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

×
All-new Witcher 3 gameplay trailer, pre-orders launch; GOG.com unveils GOG Galaxy, the DRM-Free Online Gaming platform!

All-new The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt gameplay footage, pre-order details, and a look at the exclusive content of the collector's edition. GOG.com unveils its upcoming new project taking a next step in the DRM-Free gaming revolution. All that and more in the CD Projekt RED & GOG.com Summer Conference. Watch it right here!
Post edited June 04, 2014 by G-Doc
avatar
Kristian: Vainamoinen, how would an optional client and/or optional auto updater hurt any one in anyway?
avatar
Vainamoinen: The auto updater can not be optional, as that's a feature that's undeniably meant to replace executable patch files. It will become mandatory as developers will immediately delay and then stop delivering actual patches or even patched original game files ("it works on Steam"). In my opinion, implementing an 'auto update' possibility factually means making it mandatory.
It's trivial to keep it optional as well as DRM-free.

Give all the options for users:

1. The same as GOG has now - i.e. one can download the full package with all updates merged in it. Easy to back up but full download.
2. Give users an option to download any update (keep their history available). This way user can apply them in sequence to the previously downloaded versions and get the final result anyway.
3. Give an option for an automated client to do all the above (as well as preserving backups of DRM-free full packages and / or incremental patches).

No rocket science here. All can be kept explicit, user friendly and DRM-free.
Post edited June 03, 2014 by shmerl
Nice write up Vainamoinen, something for us all to consider. And hopefully developers take note as well.
Just a reminder, vote for this updater client to be open source, which is an important issue (there is no point to keep it closed, and openness helps trust and security):

https://secure.gog.com/wishlist/site/release_the_future_gog_updater_client_as_open_source
Obviously, the 'next step for GOG.com' is to get the front page working with HTTPS. One small change for humankind, one huge leap forward for the safety and security of GOG.com. :D
avatar
Kristian: Vainamoinen, how would an optional client and/or optional auto updater hurt any one in anyway?
avatar
Vainamoinen: The auto updater can not be optional, as that's a feature that's undeniably meant to replace executable patch files. It will become mandatory as developers will immediately delay and then stop delivering actual patches or even patched original game files ("it works on Steam"). In my opinion, implementing an 'auto update' possibility factually means making it mandatory.

"Automatic" here means a loss of control over the downloaded game files. It might be comfortable for some, but is clearly geared towards repeated and constant connection to the publisher's servers, always checking, scanning, updating, without bothering the player with actual info about it. Download once and archive all the patch files - a thing of the past. It's the opposite of what gog should stand for, i.e. the independence of game files from the publishing platform, all the while preserving the emergency feeling of the traditional 'patch'.

We all know that a "day one patch" generally meant that the developer fucked up and released his game too early. A day one update delivers the same files, but strangely isn't perceived as a fuckup any more. The number of patches a developer had to add was a direct measure of his incapability. The number of auto updates strangely isn't. I have my theories as to why that is so, and I'm certainly not getting in line for that mindset tomorrow. Sorry, but I just don't want to make updates too easy for developers because they're meant to test and finish their game before they release it.

I guess I sound old fashioned here - and that's probably exactly what I am. Judging from 25 years of gaming experience, I'll say that less and less developers are willing to deliver a finished game; I'll say that today Valve is even purposefully blurring that finish line with Early Access. Yesterday's open betas are sold full price today already, and tomorrow they'll sell yesterday's vaporware. Games will rise in popularity and fall into oblivion without ever leaving beta status. I assume you're seeing the beginnings as well.

GOG is in a pickle here because comfortable ways to change game files are an industry standard today and developers are demanding it. They are demanding it because ever more they are unwilling or unable to deliver a finished game.

I'll gather a few thoughts about the "client" later. In my opinion, there already is a kind of an optional GOG client. ;)
I can think of a large number of ways to make an auto updater possible, without making it mandatory.
The easiest possible way would be to simply run a check to see if there are updates available, keeping the exact update system we have now, but then run an automated script that downloads, extracts, installs then deletes the installer.
You could even implement a system that allows for multiple installations, keeping the updaters, whatever you want. Just write a script for it like so (very obviously pseudocode, but the point is the same):

if (update available)
{
download update
extract and install
ask if user wants to keep updater
If yes, keep updater and end script
if no, delete updater and end script
}

done.

I agree with your thought that Day One Patches are a problem, but GOG can't control that. "Early Release" betas are also an issue, but again, that is not under the control of GOG. What GOG CAN do is control how the patches are released here, and they have already proven that it can be done both GOG's way, and Steam's way with the way Rise of the Triad works.

EDIT: Oh, and right now, all updaters and installers are kept on GOG's servers, so this makes it even easier on them to implement this.
Post edited June 03, 2014 by Zacron
avatar
HGiles: Obviously, the 'next step for GOG.com' is to get the front page working with HTTPS. One small change for humankind, one huge leap forward for the safety and security of GOG.com. :D
Yep. It glitches even with HTTPS everywhere add-on now.
How about just sending a simple EMAIL to the owners of games which get an update? With the option to receive such an email every time there is an update or once a month/week..
No client will be necessary for updates.

The current system with having just an updated notification under My Games is easily missed, forgotten, glitchy. and it just works as a pressure point for the creation of a client.

