOG DRM, I'd rather buy the disc and patch it myself and enjoy DRM-Free from day one. It would certainly kill off "double dipping" for many of us.

Actually, it wouldn't since those spreadsheets you are talking about would be pointless other than showing them which games they can actually get a refund on in 6 months regardless of how long they played or didn't because of the breach of contract so no negatives from that point but would still get the positive of purchasing the game here on release day and within 6 months having a DRM free installer without having to purchase it twice.

-In short, "GOG sells DRM'd games" will be the kiss of death for this store, and it's definitely something to file under "Be careful of what you ask for, because you might just get it..."

No, selling permanently DRM'd game would be the kiss of death for this store. Giving brand new games 6 months so they would release here sooner would not.

That is unless you like having to choose between waiting years after release of the game to play it all or having to purchase it twice on 2 just to play in on PC, one from the other clients when its new and then paying for it again here years later just to get the installer of the game you likely already played to death and have less of a desire to play it unless it was one of those GREAT games.

And many of them who refuse to be here due to lack of DRM won't agree to suddenly come here then remove it after a time limit.

Of course it will. People are here because we don't want DRM (that may or may not be honestly advertised), not because we're impatient for more "bait & switch" DRM in non-Steam versions. Just buy the EA version already if you're that impatient to play Call of Duty (2025) on day 1.

And have you tried getting a refund for a 6 month old game? In practise I mean? You realise GOG don't keep the publishers money for 6 months right? So refunds will come out of GOG's pocket unless GOG sue the publishers to get their money back. And how much in legal fees due you think GOG is willing to spend suing the major publishers and do you seriously expect them to not respond by pulling ALL their published games here, then watch other publishers follow suit due to GOG getting a reputation as a "high-risk hostile partner" plus all the related negative press, plus backlash from gamers deserting the store?

Reality check : GOG can't even fix 6 year old Galaxy bugs that require the use of Steam cracks to startup properly on DRM-Free games due to bugged Steam wrapper implementations (that's in the DRM-Free offline installers). People have also suggested GOG "forcibly removing games from the store against the publisher's wishes" for not keeping their games updated / lacking achievements, which also doesn't happen with good reason - as soon as you start threatening partners with lawsuits, they'll pack up and leave, ie, not just that game, but the whole publisher and all games sold here by them.

So the blind faith belief that we will welcome DRM here and all will work well after 6 months and GOG will start issuing refunds (with money they no longer have) for 6-12 month old DRM'd games with 500 hours of gameplay (that they don't even do now for DRM-Free ones) and every other publisher will ignore GOG threatening publishers in court, just because some people are impatient is beyond delusional. Not only would no publisher ever agree to anything which involves legally compulsory refunds months after sales or face legal action, GOG wouldn't want to go down that route either...

My issue with GOG is that their business model relies on a measure of goodwill, and that GOG sometimes treats their customers badly despite this.

Things I think GOG has limited control over:
* Publishers' decision to release here or not.
* Publishers' decision to conditionally release based on regional pricing.

Things that GOG could fix with a little effort but chooses not to - in the process pissing off their userbase:
* Fake reviews.
* Unresolved contests.
* The ability to edit reviews.
* Sale times not being adhered to (wrong timezones, etc)
* Filters for NSFW - I don't care about it personally, but why not have them if even a small proportion of your customers want it?

Things that GOG has absolutely dug a hole for themselves over:
* 30 day refund policy - GOG service and visibility went down massively after this.
* Limited DRM-creep (It's just not worth it - look at your target customers)

Everytime I buy something on GOG I pay a fairly hefty premium, and there has to be a reason for that premium, DRM-free is a big part of it but sometimes not enough.

"All GOG need to do is open the doors to online-only DRM, then simultaneously sue EA, Ubisoft & Microsoft's well-funded legal teams in expensive international lawsuits for including the very same DRM they 'asked' them to add to their "DRM-Free" releases 7 months ago". What could possibly go wrong with such a business model?... ;-)

Oh, how naive you are... And AB2012 went even more in depth with the arguments against it, but anyway...
Remember when all of GOG's catalog was flat priced except a few highly desired big name games and the exception was on a case by case basis? :))
For that matter, remember when GOG still held on to a last shred of pricing policy and said that no region could pay more than the US for games that were more than three years old and Nordic pulled all of its catalog from GOG until they relented?
No try that with DRM. Keep in mind that contracts come up for renegotiation fairly often, and publishers have the upper hand, the big ones even more so. So, again, once they try with 6 months with one game, they'll demand more for the future. So "Good News! We know you want more new games and AAA titles, so we will bring them to you. The market realities of the moment demand that we also introduce DRM for these titles, but we saw that you are willing to accept this, so be advised that these games will have DRM for [one/two/three/five years/ever] instead of the previous six months. Rest assured that we we do not make this decision lightly and will strictly judge the games that it will apply to, and the rest of our catalog remains DRM-free!" ... Until publishers will get tired of fingers and go for the whole hand, removing their existing games from here unless they'll also be DRMed, at which point "Good News! We have managed to secure the [continued availability / return] of the beloved [publisher] catalog, so you can continue to enjoy such great games as [...] on GOG.com. However, according to the market realities of the moment, we do have to introduce DRM for those titles, even the ones which were previously available completely DRM free, but we saw that you are willing to accept this."
And then, of course, GOG doesn't enforce its update parity clause from contracts even now, so let's say a publisher would leave an initially DRMed game here after those 6 months, remove the DRM, but then abandon the game. GOG would no more enforce parity then than it does now.
And anyway, for anyone who's here for DRM-free, DRMed games WOULD NOT EXIST HERE, so THEY WOULD STILL NOT BE HERE DURING THAT PERIOD. So all something like that would show is how many GOG users would be ok with DRM. If those games would sell, it will lead to them being able to later say that the userbase supports bringing more of it, that DRM free is no longer relevant for the vast majority of GOG users. If they would not, it'd of course be pointless for the publishers to bring them here and GOG wouldn't have just renounced the last vestiges of its last remaining principle, but they'd have done it while proving to publishers that the store isn't worth bothering with under any terms.
And, of course, AB2012's question remains, why would publishers who are now able to remove DRM some time after release and choose not to, choose to bring those games here, on a storefront that they currently ignore, since you're talking about a measure meant to bring games that otherwise wouldn't come, and be forced to do so? What's in it for them?

