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

×
Community
General discussionNEWS: GOG Galaxy to start selling EPIC games(1045 posts)(1045 posts)
(1045 posts)
Pages:
1
10
20
30
37
38
39
40
41
50
60
70
This is my favourite topic
Posted October 04, 2020
avatar
GameN16bit: The chances of that are slim IMO.
avatar
rjbuffchix: Can you please, please explain how you reach your conclusion that the chances are slim?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posted October 04, 2020
high rated
avatar
RawSteelUT: The problem is that literally every time CDP so much as farts the wrong way (which they do often, to be fair), there's SO MUCH doom and gloom. By the logic of the crazies, GOG should have abandoned DRM-Free at least four times in as many years.

The problem is that there's no logical reason for them to do so. They're not going to be able to throw the amount of money that Epic does to get games, and they're never going to match the near-ubiquitous nature of Steam.
I said it before, but I guess no one reads my messages so that is ok:

Whether or not the Epic games sold through Galaxy have DRM or not is pretty much irrelevant to the big picture. The following bigger issue would still be there even if all those Galaxy Epic games were DRM-free:

GOG (Galaxy) is starting to provide and sell games of their (formerly) direct competitor, relying on their competitor's service and ecosystem. The game is purchased and downloaded from the competitor's service, and also uses their services for e.g. multiplayer and such.

What this means is that with this move, GOG (Galaxy) is making their own store and service less relevant. For instance, those "handpicked" Epic games, what are the chances anymore that GOG will try to get them also to the GOG store? I'd say 0.000001%.

We have seen this same so many times before. For instance, Gamersgate.com, Humble Store and GreenManGaming. They all originally had their own store and service as the primary thing, but at some point they started selling also Steam keys (ie. relying on Valve's services for the sold games). Sure, it didn't necessarily start that big at first, but bit by bit, that made their own services and infrastructure less and less relevant over time. Gamersgate.com has even switched many of its earlier games, which earlier depended on their own services, to Steam keys.

So those three sites pretty much started promoting their competitor's services, by selling keys that depend on the Steam service. This is basically the same thing, GOG Galaxy is stopping to compete with the Epic store, and instead even starts promoting its products (and apparently gets a small cut from those sales in the process).

In the long term, this is probably also bad news for multiplayer etc. support in GOG Galaxy, as the Epic games apparently rely on Epic Store multiplayer services.

Someone gave a somewhat fitting analogy that this is like that e.g. Burger King would let McDonalds (and possibly others like Taco Bell and Subway and whathaveyou) have their own booths within Burger King restaurants. They would rationalize this to their customers with "The number one request from our customers has always been that they could buy also McDonalds, Taco Bell and Subway products from our restaurants. Now you can!".

So basically Burger King would start promoting their competitors' products, along with their own. Isn't it obvious they would be undermining their own products in the process, making them less relevant?
Post edited October 04, 2020 by timppu
Posted October 04, 2020
high rated
avatar
Braggadar: Steam and GOG's other competitors are watching and they're aware that GOG is spending an extraordinary amount of effort and money on the Galaxy bet. Either they have plans in motion to counter the new client on even grounds (meta client vs meta client) or they could just deny GOG integration by updating the API at the most opportune time.
They don't need to react to Galaxy at all. GOG is working on it for how long already? And it's still an unstable mess with a serious lack of features. Or better: with a lot of features that game devs don't care to support! GOG's "competitors" can just lean back, wait and watch how GOG's plans for Galaxy fail.

Steam has the market share. They don't need to do crap to survive.
Epic has Fortnite. They can run their store and horrible client for as long as they want.
EA is EA. They don't need Origin (or whatever they're going to call it) to be a "success".
Ubisoft is Ubisoft. Same thing as EA.
Microsoft is Microsoft and has the XBOX. They don't care at all.

Do you think these guys really care about what GOG is trying to do? Especially since Galaxy doesn't seem to make any progress? Only difference between "Galaxy" (GOG.com) and Epic is that Galaxy has a cart and you can buy more than one item at a time. Both clients are an absolute joke with only the most basic features! You can shop, install your games and have some cloud saves. Achievements and multiplayer is "kind of there", but... well "kind of not" at the same time.