I don't want more clients. I am sick of clients.
avatar
trusteft: I don't want more clients. I am sick of clients.
Nothing prevents GOG from offering both. Client doesn't need to be an exclusive way of installation. Desura does exactly that.
avatar
trusteft: I don't want more clients. I am sick of clients.
avatar
shmerl: Nothing prevents GOG from offering both. Client doesn't need to be an exclusive way of installation. Desura does exactly that.
At first maybe, but later it will be used as a Trojan horse. "it's not DRM, you just need to have it running for good things like updates and stuff!, but yeah, you have to run it"

Trust me, my people created the very first. :p I know of one when I can see it.
avatar
shmerl: Nothing prevents GOG from offering both. Client doesn't need to be an exclusive way of installation. Desura does exactly that.
avatar
trusteft: At first maybe, but later it will be used as a Trojan horse. "it's not DRM, you just need to have it running for good things like updates and stuff!, but yeah, you have to run it"

Trust me, my people created the very first. :p I know of one when I can see it.
Were the Trojans actually considered Greek at the time? Not too sure about my Greek history as I figured the Trojan horse was done back when Greece was still separated into city-states. Please correct me if I am wrong :)
avatar
Kristian: Vainamoinen, how would an optional client and/or optional auto updater hurt any one in anyway?
avatar
Vainamoinen: The auto updater can not be optional, as that's a feature that's undeniably meant to replace executable patch files. It will become mandatory as developers will immediately delay and then stop delivering actual patches or even patched original game files ("it works on Steam"). In my opinion, implementing an 'auto update' possibility factually means making it mandatory.
For the most part I agree, in this I don't.

First and foremost, it's optional. So long as it stays option then it can only enhance customer experience. I've just spent 4 or 5 days going through my GoG library to update old executables. The ability to at least "auto-check" current versions would be handy. GoG has that you say, well I say it's ineffective and only notifies of updates.

Secondly, lack of this system only benefits those with a few games, for everyone else it's a hindrance. The more games a person has the more important an optional auto-update or auto version checker becomes important.

As an example: My GoG directory takes up about 800GB. After the recent round of annual updates I've just completed, the size blew out to well over 1TB. Those hours I wasted having to track down old *.exe files and comparing them to new ones (or checking if patches would suffice) took a huge amount of time, hours of my life which could have been spent in enjoyment, hours I wouldn't have lost if automation was optional. I've attached some screenshots of only a few of the files I had to replace.

I have a very demanding job and very little free time, this archaic method of wasted energy belongs to the 80's when I used a PMC-80 with audio cassettes. I remember well having to program the Hamburger game before I could play, and then losing it all when turning the machine off. My friend, time is no longer on my side.
Attachments:
gog (70 Kb)
gog (63 Kb)
gog (53 Kb)
avatar
shmerl: Nothing prevents GOG from offering both. Client doesn't need to be an exclusive way of installation. Desura does exactly that.
avatar
trusteft: At first maybe, but later it will be used as a Trojan horse. "it's not DRM, you just need to have it running for good things like updates and stuff!, but yeah, you have to run it"

Trust me, my people created the very first. :p I know of one when I can see it.
Since GOG intend to be DRM-free, they'll offer the client that won't disrupt them from being DRM free. If you doubt that, why don't you doubt that GOG want to remain DRM-free in general?

I see it this way. To keep the client DRM free, the client will allow saving full packages and updates / patches in addition to full packages. Users will be able to select what to save. You either back up the full new package each time, or you back up only the first, and then back up only the updates / patches to apply to the first in case of reinstallation.
Post edited June 03, 2014 by shmerl
avatar
trusteft: At first maybe, but later it will be used as a Trojan horse. "it's not DRM, you just need to have it running for good things like updates and stuff!, but yeah, you have to run it"

Trust me, my people created the very first. :p I know of one when I can see it.
avatar
JudasIscariot: Were the Trojans actually considered Greek at the time? Not too sure about my Greek history as I figured the Trojan horse was done back when Greece was still separated into city-states. Please correct me if I am wrong :)
You are correct. I believe it's first mention was Homer's Odyssey, the attack on Troy. At this time it was all city-states.
avatar
shmerl: Nothing prevents GOG from offering both. Client doesn't need to be an exclusive way of installation. Desura does exactly that.
avatar
trusteft: At first maybe, but later it will be used as a Trojan horse. "it's not DRM, you just need to have it running for good things like updates and stuff!, but yeah, you have to run it"

Trust me, my people created the very first. :p I know of one when I can see it.
Funny enough the moral of the story in Homer's Odyssey is: Never trust a Greek offering gifts :)
Post edited June 03, 2014 by Ebany
avatar
shmerl: Interesting. Can you share what were those things? I've heard various criticisms of the Witcher games, but usually from those who played it and didn't like for some reason.
This is going to sound very weird, but it might be better to take to heart, from those who were there, fellow gamers that played the game and not liked it. A part of it is, I don't deny that my standing could be from misconceptions and bias-ness towards certain gaming elements that I'm not willing to correct, and thus might not be the most objective of opinions. Not to mention, possibly unfaithful too.
avatar
trusteft: How about just sending a simple EMAIL to the owners of games which get an update?
The current GoG downloader offers that, and you also get a message about updates when you login to the web. Problem is this method can only be effective for those who: 1.) Don't store a copy of their games locally, or 2.) Have only a couple of games.

As a persons library grows then the need for an automated optional system becomes more important.
avatar
shmerl: Interesting. Can you share what were those things? I've heard various criticisms of the Witcher games, but usually from those who played it and didn't like for some reason.
avatar
Nicole28: This is going to sound very weird, but it might be better to take to heart, from those who were there, fellow gamers that played the game and not liked it. A part of it is, I don't deny that my standing could be from misconceptions and bias-ness towards certain gaming elements that I'm not willing to correct, and thus might not be the most objective of opinions. Not to mention, possibly unfaithful too.
Your right, that did sound weird! Then again, you are a Kiwi :D
Post edited June 03, 2014 by Ebany