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 discussionWhen will AAA publishers put new releases on GOG?(181 posts)(181 posts)
(181 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This is my favourite topic
Posted October 04, 2015
Except for some exceptions, I am not really expecting brand new AAA titles to appear on GOG.com DRM-free. At this point the best we can hope is for some a bit older AAA games to appear on GOG.

To me personally, that is acceptable because I buy AAA games brand-new very rarely (The Witcher 3 was such an exception). Darksiders 1-2, Metro games, Saints Row 3... keep them coming, even if they can be considered old at this point. If the publishers feel they need to have some heavy DRM during the critical first few months (or year(s)) when the demand on pirate sites is also the highest, it is fine as long as they strip the DRM at some point.

However, as has been pointed out, for some like EA and possibly Ubisoft it may be more about pushing their own store, instead of GOG.com or even Steam. After all, there are apparently some DRM-free games also on Origin (admittedly, older games that are already on GOG too, I guess).

The best anyone can do is to vote with their wallet, and not to misuse the trust of those publishers who have released their games DRM-free on GOG.com (like, by sharing their copy of the game to other people, especially on the internets). If you do, don't be surprised if publishers feel even more strongly that DRM can be a good idea after all.

It worked for music at least, record labels started seeing DRM-freeness as good enough incentive for many people to buy more music. At the same time, I presume RIAA etc. have still been aggressively going against pirates on p2p networks etc., which IMHO is quite fine. Just like I felt CDPR going against The Witcher 3 seeders on torrent networks was quite fine, only the tactics used by the hired legal firm were maybe dubious.
Post edited October 04, 2015 by timppu
Posted October 04, 2015
avatar
Crosmando: Most AAA games are terrible so who cares.
GOG could rename itself as GAAAG.com, as in Good AAA Games. They would sell only good AAA titles, not the terrible ones.
Posted October 04, 2015
avatar
timppu: Just like I felt CDPR going against The Witcher 2 seeders on torrent networks was quite fine, only the tactics used by the hired legal firm were maybe dubious.
Fixed it for you.
Posted October 04, 2015
avatar
throgh: As answer to the question and based on the experience from the last releases: Hopefully never. For now it would be the risk that more principles of this platform would be broken - compared for example to the DRM in the multiplayer-mode in Grand Ages: Medieval.
I am not familiar with that game or issue, but would it be a good solution to you if the multiplayer part of that game was simply disabled or removed in the GOG version, like is the case with Brutal Legend or the Full Spectrum Warriors games?

That's a tricky one because then people would complain that the GOG version is offering less than e.g. the Steam version where the multiplayer part works, just like they have already with the aforementioned games.

I personally would be fine with either solution (e.g. I am perfectly fine with my GOG copy of Brutal Legend not having a multiplayer mode), as I buy games pretty much solely for their single-player part. If a game has a multiplayer mode and it isn't called Team Fortress, I'll probably never play that part anyway (and I haven't paid a dime for TF2, for that matter). As far as I am concerned, all multiplayer games could be free-2-play, like TeamFortress 2 or World of Tanks.

On the whole I'd prefer that games are either single-player or multiplayer games, not trying to be both at the same time.
avatar
timppu: Just like I felt CDPR going against The Witcher 2 seeders on torrent networks was quite fine, only the tactics used by the hired legal firm were maybe dubious.
avatar
Grargar: Fixed it for you.
Ah, thanks. I was trying to spot a sarcastic edit (which is what the FIFY replies usually are about), but I was actually referring to the wrong The Witcher game...
Post edited October 04, 2015 by timppu
Posted October 04, 2015
avatar
timppu: I am not familiar with that game or issue, but would it be a good solution to you if the multiplayer part of that game was simply disabled or removed in the GOG version, like is the case with Brutal Legend or the Full Spectrum Warriors games?
As for now the game uses a login through the Galaxy-client implementing multiplayer. :-) But good to know that Brutal Legend has a multiplayer-mode. Thanks for the information! As for now we should have other concerns than when next big games released here on GOG because there are already not transparent releases made in the last few days / weeks, at minimum one with the already named game. But that's just my opinion!
Posted October 04, 2015
avatar
PookaMustard: I'd wish! But hey. These publishers can't get that DRM is 1) a nuisance to customers, and 2) a failure to its real task.