And then there's the next "problem". You don't need an universal launcher when all it does is to launch another launcher to launch your game! If I want to launch Origin through another client, I can go to Steam. If I want to launch UPlay through another launcher I can to to Steam. If I want to launch whatever Microsoft's current DRM is called I can go to Steam. No need for any "integration". Just buy on Steam and you'll have all your stuff in one place. Steam will launch other clients just as well. And Origin and UPlay aren't stupid... They'll see that you own that EA or Ubisoft game on Steam and just add it to your Origin or UPlay library (just in case you're getting sick of launching launcher from within launcher to launch games).

And all these Publishers/clients are starting to work together anyway. The subscription system of EA (EA play? No idea how it's called) became available on Microsoft's XBox-thingy, which is their PC-thingy, too. And soon you'll be able to get it on Steam as well. Wouldn't be surprised to see it on Epic in a couple of months.

What I want to say: When there's stores like Steam, Epic or XBox for PC (stores that have all the latest AAA crap), you don't really need an universal client from a niche store. You just buy everything you want from one of the big guys. They already launch launchers for you, without any unstable, user made integrations.
Posted October 04, 2020
high rated
avatar
real.geizterfahr: What I want to say: When there's stores like Steam, Epic or XBox for PC (stores that have all the latest AAA crap), you don't really need an universal client from a niche store. You just buy everything you want from one of the big guys. They already launch launchers for you, without any unstable, user made integrations.
The idea that GOG Galaxy originally seemed to have, that you can view and launch your games bought from other services with the Galaxy client, had some merit (provided it worked; I have no idea how well it does). That is a message to customers "Want to see and launch all your games from various different stores and clients in one place? Welcome to GOG Galaxy.".

To me that strategy does have some merit to it: it is an incentive for non-GOG users to start using the GOG Galaxy client (and create an account on GOG), and after that being subjected to GOG game advertisements etc. on Galaxy, possibly starting to buy some games also from GOG.

Valve has successfully done a similar thing by letting Steam developers to sell Steam keys for their games on other stores (or even on their own store) even without giving Valve a cut from those sales. That makes sure people keep coming back to using a Steam client, and through it also be subjected to Steam sales etc.
Also, Valve has made it possible to run non-Steam games through the Steam-client, which has the same effect (e.g. I once ran GOG The Witcher 3 on the Steam client in order to have access to Steam's framerate counter as I played the game).

HOWEVER, what GOG is doing now (starting to sell games from one of those competing stores) is a wildly different thing altogether. This can be seen as a promotion of their competitor's games on the GOG Galaxy client, which bounds to make GOG's own store, game offerings and services, less relevant.

We will see how it goes from here, but this is how the downfall of Gamersgate, Greenmangaming and Humble Store started...
Posted October 04, 2020
low rated
avatar
rjbuffchix: Can you please, please explain how you reach your conclusion that the chances are slim? What is their incentive to release games on GOG.com DRM-free if "the majority of people just want clients, you offline installer users and people speaking up about this move are a minority"?
I mean I think I have done this a few times now?

avatar
rjbuffchix: Would you agree that if a developer releases a DRMed game on Epic that is purchasable through "GOG Galaxy 2.0" client store app, that they are able to access "GOG the company"'s audience simply by doing that?
Not really. They have access to an adience that uses both GOG and Epic which is a small but important distinction. If someone doesn't buy from Epic or they disable this feature in Galaxy or they don't use Galaxy because they dislike clients they aren't going to reach that audience.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that GOG, at-least right now will curate what EGS games show up on Galaxy this means it's unlikely you will see games shown in Galaxy from EGS that are already for sale on GOG or games that are already planned to come to GOG. This also means GOG probably already has a fair working knowledge of what publishers will be open to selling on GOG down the road and which will not be open to it. GOG has been doing this a long time, they know what publishers only release games with DRM and which do not.

----

At this point though, I've going to move on from this discussion as it's going in circles. Free free to PM, if you would like to discuss this more.

