Are these companies done dealing with GoG? I know it looks like EA is burning bridges with Steam and everyone, but Ubisoft seems to still like diversification of distributors. I'm not sure if Uplay and Origin will effect future GoG releases. I would like to see the original C&C games (by original I mean the ones separated from the multiplayer, origin exclusive, crap EA is making;and yes I would like to play C&C 4 regardless of how crappy it was). I also wouldn't mind seeing Far Cry 3 or Blood Dragon on here.

Google search doesn't help me much on this issue.

UPlay and Origin are forms of DRM, and they're typically akin to Steamworks in that removing them will remove features of the game. For example, the UPlay system has 'rewards' for games that you get points for by achieving things within the game. It's like an achievement system that actually pays out (which makes it a rarity). This system works across all games, so you could earn 30 points in Driver and use them to purchase a reward in Might & Magic: Heroes VI, for example.

Ubisoft and EA haven't cut ties with GOG, though. Heck, we had The Settlers IV (owned by Ubisoft) come to GOG just a few weeks ago. It's just a case of the more recent titles they have published will not come to GOG because they have DRM that is part and parcel of the game.

As for EA and 'burning bridges with Steam', that's totally not the case. Valve changed the Steam policy to state that publishers/developers have to sell any DLC/expansions through Steam (as well as other retailers if they choose), and EA didn't agree so a number of their games were kicked off Steam (e.g. Dragon Age 2). EA have since started to push Origin a bit more, and it's shaped up quite well.

They still release their old games here but in the case of Ubisoft I'm not so sure we will see titles requiring UPlay. Assassin's Creed (2008) was released here almost year and half ago. Assassin's Creed 2 (2009) hasn't been released yet.
My guess/fear is that they see it as a gateway for later revenue via UPlay. However I don't recall them releasing a statement that these titles wiill never be released DRM-free.

Valve never sells any of their games outside of their service, so I don't know what you mean by burning bridges.

On the news searches on Google I read an article on EA issuing a statement that they blame Steam and the sales digital distribution sites run as being a cause for their loss in revenue, on top of used game sales. So the analysts feel that EA refusing to release Dead Space 3, and ME 3 on steam even though the DLC are all released is EA trying to force the use of origin to play EA games. My concern was that EA would try and mimic GoG and Steam and release future classic titles on Origin. Circling the band wagon. They can't stop the already released titles without a form of backlash, but they could prevent future releases

Ubisoft seems to be taking a strange stance. They want people to use Uplay to play titles, but they allow you to chose where to purchase them. I'm hoping that this translates into future releases on GoG since it seems a little more liberal than EA's stance. I'd like more Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, and Assassins Creed.

EA seems to be more of a question mark as they struggle to find the causes for loss in revenue. The current scapegoat seems used games for consoles and blow out sales on digital distribution. I have no idea what upper management is thinking. They say one thing, and do another.

I'm hoping for intel because I'm confused on what the future will look like.

"Coming up next, the boring world of Niels Bohr!" - The Simpsons

Well, GOG just released their version of Double Fine's Brütal Legend, which lacks online because the online on that game is provided via some sort of DRM (that's what I make of GOG's statement, I may be wrong).

EA and Ubisoft and whatever studio/company that requires DRM in order to play online could just release a DRM-free version on GOG just by removing the online features altogether. If a certain game relies solely on online play and the solo campaign or local multiplayer are the "extras" and are not full fledged, then I guess there's no point in having a GOG version, but if a game has a solid single player campaign and the online is just the extra, I don't see why they can't just do what Double Fine did. Do a lot of people want to buy Assassin's Creed 2 for its online offerings? This is a legitimate and honest question, it's not sarcastic, since the people I know aren't really into online, and prefer to buy a game for it's single player story mode.

I see. Hm, EA has released every game with dependency on Origin since Origin launch. Even if they sell it on Steam, it required Origin account in addition.
I don't think we will see newer games any time soon here. EA basically pulls Valve's own strategy and forces potential customers into using their own service if they want to play their games. I don't have any intel regarding publisher's plans, though.

As for difference between Ubisoft and EA. You can find Origin and UPlay titles sold outside the service and they both require to authorize themselves via their UPlay servers. For example, GreenManGaming sells keys for EA titles.

I prefer to be optimistic but I don't hold my breath.

Has it? My perception on the matter has been that EA has somewhat faded into irrelevance on the PC since they've refused to release anything on Steam. SimCity was a blip, but other than that, EA haven't had much in the way of major exposure on the PC since Battlefield 3. Crysis 3 sometimes gets mentioned as a graphics benchmark but noone ever seems to be actually playing it. The Xfire Top 30 has just two EA games - Battlefield 3 and FIFA 13.

