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

×
A survival dungeon crawler deeply rooted in Norse mythology. Niffelheim is now available DRM-free on GOG.COM with a 75% discount until 13 January 2020, 2 PM UTC.

Our hero is a Viking warrior who fell on the field of battle. Instead of feasting in halls of Valhalla, his founds his spirit tossed into the dark and dangerous world of Niffelheim where he must struggle to avoid fate even worse than death.
avatar
tfishell: Well at this point that's not going to change, GOG is having to adapt to stay competitive in the marketplace.
avatar
rjbuffchix: Precisely why many of us offline-installer folks continue to place next-to-no trust in the proclamations that Galaxy will "always" be optional. That is not cool, and the "have to adapt" rationale could justify any number of other anti-consumer practices. My account may be on the newer side, but I thought the original idea of GOG was to be competitive by offering an alternative to such practices.
Parts of galaxy are now required by games, even in offline installers:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_galaxy_required_in_certain_games
avatar
Gersen: The DRM-free part has always be only be for the single player part of games, not for the multiplayer/online part should one exists. And it's nothing new you have older game sold on Gog for years, long before Galaxy, that requires either a third party account or even an online activation to be played online (e.g. Two World)
The thing is, your examples from then, like Niffelheim now apparently, fly in the face of what GOG's sister site FCKDRM.com says. Maybe they should update that site with a "just kidding, this only applies to singleplayer" disclaimer. That said, I do get your point. I know unfortunately there are many examples of games with what I'd call DRMed modes/content on this site. I even own some of them. Really it's just a bummer to kick off the year with another example like this. I probably wouldn't feel as bad if there were other big releases, without this sort of multiplayer DRM, to make up for it.
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: Parts of galaxy are now required by games, even in offline installers:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_galaxy_required_in_certain_games
I have seen this topic and it does annoy me too, but I don't mind so much if they are bloating the installer as long as offline functionality is maintained (i.e. not the instance where cloud saves broke offline game or what have you). I think there is a relevant difference between having to have a bloated offline installer, versus online authentication. Even though of course a bare bones offline installer without bloat is preferable to both.
Post edited January 08, 2020 by rjbuffchix
avatar
rjbuffchix: ...snip
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: Parts of galaxy are now required by games, even in offline installers:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_galaxy_required_in_certain_games
avatar
rjbuffchix: I have seen this topic and it does annoy me too, but I don't mind so much if they are bloating the installer as long as offline functionality is maintained (i.e. not the instance where cloud saves broke offline game or what have you). I think there is a relevant difference between having to have a bloated offline installer, versus online authentication. Even though of course a bare bones offline installer without bloat is preferable to both.
Well, one of the main issues I see with it, apart from size, is that it is adding extra requirements to games. Take for instance years back, when we had games which had additional components like securom (not saying this is drm or anything like it, just that these components were required) but it all worked fine. Come forward some years and M$ in their wisdom block those components. This meant having to go to dodgy websites downloading nocd and other patches to enable your product to work again. Jump forward to the present day where games which work fine now have this additional requirements which may in future break. Are we happy to go back to downloading dodgy files to patch this?
But anyway, I am misdirecting this thread so will post this again over at the other for any further discussion.
low rated
avatar
zlep: What's with the hate train for this game?

For the GOG release, they've implemented multiplayer tied to the platform-client, just like it has on Steam. It's missing one DLC (which is understandably annoying), but it's a pay-for-easy-mode DLC, which GOG-ites generally abhor anyway. Although "grindy" is a common mention in its negative reviews on Steam, reviews overall are "mostly positive", both for recent and all time. So it's not as if there's consensus that the game is worthless without an easy mode... They've even released it with a launch discount of 75% (!!) which has barely attracted comment.

I understand that people get upset when games release here without all the DLC they have on Steam (Party Hard's lack of High Crimes DLC after *years* still infuriates me), but the amount of vitriol on show here seems out of proportion to the crime...
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: Where is this hate of which you talk? The game is ok. It is however Extremely grindy far and away beyond the point at which it ceases to be fun for most people. This is a completely valid point, and one echoed on steam. Secondly the game is lacking the dlc which changes this into something more palatable for the people who don’t like the grind as mentioned above. Again, this is not hate, simply pointing out something which is present on steam is not present in this version. I have played the game, and honestly it’s a good looking game, which is, for me at least, ruined by the endless grind - a point even the developers have picked up on and released content to cover. So why should I pay for a product which is inferior to the one on steam? Again, no hate, a simple question. Why the need to automatically defend something against people raising reasonable questions against a product?
You're talking about the game; I'm talking about the thread.