------

Disclaimer: I do not work for GOG.com, nor am I paid by GOG.com. All views expressed in this post are my own, and do not represent the views of GOG.com or it's employees. My views are expressed as a fan, gamer, and fellow GOG user... that is all. Thank you.
Post edited October 04, 2020 by user deleted
Posted October 04, 2020
high rated
avatar
rjbuffchix: Would you agree that if a developer releases a DRMed game on Epic that is purchasable through "GOG Galaxy 2.0" client store app, that they are able to access "GOG the company"'s audience simply by doing that?
avatar
GameN16bit: Not really. They have access to an adience that uses both GOG and Epic which is a small but important distinction. If someone doesn't buy from Epic or they disable this feature in Galaxy or they don't use Galaxy because they dislike clients they aren't going to reach that audience.
How is that last part different from the current situation...i.e., these developers are not reaching an audience of GOG.com users who only buy games DRM-free. Obviously such audience is not a priority. Or is the argument that "they don't know we exist but once they see we exist, they'll want to sell here". I'm pretty sure developers are aware of GOG. Otherwise, how would GOG users get non-responses and ridicule when we try to contact some of them to bring their games here?

avatar
GameN16bit: Furthermore, it is my understanding that GOG, at-least right now will curate what EGS games show up on Galaxy this means it's unlikely you will see games shown in Galaxy from EGS that are already for sale on GOG or games that are already planned to come to GOG. This also means GOG probably already has a fair working knowledge of what publishers will be open to selling on GOG down the road and which will not be open to it. GOG has been doing this a long time, they know what publishers only release games with DRM and which do not.
Yes, and the argument is that these publishers will consider selling on Galaxy 2.0 the equivalent of "selling on GOG", meaning "GOG the company as a whole". Since "everyone" uses Galaxy, why would the developer bother with a DRM-free build for GOG.com's "no client, or at least no Epic DRMed games" smaller audience. There are literally developers now who won't sell their games here on GOG.com DRM-free despite having clientless versions available on Scheme, itch, and of course Epic itself. Getting them to sell on the client does nothing to get them to also want to sell on GOG.com DRM-free. You're missing an extra premise/step in here.
Posted October 04, 2020
Sorry I didn't read thru the 29 pages of posts but is EPIC offering GOG money to do this?
Posted October 04, 2020
high rated
avatar
GameN16bit: This also means GOG probably already has a fair working knowledge of what publishers will be open to selling on GOG down the road and which will not be open to it. GOG has been doing this a long time, they know what publishers only release games with DRM and which do not.
A bit like how we'll never see Serious Sam 4, The Talos Principle or Deus Ex: HR / MD here on GOG due to Croteam / Square Enix former DRM stance? Or how 2K rejected a request for Bioshock due to GOG's early "no regional pricing" but changed their mind years later?...

The whole point people are making isn't today it's tomorrow. ie, publishers who currently don't have games on Epic may well be watching this and if "successful" may start approaching Epic & GOG simultaneously but requesting that GOG accept an Epic version as their "GOG release" instead of a GOG version, almost as the new default. You don't have much of a bargaining position left to argue against that when you've already communicated that DRM-Free is unimportant and there's zero other functional difference between an Epic / Steam vs GOG release.

In fact the whole concept and justification behind it is a literal admission that "Epic release on GOG = reaches more customers at lower cost to publishers" whilst "separate GOG and Epic release on GOG = reaches fewer customers at higher cost to publishers". How many distributors are going to sit down with publishers in a meeting and seriously argue with a straight face that the latter is "better" for them, not just GOG or even video games but literally anything where it cost you less money to sell 1x variant of your product on 2x stores than it will having to make 2x variants for 2x stores?

From GOG's point of view, Epic games on GOG = entirely down to branding. From the publishers point of view, Epic games on GOG = the biggest bonus is cost-cutting in not needing a proper GOG release (only one release needed for two stores = don't have to bother with Galaxy specific Achievements, reduced workload for patching, etc), which actively disincentivizes GOG releases of future games. It's mind-blowing how GOG staff cannot see the obvious implications beyond their own branding are the same as what Humble Store, GamersGate, etc, have already gone through...
Post edited October 04, 2020 by AB2012
Posted October 04, 2020
high rated
avatar
Breja: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
People vs GOG
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think we can all ponder our next steps and move on. It's pretty obvious nobody's really listening, or even if they are, I bet they have a bowl of popcorn on the side. The general policy is to treat any negative feedback as "people are overreacting (again)".

