Alright, you know what, fuck it, you're probably right. I've always respected you Breja even though I don't think we've ever actually talked directly on here until know. Your bullshit detector was right. Still, fuck GOG for this, I think it will turn out to be a mistake. GOG cannot compete with Steam on by being a Steam lite, that should be obvious to all the users on here with a brain. Maybe its time to go back to what the horrible looking tattoo I've had on my arm for 15 years really represents. I'll support devs I like and only devs. I'm done supporting store fronts, though.

I guess his point is that he, as a single person/customer, can't realistically do much about the situation the video games industry is in nowadays. Especially when big players with some actual influence, such as GOG/ CD Projekt, pretty much gave up on this fight, one step at a time.

You keep talking about personal principles, but those may not be the ultimate reason for everyone who prefers DRM-free gaming. Personally I see things on more practical terms -- I don't "hate" Steam, I just don't like using their client much. For myself that means: If a game is released on multiple sites/platforms, I'll go for the DRM-free ones first. If it's exclusive to Steam, I'll only buy it if I have a strong interest in the game/series. If it's Steam exclusive, has additional DRM/clients, and/or micro-transactions? Won't buy it at all. Maybe I'll watch a lets-play of it, if I'm interested in the story. So to me Steam is just one factor of several, which determine how much I'll enjoy a game, and thus whether I consider it worth buying.

At this point I'm also seriously wondering what differences are left between Steam and GOG. Most of GOG's original advantages are long gone, I'm not buying their "we're the good guys" image any more, and are their games even truly DRM-free any more? And for how long? Sure, they let you decide whether you want to use their client, or download directly via the website, but it should be obvious that the long-term plan is to get everyone on Galaxy. And you can download back-up DRM-free installers, even via Galaxy, right? Well, the funny thing is, tons of games on Steam can be played without the client as well, after the initial download. In fact, those are mostly the same games which are also available here. And the games which aren't DRM-free on Steam? Well, they're not available here at all. Really makes you wonder what GOG's unique selling point or business strategy is, these days, aside from slowly mutating into Steam's hillbilly cousin.

So because GOG decides to enter another market stream... you just say fuck it and call it day? All because of one game that does not impact any other game here? Really? Does Steam give standalone installers? Nope. Does Steam make old games work on modern hardware? Nope. Does Steam restrict third party DRM or any DRM for that matter? Nope. Does Steam allow you to play your games without a client? Nope. Does Steam allow you to perserve your games with backup installers like GOG does with their client? Nope.

Nope... this game. This one game broke the camels back. Even though it's an online only game anyway where the microtransactions are depended on the online functionality existing which will only exist as long as GOG does. It's not meant to be preserved and you are free to ingore it / not buy it. Sounds logical.

This microtransactions are also DRM debate... is frankly utter bullshit. It depends entirely on how they are implemented. They can fall under DRM but don't have to. I'm not a fan but I don't blame GOG or CDPR for going that route.

The test for where Gwent falls on the DRM scale will be with how they handle the single player part. If they offer an installer and make it playable offline then Gwent is as DRM free as any other game on GOG. If not then bitch away because is no real technical reason they can't offer it that way if a user owns both Gwent and the single player content. But we don't know yet.

Ignoring every other good part of GOG compared to Steam just because Gwent is ridiculous, but more power to you if you want to go back to a arguably worse system that already contains what they hell you are bitching about...

On that I entirely agree. Although it should be noted I have a very poor track record of predicting success and failure in such matters. I was sure Facebook was a nonsense that would be gone in two years tops.

Frankly, I think people who complain about this are unhappy with the general direction GOG has been taking during the past few years. That's the problem -- it's not just this one game/DLC. This is just one of far too many "straws" which will eventually break this camel's back. ( Or already has, for some former GOG customers. )

Wouldn't buying from Humble be like buying from GOG though, since Humble has Steam keys and GOG now has something anti-traditional-GOG-values (apparently according to this thread), and you'd be indirectly supporting bad industry practices in either case?

You could buy DRM-free only from Humble (in the cases where you only buy DRM-free, not DRM-free + Steam key or Steam key by itself), but then you could also buy DRM-free only from GOG too (and avoid this and future anti-traditional-GOG-values products).