The last four pages have been unusually full of cascading negativity compared to the average release thread.

The few expressions of interest are drowned out by talk of stripped-down versions of games, botched releases, soulless screenshots and bad devs. Just reading this thread you'd never think Niffelheim was a successful game.

This is in stark contrast to its Steam page, where the game clearly *is* successful. It has hundreds of reviews, predominantly positive. This hasn't changed between old reviews and new - opinion has stayed stable, despite old and new purchasers having differing access to the easy-mode DLC.

The only difference between the Steam and GOG releases? One paid DLC. You'd expect some discontent about missing content. You'd expect the occasional "meh" comment from people who'd played the game and didn't like it. But I'm honestly surprised that it turned the release thread into a lightning rod for anyone with a gripe. Usually that fate is reserved for new games with low-res graphics, or the first release after any particularly stupid "too niche" rejection.
avatar
Gersen: The DRM-free part has always be only be for the single player part of games, not for the multiplayer/online part should one exists. And it's nothing new you have older game sold on Gog for years, long before Galaxy, that requires either a third party account or even an online activation to be played online (e.g. Two World)
avatar
rjbuffchix: The thing is, your examples from then, like Niffelheim now apparently, fly in the face of what GOG's sister site FCKDRM.com says. Maybe they should update that site with a "just kidding, this only applies to singleplayer" disclaimer. That said, I do get your point. I know unfortunately there are many examples of games with what I'd call DRMed modes/content on this site. I even own some of them. Really it's just a bummer to kick off the year with another example like this. I probably wouldn't feel as bad if there were other big releases, without this sort of multiplayer DRM, to make up for it.
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: Parts of galaxy are now required by games, even in offline installers:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_galaxy_required_in_certain_games
avatar
rjbuffchix: I have seen this topic and it does annoy me too, but I don't mind so much if they are bloating the installer as long as offline functionality is maintained (i.e. not the instance where cloud saves broke offline game or what have you). I think there is a relevant difference between having to have a bloated offline installer, versus online authentication. Even though of course a bare bones offline installer without bloat is preferable to both.
One more time for the people in the back. GoG is not going to devote time, money and resources in addition to an all out marketing campaign where they plaster Galaxy all over their website and then not tell developers that they have to integrate with their client in some way. That is literally one the main reasons they developed Galaxy in the first place, to entice more devs to integrate their games with Galaxy.

In this respect they are trying to compromise by only having it done for multiplayer only. The clearest signal that this is how things are is when their own developed product, GWENT, requires Galaxy.

I'll let others debate whether that constitutes DRM-Free or not.
Post edited January 08, 2020 by synfresh
avatar
MarkoH01: ...because not sure that it is possible...
avatar
MadalinStroe: After reading the description of the DLC on STEAM:
"As promised, this DLC is free for everyone who bought the game during Early Access..."
I think what they meant is that they are not sure GOG is able to identify the people that bought the game during the "in development" period, so that they can get the DLC free.

I don't think they were referring to just adding the DLC to the GOG store.
So why didn't they?
avatar
tfishell: hopefully the 2nd-class citizen list grows so big there'll be more on the list than stars in the sky, YES! :D
Care to explain why this would be a good thing?
avatar
zlep: What's with the hate train for this game?

For the GOG release, they've implemented multiplayer tied to the platform-client, just like it has on Steam. It's missing one DLC (which is understandably annoying), but it's a pay-for-easy-mode DLC, which GOG-ites generally abhor anyway. Although "grindy" is a common mention in its negative reviews on Steam, reviews overall are "mostly positive", both for recent and all time. So it's not as if there's consensus that the game is worthless without an easy mode... They've even released it with a launch discount of 75% (!!) which has barely attracted comment.