"Things are now in motion that can not be undone".
Post edited October 04, 2020 by WinterSnowfall
Posted October 04, 2020
high rated
avatar
timppu: We have seen this same so many times before. For instance, Gamersgate.com, Humble Store and GreenManGaming. They all originally had their own store and service as the primary thing, but at some point they started selling also Steam keys (ie. relying on Valve's services for the sold games). Sure, it didn't necessarily start that big at first, but bit by bit, that made their own services and infrastructure less and less relevant over time. Gamersgate.com has even switched many of its earlier games, which earlier depended on their own services, to Steam keys.
I remember after Humble did their first bundle with DRM and no cross-platform that they did a blog post about it insisting that they wouldn't change, that it was just "too good an offer to pass up". They also posted a comment that DRM'ed games is the "polar opposite of what the humble bundle is about". Unfortunately I can't find the link to the posts I'm thinking of and many links from back then are broken now, but I did find this (the link to the image itself is broken but Google has a low quality cached version that's just about readable):

link

I also found some articles about the bundle:

The Humble THQ Bundle loses indie games, adds DRM, and is a step backward for the bundle model
Humble THQ Bundle threatens to ruin the brand's reputation
Humble Bundle Loses What Makes Itself Special With THQ Bundle

And look at Humble now - Steam/UPlay/Origin/Epic/etc keys everywhere, rarely DRM-free releases (and when there are DRM-free releases they often get outdated with developers telling people to just use the Steam key for updates etc), bundles are mostly Steam keys now and they're almost never cross-platform any more.

avatar
timppu: So those three sites pretty much started promoting their competitor's services, by selling keys that depend on the Steam service. This is basically the same thing, GOG Galaxy is stopping to compete with the Epic store, and instead even starts promoting its products (and apparently gets a small cut from those sales in the process).
AFAIK other stores selling Epic keys keep the full 30% or whatever cut of the sale price with the rest going to the game's publisher, basically working the same way as Steam keys do.

If GOG is getting an even smaller cut than that (such as getting a cut of Epic's already smaller cut) then this move is even more stupid because they're also providing additional support so their overheads will be higher than mere key sellers.

avatar
timppu: Someone gave a somewhat fitting analogy that this is like that e.g. Burger King would let McDonalds (and possibly others like Taco Bell and Subway and whathaveyou) have their own booths within Burger King restaurants. They would rationalize this to their customers with "The number one request from our customers have always been that they could buy also McDonalds, Taco Bell and Subway products from our restaurants. Now you can!".

So basically Burger King would start promoting their competitors' products, along with their own. Isn't it obvious they would be undermining their own products in the process, making them less relevant?
It's even worse than that as there are principles involved that were core to the foundation of GOG that are being contradicted by this move. If GOG announced that they were offering DRM-free games from other DRM-free stores it would still be dumb, but it wouldn't be such a betrayal of their founding principles like doing this with Epic is.

And to top it all off, to do this with Epic's store in particular? Who have employed such scummy practices that it would have been less egregious if GOG had announced this deal with Steam!
Post edited October 04, 2020 by adamhm
Posted October 04, 2020
avatar
Breja: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
avatar
WinterSnowfall: People vs GOG
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think we can all ponder our next steps and move on. It's pretty obvious nobody's really listening, or even if they are, I bet they have a bowl of popcorn on the side. The general policy is to treat any negative feedback as "people are overreacting (again)".

"Things are now in motion that can not be undone".
Monday will be the first full business day since this really blew up, with Friday being a half work day. I would say that if they ignore what is going on tomorrow still, then potentially nothing will happen on their end to rectify the situation. I am going to wait and see on that yet, otherwise I get your point.
Posted October 04, 2020
high rated
avatar
WinterSnowfall: "Things are now in motion that can not be undone".
And my mind immediately goes to:

avatar
EnforcerSunWoo: Monday will be the first full business day since this really blew up, with Friday being a half work day. I would say that if they ignore what is going on tomorrow still, then potentially nothing will happen on their end to rectify the situation. I am going to wait and see on that yet, otherwise I get your point.
I assure you, nothing will happen. This is a big step involving a deal with a third party, I'm not sure it would be realistic to expect GOG to change their mind now even if the whole comunity rose up in an uproar. Definitely not when a huge chunk of it is either passively accepting it or actively defending it.