That, and as long as the millions of rocks on Steam praise it to no ends, even when it has a very terrible customer support as well as decisions that sound terrible by itself (paid mods!), when will AAA gaming ever advance beyond the point of 'renting' games at a discount to actually 'owning' games?
You're unaware of the reality, I grew up through the original PC gaming era. Before the internet they couldn't get away with DRM because the internet wasn't fast enough. So we got a copy of the games and server software, those of us who grew up in the original PC generation knew MMO's were DRM'd games and avoid them but a small section of our generaiton fed the MMO/DRM beast. Then as new kids are born who know nothing about computers came online, games like world of warcraft and league of legends took off because most of the kids don't know how technology works, todays internet for most kids is like TV. That's why they 'love steam' it makes computers easy for their weak tech illiterate brains.

Once corporations figured out most of their audience was irrational and tech illiterate, they went towards a full blown push to DRM, streaming and games as a "Service". Aka always online.

Since most gamers didn't grow up during the 90's PC gaming era, they have no memory of how PC games were during that period and how awesome it was, outside of a few exceptional gamers among the newer generation who have the "gaming gene" as I call it and know that the current era is bullshit.
Posted October 04, 2015
avatar
Roxolani: When they reach a consensus that GOG is profitable enough for them.
avatar
shmerl: Any additional distributor is always profitable for the publisher.
Only immediately true if they're already managing a DRM-Free version of the game already, if not they go from managing 1 version of the game to 2, which comes with it's own extra costs. We've seen developers state it wasn't worth it before.
Posted October 04, 2015
avatar
timppu: I am not familiar with that game or issue, but would it be a good solution to you if the multiplayer part of that game was simply disabled or removed in the GOG version, like is the case with Brutal Legend or the Full Spectrum Warriors games?
avatar
throgh: But good to know that Brutal Legend has a multiplayer-mode. Thanks for the information!
DRM free version doesn't. It's designed around Steamworks. In theory, with devs help GOG could faciliate multiplayer on GOG version using Galaxy crossplay but you would not like that would you so it's better not to bother with it, right? ;-p
Posted October 04, 2015
avatar
throgh: But good to know that Brutal Legend has a multiplayer-mode. Thanks for the information!
avatar
Petrell: DRM free version doesn't. It's designed around Steamworks. In theory, with devs help GOG could faciliate multiplayer on GOG version using Galaxy crossplay but you would not like that would you so it's better not to bother with it, right? ;-p
No need for a multiplayer-mode then. :-)
Posted October 04, 2015
avatar
hedwards: Never underestimate the ability of idiots to get promoted because they don't threaten their bosses job. Eventually when you near the top, it's mostly idiots that choose other idiots from a pool of idiots and depend upon government interference to keep gravy train rolling.
In my country the "top brass" are usually placed there for poliitical reasons (being affliliated to a political party or endorsing one) or through acquaintances (being the nephew/cousin/sister-in-law, etc) of someone influent.

The result is that the most higly placed people usually have no idea whatsoever of what they're doing. The management of an enterprise is often placed on the shoulders of the "little people". The "big guys" usually only take the laurels when the work is well done.