Shouldn't one only buy from fully DRM-free shops?

I don't think I'm necessarily getting my view across well, admittedly.

I wonder if taking this issue outside of the insulated GOG forum to a place like Reddit or NeoGAF might be better for the "cause", if you will.

Your point is valid. I read you just fine.

After reading seven pages of an actual heated discussion performed with less trolling than any comments on a game forum I have read in quite some time. I feel the scenery needs a collection of adult beverages and a sports game playing in the background on a large television. With the group of adults waving hands around and passionately talking. Man I miss my old LAN parties. Glad I have kids to train as gamers.
I may only have 500 or so games here on GOG. But am glad that they continue to offer a variety of games. Even though some of the selections rustle a lot of jimmies. I cant get excited one way or another over this rather heated discussion as I have no intent on playing Gwent. NOT because of any of the things stated here. I'm just a the forever alone guy and play single player games most all the time. If I cant play in the same room with people I get lonely! Yeah weird I know. I don't even comment very much on forums.

There. I posted my yearly comment. Back to Backlog Mountain.

DLC and microtransactions are different. DLC is "mini expansions", you buy and have. Yours. Part of the game.

Microtransactions are paid-for-cheats, or other things you spend money on that evaporate. Microtransactions can't exist without an online infrastructure and DRM locking things.

Not related.

I'm starting to feel like buying from GOG is only feeding a monster, and not really supporting any kind of "DRM-free revolution". Officially they still maintain that "champion of the people" pretense, but they've made it clear that they no longer care about most of their founding values.

At least when you buy DRM-free on Humble you send a message to the store, and the publishers offering their games there. Especially since some games, such as the Witness, make you pick between a DRM-free download or a Steam copy. So with each purchase and each "DRM-free" search on their store, you let them know there's a demand for such offers, which will hopefully ensure they'll keep providing and expanding their DRM-free section.

I'm actually wondering if GOG would have developed differently, if they had stronger competition in the DRM-free market. I think they grew a little to comfortable being the single leader in that niché, so they could get away with a lot of questionable business choices. ( Questionable for their original customer base, anyway. )

I wasn't arguing whether they're the same or not, I was explaining why GOG thought they could do it. They don't always think things through. I actually agree with you fwiw.

People complain to much but if you have taken a look at the world right now you already know that. People also have built this image in their mind of what they think GOG should be and it's that image that is letting them down. GOG is partly to blame for that. But to me GOG is a business. I have no vested interest in it other that that... I know they are first and foremost a profit seeking company.

To me GOG is largely the same as when I came here. I have no reason to jump ship. Has GOG made questionable choices? Sure. Has GOG made things less easier? Sure... but at the end of the day you can still find here what you mostly found 3 or 4 years ago.

Probably not and some of those issues have already been discussed there. Most of those people think people here in the forums that complain about this kind of stuff are silly. There was a thread about the Galaxy installers on Reddit and most people just kind of of shrugged about it, they didn't see the issue that a lot of people here saw.

And why would they... these people are use to Steam and modern gaming. This is normal to them. GOG meanwhile has cultivated a following from the far corners of the internet that detest pretty much all modern gaming. Not that they represent all of GOG users but certainly a small percentage.

I'm genuinely curious:

Do some folks accept only one type of payment model (pay once) as legitimate? Are there truly no cases whatsoever for the subscription model? Is it really not possible to have a free-to-play (but supported with microtransactions) title that can be fair to the consumer?


Setting aside the apparent necessity of DRM for "managed" online games and whether or not such games (be they CDPR's own or otherwise) belong on GOG (for which I understand the arguments from both sides), I fear that there is a danger of throwing out the baby (alternative business models) with the bathwater (particular consumer-unfriendly implementations of said models) here...

I allow others to accept (and do not use myself) one other model: and that is of a fixed-cost subscription. When you know you're tossing money on something that will vanish the moment you stop paying for it.

Free-to-start/freemium/F2P is a completely invalid business model that is created and developed exclusively for preying on psychological weaknesses of people (and most "games" made with it are created more by psychologists than game designers). They're crafted to maximize extraction rather than what makes a game actually a good game. It's also throwing away variable amounts of money for literally nothing. It's strictly exploitative.