Single player content is tied into Ubisoft's UPlay system. If you removed UPlay you would potentially remove access to some single-player content without reworking aspects. It's not as simple as flicking a switch. It would very much be like the Brutal Legend situation with either Origin or UPlay, because they have much the same function as Steam. EA haven't faded into irrelevance. They publish some of the most popular and best-selling titles on all three major platforms. And you can't use X-Fire as a guide because it's a tool used by a small number of players. Your average Sims or Foot-to-Ball game player wouldn't use it. They don't put out quite as many games as they used to, it seems, but EA are trying to do their own thing, and you cannot fault them for that.

Xfire isn't really a good gauge for EA's performance. I've been looking at them ever since they told me I can't see the ending to Crysis or ME without Origin. EA's not in bad shape, but not good. I do feel for the company. They're stock may be high, but its got a P/E ration of 68 which means its in a bubble. They are also losing revenue. -8.35 percent last year. The creator of Origin sold off all his stock to boot. But I don't think Steam, used games, or lack of DRM are to blame. Square Enix is in the same boat. Tomb Raider sold millions and it was considered a flop like Deus Ex HR, not because the reviews were bad or didn't have high sales, but production values were so high it could not make a satisfactory profit. EA has a similar problem. Dead Space team was actually told to change the formula for mass consumption by going from horror to action to make a game that can sell high, which is why they had a genera change and micro-transactions added on. It didn't work needless to say. And it probably killed a franchise because the fiasco.

I personally think a management overhaul is needed at EA and a few others if they are afraid of loosing profitability. But as a consumer I have little say until they hit bankruptcy. My only power is not buy the product, but they seem to be making excuses as to why I don't want to buy as a consumer. The management arm has done more damage to the company over the years than any other factor. Another factor could be shareholders without any knowledge of the industry, but I have no idea of Game Pub and Shareholder relationships.

But man oh man, are they locking down Dragon Age and C&C. I'd love to see DA and C&C on here (C&C more because I have vista problems).

But going back to subject. The whole industry seems to be in trouble in one form or another. I think only Indie games are really breaking the mold because they have lower production values and can be sold for less without a fortune 500 management team looking over the dev's shoulder.

If I was EA. I'd diversify. IF I didn't think I could leach enough cash anymore of a release, I'd release it wherever I can, including bringing the AAA titles here DRM free for saturation of distributors. Increase the likely hood of sales by increasing exposure to the product.

I personally would be fine buying GOG versions of games with multiplayer part disabled, even though there seemed to be big arguments about Brutal Legend that GOG shouldn't sell it at all, if the multiplayer part is missing. Hence, I bought Brutal Legend from GOG too.

It is not an easy question though, and I guess that's why GOG was also asking in a survey whether people would be fine if the multiplayer part for some GOG games required a key/authentication to some other service. I personally would be fine with that as well, as long as the single-player part is still fully DRM-free.

Heck, in fact I repeat what I said here already like two years ago or so: I would be fine even if the games (new AAA titles mainly) that GOG sells would at first have online authentication DRM even for single-player, but there would be some kind of guarantee that the DRM will be removed after some time, say after a few months, or a year, when the game is not considered selling like hotcakes anymore.

I would be fine with a setup like that, as long as I knew when the DRM will be removed, and I can trust it. No empty promises like "Sure, we will remove DRM from all our games if it ever becomes a problem.", but a more systematic way that it will get removed after some time, either way.

My money on them having less threads of thoughts than an i7.... "Bonusses", "Perks", "hiding that they don't have a clue about how to deal with this market" and a manical stance "drm drm drm drm"

edit : and of course "staff cuts", "shares buyback"

The problem with the GOG edition of Brutal Legend, from what I heard, was that the MP was stripped but it wasn't entirely removed? As in isn't the MP option still in the menu? On top of that, they didn't soften the blow by including the Original Soundtrack, which sucks, because it's actually quite good and should have been included.

I do agree that DRM should be removed after a couple of months, but the problem is that our main forms of DRM (Steam, Origin & UPlay) are also game and content management software, which makes removing them a lot harder.

For some reason I fail to see that as an issue. I think many other (mainly old) GOG games have also some menu options that don't necessarily work anymore, e.g. related to multiplayer or automatic updates directly from publisher servers. I think e.g. the retail version of Descent Freespace had such, does the GOG version too?

Yes, they are about controlling the software, and I would be fine if the control for the single-player part would be given back to the end-user (me) after some time. If such system was put into place, naturally the publishers would have to take that into account when integrating the DRM to the games. That's the whole point. It isn't technically impossible or even hard, if it is taken into account. It is only about will.

Anyway, aren't there a couple of GOG games which were originally Steamworks games? Alan Wake, if I recall correctly? Or does even Brutal Legend count as such? So at least it doesn't seem to be impossible to strip the service wrapper from the game, even if it means not being able to play online, or get achievements.