In my work experience I've often seen the "small" workers being in charge of the affairs while the managers are locked in their offices watching porn, surfing the web or doing likes on FB.
Posted October 04, 2015
avatar
timppu: The best anyone can do is to vote with their wallet, and not to misuse the trust of those publishers who have released their games DRM-free on GOG.com (like, by sharing their copy of the game to other people, especially on the internets). If you do, don't be surprised if publishers feel even more strongly that DRM can be a good idea after all.
No, that's quite wrong. Stuff will be pirated regardless. I'm not endorsing it, just saying that it's not something publishers will ever get rid of. However, you can indeed vote with your wallet by not using any DRMed services and not buying anything with DRM. That kind of vote publishers understand very well (i.e. losing money). If more people would have rejected DRM outright, it would have been dead long time ago.
Post edited October 04, 2015 by shmerl
Posted October 04, 2015
avatar
timppu: The best anyone can do is to vote with their wallet, and not to misuse the trust of those publishers who have released their games DRM-free on GOG.com (like, by sharing their copy of the game to other people, especially on the internets). If you do, don't be surprised if publishers feel even more strongly that DRM can be a good idea after all.
avatar
shmerl: No, that's quite wrong. Stuff will be pirated regardless. I'm not endorsing it, just saying that it's not something publishers will ever get rid of. However, you can indeed vote with your wallet by not using any DRMed services and not buying anything with DRM. That kind of vote publishers understand very well (i.e. losing money). If more people would have rejected DRM outright, it would have been dead long time ago.
In short "put your money where your mouth is" and don't abuse the trust of developers willing to go DRM-free.
Attachments:
putting_money_wh.jpg (9 Kb)
Posted October 04, 2015
avatar
Petrell: In short "put your money where your mouth is" and don't abuse the trust of developers willing to go DRM-free.
It's actually not coincidental, that DRM-free developers usually have more direct connection with users (and much more respect from them). And on the contrary, DRM afflicted ones try to distance themselves from their own users, because they know perfectly well that they hurt those who buy their games with that very DRM.
Post edited October 04, 2015 by shmerl
Posted October 04, 2015
You will never see titles from some companies on GOG at least not in the near future. EA uses their own Plattform Origin and only sells codes for Origin on other sites. Ubisoft uses Uplay but also sells their games on Steam with Uplay integrated and Blizzard doesn't even sell keys via third party websites so the only way to buy Blizzard games is through their website or via retail and besides that Blizzard games use the Blizzard launcher so 3 of the big Publishers won't release their games on GOG at all.

This has mainly to do with the informations Publishers get if you start a game like usual playtime, how long does he play daily, what points in the game does he reach and so on. On the other hand Steam, Origin and Uplay are also a copyprotection and for some games even extra copyprotections are used (as example Dragon Age Origins 3 uses a extra copyprotection besides Origin). I guess most Publishers knew that a copyprotection sometimes only affects honest customers and will be cracked within days if not right at the release time. Why do they still use such extra protection if they know it is useless? Well, you can only speculate about it but there was an interview a few years ago with a Publisher who said even if the copyprotection lasts a few hrs after release it is still a win because people could still consider to buy the original game in that time.

My personal opinion is that Origin and Uplay would not exists anymore if you wouldn't be forced to use them. Steam on the other hand is too old and established in the gaming industry and for many Steamusers the DRM/Copyprotection aspects of Steam are not a big deal because Steam offers them many features gamers want. Features like voicechat, Steamgroups they also can create for themselves, a stream function and so on but the main thing Steam is so popular around gamers are the sales. Without the Steamsales and Bundles you can buy on many websites Steam wouldn't be that big because people get in a rush if they see triple AAA titles for 15 Euro or indie games for a few cents so they buying those games even if they already own over 100 or 1000 games and know that they will probably never play them. Some devs say that this has ruined a bit of the gaming industry because people don't see the value and hard work which was put in games anymore.

Another reason is the userbase. Steam claims to have a userbase of around 60 million users/accounts which doesn't mean 60 million active users but for a company it means 60 million potential customers which is big!

EA as a special example has one of the worst public images in the gaming industry which is one of the main reasons they released this "On the House" program not only to get people to use Origin more but also to get a better image NO company has something to gift there is always a reason behind it. Same for the free games on GOG there is always a reason behind it!

GOG is ideal for old games which never used DRM and Indie Game Companies but for most big Publishers the other Plattforms have more advantages then disadvantages.

I use Steam, Galaxy, Origin and Uplay. Origin and Uplay because I'am forced to use them if I want to play certain games from those companies and Steam because well it is easy to use for me and has the biggest advantages for me a as a gamer.
Post edited October 04, 2015 by DanTheKraut
Posted October 04, 2015
avatar
DanTheKraut: I use Steam, Galaxy, Origin and Uplay. Origin and Uplay because I'am forced to use them if I want to play certain games from those companies and Steam because well it is easy to use for me and has the biggest advantages for me a as a gamer.
You are wrong here. You are not forced to use them - you chose to use them. And by using them your money supports their bad practices (DRM, exclusivity and so on). If you care about any of that - just don't use them.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionWhen will AAA publishers put new releases on GOG?(181 posts)(181 posts)
(181 posts)