avatar
rjbuffchix: You're missing an extra premise/step in here.
He'll miss that and whatever else is necessary to keep defending every corporate decision that comes.
Post edited October 04, 2020 by Breja
Posted October 04, 2020
high rated
avatar
WinterSnowfall: "Things are now in motion that can not be undone".
avatar
Breja: And my mind immediately goes to:

avatar
EnforcerSunWoo: Monday will be the first full business day since this really blew up, with Friday being a half work day. I would say that if they ignore what is going on tomorrow still, then potentially nothing will happen on their end to rectify the situation. I am going to wait and see on that yet, otherwise I get your point.
avatar
Breja: I assure you, nothing will happen. This is a big step involving a deal with a third party, I'm not sure it would be realistic to expect GOG to change their mind now even if the whole comunity rose up in an uproar. Definitely not when a huge chunk of it is either passively accepting it or actively defending it.

avatar
rjbuffchix: You're missing an extra premise/step in here.
avatar
Breja: He'll miss that and whatever else is necessary to keep defending every corporate decision that comes.
You're right, just wishful thinking on my behalf that GOG will actually do what is right for their customers. Those days have long left us and GOG is a shell of it's former self.
Posted October 04, 2020
high rated
Imagine if other companies did something like this, such as a long-established health food company suddenly deciding to start selling fast food from Mcdonalds/KFC/etc. "but it's fine because we're only selling it via our app and it'll be delivered by our partner companies. We're still fully committed to reducing incidences of obesity-related diseases that will take a toll on our society if it is not slowed".

Or a company formed to help people quit smoking deciding to start offering a range of cigars, cigarettes & other tobacco products and accessories, "but it's fine because we're only selling them via our app and they'll be delivered by our partner companies. We're still fully committed to our mission of helping people quit smoking".

Or a company founded on a basis of being environmentally friendly/providing environmentally friendly products partnering up with oil corporations and chemical manufacturers to offer diesel/petrol generators + fuel, disposable plastic products, CFC-based aerosols etc. "but it's fine because we're only selling them via our app and the actual delivery will be arranged by our partner companies. We're still focused on our founding goal of helping the environment by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, single-use plastics etc".

...and then having people come along to defend them!
Post edited October 04, 2020 by adamhm
Posted October 04, 2020
high rated
avatar
rjbuffchix: Can you please, please explain how you reach your conclusion that the chances are slim? What is their incentive to release games on GOG.com DRM-free if "the majority of people just want clients, you offline installer users and people speaking up about this move are a minority"?
avatar
GameN16bit: I mean I think I have done this a few times now?

avatar
rjbuffchix: Would you agree that if a developer releases a DRMed game on Epic that is purchasable through "GOG Galaxy 2.0" client store app, that they are able to access "GOG the company"'s audience simply by doing that?
avatar
GameN16bit: Not really. They have access to an adience that uses both GOG and Epic which is a small but important distinction. If someone doesn't buy from Epic or they disable this feature in Galaxy or they don't use Galaxy because they dislike clients they aren't going to reach that audience.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that GOG, at-least right now will curate what EGS games show up on Galaxy this means it's unlikely you will see games shown in Galaxy from EGS that are already for sale on GOG or games that are already planned to come to GOG. This also means GOG probably already has a fair working knowledge of what publishers will be open to selling on GOG down the road and which will not be open to it. GOG has been doing this a long time, they know what publishers only release games with DRM and which do not.

----

At this point though, I've going to move on from this discussion as it's going in circles. Free free to PM, if you would like to discuss this more.
You need to just stop. You've created an antagonistic tone that does not behoove even a volunteer, that yes, does work for GOG. You, as a moderator, are a figurehead representative of them, whether or not you care to admit it. It's implied for anyone that reads your posts, so unless you're willing to start writing explicit disclaimers to your intent, then no, you should be willfully recusing yourself from discussions like these, and no, you're not entitled to an opinion without intense scrutiny from those who affiliate you with GOG. You're not stupid, you know that tonal posting is a thing, even if you're playing ignorant.

As for the core of this post, my proposal is simple. Remove Galaxy altogether from GOG. Separate them completely, then rename Galaxy to CDP Galaxy to make further distinction. Problem solved. Retain the ability to purchase GOG games in Galaxy, but stop advertising it and making it the core focus on GOG and GOG associated platforms. CDP can then do whatever backsliding they want to, and leave GOG as is.
Pages:
1
10
20
30
37
38
39
40
41
50
60
70
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionNEWS: GOG Galaxy to start selling EPIC games(1045 posts)(1045 posts)
(1045 posts)