Very much agree. For all the things GOG should be able to improve, this is basically out of their hands (or there's only so much they can do if publishers don't want to bother with GOG), as why wouldn't they want to make more money?

No, in this case I think the reaction was more or less appropriate to get "decision-makers" attention. Effectively 40-50% of the (single-player) game required an internet connection didn't it?

People would totally support and buy a DRM-free Hitman GOTY.

I'm not sure how much of it was locked behind online play. Made reference to it, earlier. I'm sure users would buy it DRM-free if they didn't have to unlock it all online but how do you go about that without simply handing it all over with a pack or a saved game? I'd think they'd want those things without playing online *and* still being able to earn them. Changing the game to that degree could be expensive.

I'd say it's not that GoG aren't making the effort (I mean, they got Blade Runner not too long ago), but it's more that they've managed to get the easy wins. They're now at the point where it's really hard to make progress, either because the rights are split between different groups or because the companies or individuals just aren't interested in re-releasing old games based on IP that they control. Dune is a great example - the Herbert family don't want to re-release the old games and would rather licence new games based on the IP.

I don't like the term abandonware as no IP is ever really abandoned (unless it passes back to the Government when there is no successor organisation) - I'd say that in pretty much every case it's that either the rights holders cannot agree on what to do with the property or don't want to re-release the old games.

There is also the case of companies that want to keep remasters/reissues exclusive to DRM'd platforms - such as Microsoft's Age of Empires remakes and for whatever reason don't want to reissue the original versions here.

// No child is ever really abandoned... I just don't know what to do with it and I don't want to keep it alive. //
Dude, you've just described "abandonment".

If you don't like that some/many people think that some non-freeware games are free - well, just say that than.

I think my comment was pretty self explanatory .

There's an implication both in the use of the term abandonware and in the actions of those who download it that the rights aren't still owned by anyone, which is (nearly all the time) factually incorrect. It's the digital equivalent of squatting in a house because the owner is living somewhere else. The rights aren't abandoned just because they're not being monetised. At an extreme end. the Herbert family have actively decided not to re-release (e.g.) Dune II. That's not abandonment, that's an active decision.

It didn't need to be said in the context of my post, but in answer to you, yes, I have respect for property rights and the rights of the IP holder(s) to either exploit or not to exploit those property rights. It's one of the fundamental tenets of Common Law and therefore a big part of the basis of society in the UK.

[Edit: and this is getting off topic and I've said all I need to, so won't comment further on IP/abandonware in this thread]

It's also an active decision by the right holders to go against the distribution of their games on Abandonware sites. Or not.
If they don't take the necessary steps - it's their active(?)/passive(?) decision to let people download their abandoned(!) games on those sites.

Okay - I will respond to that point as it is an interesting one! I'd say it's more passive than active if you're not actively enforcing. However, a lot of these sites are hosted in countries where the rule of law and property rights aren't respected (e.g. Russia, China). I'd say that if there's the ability to issue a DMCA takedown request free of charge then I could blame an IP holder for not enforcing.

However, if you have to go to court and spend money, then I'd not consider it to be abandoned as the copyright holder may not have the resources to do it (and if the site is hosted in Russia for example, good luck with that one - a lot of money for no result).

Otherwise it's a bit like a SLAPP action - making one party (in this case the IP holder) go to court and spend money again and again to drain their resources until they give up. While it feels like it, the Internet shouldn't be the Wild West - you shouldn't have to sit on your property with a shotgun in case someone steals your steer.

Sorry for probably using the wrong word here. Abandonware as I meant it was just referring to the situation that some games might be owned by people/companies who don't care about those games or might even don't know about the games and the fact that they own the rights to it (as they might have been just an unimportant part in a merger or something).

See it like something in your attic from your great grandparents. You own it, but you might not even know about it because you never cared to check what all the stuff in your attic is. Now somebody wants to reproduce it and is willing to buy the original (gog willing to buy the rights to sell it) but they don't know who has it. And the only one having it doesn't know he has it.

For me that's not caring by the owner and therefor abandonment (abandonware as I meant it). If the owner just doesn't want to sell, thats just his right and goes to the rights trouble part for me.

But GOG can not simply sell something just because they don't know who holds the rights to it (or because the right holders themselves may not even know that they hold the rights to something).
A few years ago someone here made a joke (?) that GOG should simply start selling any game they wanted - if a right holder was around and still interested in making money off of their IPs, they would make themselves quickly known - by suing GOG.
Needless to say that that's not a good idea...

There is no such thing as an abandoned game when it comes to legal affairs.

The time from - let's say - 1990 to 2005 has been very chaotic. Different publishers in every country, often also acting as translators. Many collaborations, many companies that only exist on paper these days, others that were bought.
Also, documents from that time are often still stored on paper somewhere in the basement. The companies themselves don't even know which rights they fully own or partially and which one they don't and they don't think it's worth checking.
Rights holders of NOLF 1+2 made it very clear that they are not interested in republishing the game, but very willing to sue anyone that does.

I just want Civ 1&2... ME WANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Didn't say they should but saw that as one possibility why they can't bring out more games. One being the games being abandonend, one being rights trouble like with NOLF.

NOLF. Totally forgor that one. Luckily I own physical copies. :)

Well, this part..:
...surely sounded like that (to me).

Yeah, I also own physical versions of both games.

Interesting in the context of "abandoned games" is, that both games are also available for free online (mainly due to the right holders' unwillingness to search their paper files):
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/no-one-will-sell-no-one-lives-forever-so-lets-download-it

Perhaps not as old many of the wished for entries, and I think they were mentioned before, but I'd quite like to see the Age of Empires (I and II) games here. Unlikely, given it's Microsoft and that they were given new versions/remasters and remain active, but dreaming is still allowed.

Speaking of Microsoft, the old Midtown Madness series would also be quite interesting to have... lots of hours spent playing all of those.