I understand that people get upset when games release here without all the DLC they have on Steam (Party Hard's lack of High Crimes DLC after *years* still infuriates me), but the amount of vitriol on show here seems out of proportion to the crime...
There is no hate about the game at all. There's the issue with devs treating GOG different than Steam and there's no logical reason for them to not sell the DLC(s) on GOG as well. The list of devs who tries to get some extra bucks from GOG customers in tha past has just grown too big so that some of us are fed of this and try to prevent for it to getting it even better. Also, if you read this thread carefully you will notice that I suggested to buy the game the moment they changed this. I still have it on my wishlist as well and will buy when they give GOG the same possibilitys they already gave their Steam customers. And yes. they lauched the game with a good discount ... it has the same discount on Steam right now btw ... but it does not really change the issue. If we don't change our buying behavior neither GOG nor devs will ever change theirs regarding games that are either incomplete, not updated or have missing features and DLCs here.
Post edited January 08, 2020 by MarkoH01
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: when we had games which had additional components like securom (not saying this is drm or anything like it, just that these components were required) but it all worked fine.
Funny since SecuROM exactly IS DRM without any question at all.
avatar
zlep: This is in stark contrast to its Steam page, where the game clearly *is* successful. It has hundreds of reviews, predominantly positive. This hasn't changed between old reviews and new - opinion has stayed stable, despite old and new purchasers having differing access to the easy-mode DLC.

The only difference between the Steam and GOG releases? One paid DLC. You'd expect some discontent about missing content. You'd expect the occasional "meh" comment from people who'd played the game and didn't like it. But I'm honestly surprised that it turned the release thread into a lightning rod for anyone with a gripe. Usually that fate is reserved for new games with low-res graphics, or the first release after any particularly stupid "too niche" rejection.
Isn't it a pity that the actual game is drown in discussions about devs not treating GOG the same as on Steam? Well ... maybe if they did not this would all be about their game. If you'd ask me - that was deserved. But again: they still have a chance to turn this around.
Post edited January 09, 2020 by MarkoH01
low rated
avatar
Loger13: "Notes: Online Multiplayer requires Galaxy authentication."

So I pass. I prefer GOG not for installing another too niche store client.
If I need a store with a client, I will go to Steam.
avatar
firstpastthepost: This game never had client-less multiplayer. The fact that you expect it to be specially developed by gog to add a feature that never existed in the game to begin with is just ridiculous.
I did not know how the coop mode was implemented in this game, so I asked. When I received the answer, I concluded whether the game interests me.
The fact that you decided that I was waiting for the development of such mode specifically for GOG version is just ridiculous (and simply speaks about your poor cognitive abilities).
avatar
firstpastthepost: This game never had client-less multiplayer. The fact that you expect it to be specially developed by gog to add a feature that never existed in the game to begin with is just ridiculous.
avatar
Loger13: I did not know how the coop mode was implemented in this game, so I asked. When I received the answer, I concluded whether the game interests me.
The fact that you decided that I was waiting for the development of such mode specifically for GOG version is just ridiculous (and simply speaks about your poor cognitive abilities).
I was being deliberately obtuse. Mostly because you were being obtuse. The fact that you weren’t able to pick up on that speaks to your poor cognitive abilities :)
low rated
avatar
Loger13: I did not know how the coop mode was implemented in this game, so I asked. When I received the answer, I concluded whether the game interests me.
The fact that you decided that I was waiting for the development of such mode specifically for GOG version is just ridiculous (and simply speaks about your poor cognitive abilities).
avatar
firstpastthepost: I was being deliberately obtuse. Mostly because you were being obtuse. The fact that you weren’t able to pick up on that speaks to your poor cognitive abilities :)
Now you just showed that you are so from birth.
avatar
tfishell: hopefully the 2nd-class citizen list grows so big there'll be more on the list than stars in the sky, YES! :D
avatar
MarkoH01: Care to explain why this would be a good thing?
I wasn't being serious, I was in overreacting self-pity mode for us.
avatar
blotunga: I can live with the lack of multiplayer... But lack of DLC?
same here........ multiplayer was fun, many years ago, lan or online cnc red alert commandos (classic)...since the late 90's i only play singleplayer, games, offline , on my pc that's the way play now.

edit:

oops , i just read the rec. system

GeForce 900 (9xx) series (+_+)

according to Google:

(- GeForce GTX 950 (OEM), 2016, 1024:64:32, 935, 1203, 5010, 38.5, 76.99, 4096, 80.19, 1915, 76.99 ...)

