They're a selling point mostly for people who want the Steam versions to compare with their friends Steam profiles, ie, the ones who want to brag about them the most want the biggest audience to brag to... The sheer size of this list proves "build it and they will come" has already failed in terms of them being a mainstream selling point for GOG, and SCPM nailed it perfectly in post 2 of this thread it was no 'accident' to set it up like that (force developers to 'design for the store' rather than keep achievements in-game but be exportable in a cross-vendor friendly way that would have been the best of both worlds vs the current tribal mess)...

As I mentioned here earlier, GOG is stuck in a paradox of the more they spend on adding Steam-like features to attract more people, they more they inadvertently attract certain groups of people who demand they be an exact 100% clone of Steam in every way except DRM, which is practically unaffordable, unrealistic and with resources spread thin, is cutting into getting the basics right in other areas (eg, severely understaffed customer service) that's affects a lot more people than a dozen or so achievement hunters.

When GOG announced the Epic partnership (to sell Epic games via Galaxy), there were moderators essentially saying " wouldn't it be great if we could seize 20% of Steam's market share" based purely on the "meta-client" thing they were pushing (add the ability of Galaxy of import / link with Epic, Steam, etc, accounts, and Epic / Steam users were supposed to stop caring where they bought their games from). Except the 'No Steam, No Buy' crowd just continued to buy the Steam versions and still want only one client running (Steam) instead of two (Steam + Galaxy), whilst Fortnite aside, people mostly go to Epic for the free games for which if they then start showing up as owned with Epic-integrated Galaxy, they'd be even less likely to rebuy them on GOG. In short, the "Galaxy as a meta-client" thing didn't convince anyone that "it didn't matter where you bought your games from" for the same reason Playnite didn't take over the world.

If it's so little work, why don't GOG or third party make a library for it? It "just" needs something that developers can drop into their build that either provides the Steamworks API, or provides a new API along with a backend that integrates with Steamworks. Oh, and it needs to be cross-platform and provide the pop-up windows that Steam and Galaxy provide; and it needs to appear on screen where the developer's UI testers expect and not obscure other parts of the UI.

I want fully offline games with no DRM. I don't want games that only work if they can read an achievements list from the store after reinstalling, so no, I don't want feature parity with Steam. It's a bit grating when a game is released here in the state that I want, and then you complain that it doesn't have achievements.

It's just "a few hours to do the work", so why don't you write that library (or fund someone to do it), to make it easy for every game developer to provide what you're campaigning for?

I think the notion of "normal" changes with the times and is shaped by events and social actors.

For example, Steam got a lot of criticism for their online-only requirements at the beginning and eroded at that over time.

As the first wildly successful mover in the online store business, they shaped a lot of that "normal" narrative, but that may change over time. For a young(ish) person, it may seem like Steam has been around forever, but the game is still young. The one constant of human society is change. Or depending on evolving circumstances, make their game work offline. It may not seem like much now, but that may change.

Lets not mince words here. At historical scale, dependency on centralized online servers operated by a single corporate entity does not make a very stable long-lasting setup as plenty of people will find out the hard way eventually. You mean only play old pickers from 20+ years ago? Na, that's depressing.

I think they got a good stab at a fair portion of the indie game market and a select few AAA titles as well, but yes, we shouldn't expect everything to end up here.

A properly designed game -- that is one that doesn't implement any store-specific features -- doesn't have this problem. Like, don't put in achievements at all if that's costing you money -- and it is IS costing these developers money to implement AND losing them money because of how it hurts the build and release process.

Valve's wrecked, and continues to boink the wreckage of, the industry with all their anti-consumer practices and lock-in techniques.

OP, remember when you write these emails to communicate that you do not and will not use anti-consumer platforms (i.e., Steam) to get games. That it's disappointing that you will not be able to enjoy the title because you don't want to contribute to damaging PC gaming. And mean it.

Valve actually did Epic-style 3rd party timed exclusives during their early days.

But valve is one the good guys!! haha

Let me re-phrase. That they no longer do and haven't done for a very long time. But it's extra hypocritical to claim to want an open market while also locking out other stores and customer choice, don't you think?

Also, let's not forget EAC, developed by Epic. A strong form of DRM that requires kernel level access. This level of access basically has full control over your computer and can do things you would not even be aware of. In fact, EAC in its "full version" is incompatible with Linux - intentionally so - because Linux users would never allow Epic to install a kernel module on their computer for that level of access.

So to work on Linux EAC must be "downgraded" by EAC, which provides less "security" and so often game developers simply chose to not use that version. By doing so, vendor locking gamers into Windows.

EOS, the system they claim wants cross-platform multiplayer is tied directly to the Epic store. So should Epic disappear, your online functionality is gone. That's also vendor lock-in.

So I ask you again, for someone who wants an "open market" and "no DRM", don't you find it hypocritical that they also actively push DRM and vendor lock-in?

Valve don't do it anymore because they simply don't need to with such market dominance. That doesn't take away from the fact that when Steam was the same age Epic Game Store were, they very much did the same thing to start manufacturing that "captive audience" they now have in the first place. I'm not saying Epic exclusives are a good thing - I'm saying there is no "good guy" between them once you look beyond "It's OK when Steam do it because of when it was done" special exceptions.

I'm very well aware of it and would never touch any game that uses it with a barge-pole. But then I would also never buy games that have per-user DRM in custom .EXE's that locks the game to the unique motherboard HWID - like Steam CEG does...

Both Gabe and Tim Sweeney claim to support "open market competition" but don't in practise (I've never actually heard Sweeney claim to be DRM-Free though, just be neutral about it). Epic buys exclusivity and Valve has done nothing but push vendor API lock-in from the start not to mention threaten to remove games if they are priced lower elsewhere (outside of temporary sales), ie, actual price competition. What I find totally unconvincing about the whole anti-Epic thing, is when Epic Game Store first came out, the public display of fake morals on sites like Reddit from the "No Steam No Buy" crowd who were claiming "I welcome competition and would support Epic but..." then produced moral excuses (against the same thing Valve did) that were supposedly "holding them back" from buying non-Steam versions of games they had zero intention of buying anyway. In fact the same people were usually found buying the Steam instead of GOG versions of Witcher 3 long before Epic Store even existed when they claimed to "welcome open market competition" back then too...

None of the above changes my original point, which is to not trust what Tim Sweeney and his Epic store claim. My point was never about Steam/Valve.

Does anyone know if River City Girls 2 has DRM on steam? River City Girls and River City Girls Zero worked without the client, but i don't know about River City Girls 2.

I know what your point is but I read the article that SCPM posted (that you were replying to in post #35) and the content doesn't stop being factually accurate just because it was Tim that said it. "They have a classic lock-in strategy where they build these services that only work with their store, and they use the fact that they have the majority market share in order to encourage everybody to ship games that have a broken experience in other stores" is literally 110% observable reality here on GOG and is a direct result of Valve doing a lot of "accidentally on purpose" pro walled-garden API's that coincidentally benefit Steam more than developers or gamers when it multiplies the developer workload for every additional not-Steam store the publisher wants to sell on in a way a platform / vendor neutral solution wouldn't have done.

True, but the point is that he is doing the same thing. So he is no better and is far from being able to judge on the topic or to be cited as a reliable source.

In any case, buy your games from GOG first if you can. Just remember to run any and all games regardless of purchasing platform in a sandbox, where they cannot do anything to your computer. As I do, also I am not a Steam fanboy FWIW, I am just a Linux user who enjoys playing the occasional game, you don't need to preach anti-valve to me.

Erm,...you sure about that number?

115% sure! ;-)