The point, is discussing why things are like they are with GOG.
These need to be pointed out from time to time, because a lot of folk here make all sorts of wrong assumptions.

While DRM-Free is a simple sell in some quarters, in most it isn't. I am talking more about game providers, than customers, but it also applies to customers (gamers), many of whom, no doubt most, prefer the Steam way, and don't care at all about DRM-Free.

As you say, GOG is a great alternative. But only in a very limited way. The best part about GOG is the DRM-Free aspect, which means a kind of ownership, but you have a limited choice of games for that. GOG also send mixed messages about DRM-Free, that leave many of us concerned.

Abuse comes in many forms. There are those who provide games to GOG, who don't do so diligently or even ethically. In short, they abuse the GOG system in various ways. For instance, updates can be slower to arrive at GOG or not at all, while being available at Steam etc.

How profitable GOG are, is also up for debate. So this thread discusses what might be the case, and perhaps what could be done to improve things, etc. Certainly many things that have occurred at GOG, lead some of us, to worry about how well GOG are actually doing. Some acts by them seem to be acts of desperation, cutbacks and so forth, along with things that should have been done and aren't. Many would claim their values have been compromised, and I find it hard to argue against that at times.

Ultimately many of us have invested in GOG big time, and want GOG to survive, and do so well.

GOG have lasted for more than 16 years now, a marvelous achievement, all things considered. But many think the cracks are starting to become more obvious.

Will just post like this instead of a reply since its to 2 people.

No, I don't think developers will just come here and suddenly remove their DRM after the 6 month period out of the kindness of their heart, I know developers will remove their DRM if they sold here because they would be contractually obligated to and would be in breach of that contract if they didn't and would then either be forced to refund the purchases or enjoy the court cases that follow.

And seriously, what bait and switch? This is sold with DRM for the first 6 months and then you are guaranteed to have the DRM installer after that time, then 6 months later you are either getting that DRM free installer, you are getting a refund, or they are getting lawsuit.

And have I ever sued for a refund after 6 months? I think you phrased that wrong, you should be asking, "Have you ever sued someone for failing to deliver on what you paid for and got a refund because of that?" At which point, we have countless court cases over just that happening. And GoG very well could make a public spectacle of going after a developer that tried to screw their users over. Or maybe those "Well founded legal teams" they have just enjoy being drug through the mud for breaking their own legal agreements, especially since they can be sued in nations other than the US since our Supreme Court has already proven incapable of doing their job properly. I hear being sued in Europe is all the rage for companies now.

And upper hand or not, I don't think that GoG would commit suicide by letting them extend any DRM period as that literally kills their whole thing.

And again, as I have said multiple times. This is the absolute furthest compromise I would be willing to expect.

I never said I would support perpetual DRM on here like you guys pretend will happen and GoG knows that they can never allow that regardless of how much leverage the publisher has as it would be suicide for them.

Let me ask you this, do you enjoy waiting 6+ years for many games to come here? Do you wait that long or do you purchase it on steam till then and MAYBE get it here if you still enjoyed it? Or do you the bootleg route until it goes on here?

That compromise I was proposing would be about getting the games here sooner under those conditions. If the developers don't like those terms, they can keep moving because they wouldn't have posted them here on the current terms either.

In the past, I've often said that publishers should remove DRM after the initial sales run is over. I still say they should do that, so I'm not completely against the idea of that.

I am against having DRM'd games (even temporarily DRM'd games) here on GOG however. In order for it to work, at least from my personal point of view, GOG would then need to have two separate areas in the store: The "Temporary" DRM section, and the Non-DRM section. Because contract or no, I will not be buying any game until that DRM has been removed. Why? Because unless the publisher supplies GOG with a DRM-free copy of their game at the outset, which the publisher would never agree to, if the publisher goes bankrupt, that DRM-free copy will never surface here.

And that's the main problem. This idea requires publisher cooperation, and in their minds (most big publishers), providing DRM-free versions at any point is just not worth it.

There are some publishers however, that have removed the DRM and sold their games here, but as you noted, it usually happens much, much later. I think that getting them to agree to 6 months right out of the gate is going to be a huge ask for them, and since they are already getting most of their sales elsewhere, they will focus on that instead.

In my mind, the only solution to this whole DRM mess is somehow getting the PLAYERS to care about it. But since most people will apparently happily buy the games fully DRM'd, the publishers won't feel motivated to cater to our much smaller demographic of people who DO care. We just don't have the necessary numbers right now, but that does appear to be changing, albeit very slowly. More people are going to have to lose access to their beloved games for them to care, and I think this may happen, eventually.