I cant run recommended , and i don't want to run @minimum, its too 'frustrating' ‘︿’

Brassheart is the only game left on wishlist
but reccomended. is 3 ghz , so that might be to much for current setup
Anyway... maybe later when i get a new setup
Post edited January 09, 2020 by gamesfreak64
avatar
dgnfly: I Edited the first post about one guy asking if it were included, but can't change the review. Still kinda lame since I personally don't like being tied to storefronts for certain options.
avatar
MarkoH01: If you really want you could ask GOG support to remove your review since you have now information that were missing when you wrote it and you think your review would be unfair the way it is now. Afterwards you should be able to post another if you so desire.
avatar
takezodunmer2005: Online is one thing but missing content (DLC) is quite another, took it off my wishlist as soon as I read that solitary review, bad dev!
avatar
MarkoH01: It might be that it's not the end of the line. Devs told me they will try to bring DLC to GOG as well. We should at least give them a chance. Maybe keep it on the wishlist and wait for the DLC to arrive? It's what I will do.
Wow really? Cool I think I will then thanks for the info!
avatar
zlep: This is in stark contrast to its Steam page, where the game clearly *is* successful. It has hundreds of reviews, predominantly positive. This hasn't changed between old reviews and new - opinion has stayed stable, despite old and new purchasers having differing access to the easy-mode DLC.

The only difference between the Steam and GOG releases? One paid DLC. You'd expect some discontent about missing content. You'd expect the occasional "meh" comment from people who'd played the game and didn't like it. But I'm honestly surprised that it turned the release thread into a lightning rod for anyone with a gripe. Usually that fate is reserved for new games with low-res graphics, or the first release after any particularly stupid "too niche" rejection.
avatar
MarkoH01: Isn't it a pity that the actual game is drown in discussions about devs not treating GOG the same as on Steam? Well ... maybe if they did not this would all be about their game. If you'd ask me - that was deserved. But again: they still have a chance to turn this around.
Fair enough. I'm still surprised at this DLC becoming the poster child for "GOG must have this or the game is trash" though. My expectations are rooted in a time when GOG users were resistant to paying for no-new-content difficulty modes. Obviously I'm living in the past.
low rated
avatar
nightcraw1er.488: when we had games which had additional components like securom (not saying this is drm or anything like it, just that these components were required) but it all worked fine.
avatar
MarkoH01: Funny since SecuROM exactly IS DRM without any question at all.
avatar
zlep: This is in stark contrast to its Steam page, where the game clearly *is* successful. It has hundreds of reviews, predominantly positive. This hasn't changed between old reviews and new - opinion has stayed stable, despite old and new purchasers having differing access to the easy-mode DLC.

The only difference between the Steam and GOG releases? One paid DLC. You'd expect some discontent about missing content. You'd expect the occasional "meh" comment from people who'd played the game and didn't like it. But I'm honestly surprised that it turned the release thread into a lightning rod for anyone with a gripe. Usually that fate is reserved for new games with low-res graphics, or the first release after any particularly stupid "too niche" rejection.
avatar
MarkoH01: Isn't it a pity that the actual game is drown in discussions about devs not treating GOG the same as on Steam? Well ... maybe if they did not this would all be about their game. If you'd ask me - that was deserved. But again: they still have a chance to turn this around.
Yes i agree Securom is 100% DRM
but..... was it that bad ? i mean if a game on Steam really checks if the client is running ( thats a DRM imho) so Steam needs to be running in order to play the game or it won't run, ( many games don't need the client and those are the ones i bought).

Securom has been 'insecure' from the start they claim, funny how i never had any problems with any Securom on any windows, it all depends on what sites you visit i guess.
As for backups ... Securom was pretty easy to backup , seems it all depended on the hardware ( cd writers and software)

Games that check if clients are running are 'bad', even the offline mode steam offers, cause you had to go online again to update the game / buy more games, i dont mind a client needed to download games , especially if we knew from the start , it is welknown Steam had his client and anyone joining knew that.
The only reason i 'had' to join Steam was because retail games and other digital only games had games i that were not the kind of games i like to play and buy so i had to use Steam to get the casual games so at least i could play games i really like.

The minute i noticed GOG had my favorite casual games i instabought them , i have 3 copies of same game, one retail, one steam and a GOG version, the main reason why i hesitate to get win 10 is because many good games simply won't run, or too many effort has to be taken before it runs, and even then win 10 updates might mess it up again ( too many bad updates i guess for win 10)
that about sums it all up why i don't like win 10, and i don't like DRM.
Post edited January 09, 2020 by gamesfreak64