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

×
avatar
Thunderstone: Just out of curiosity, why did you buy the game from here and not from Steam since you seem to really want it from Steam?
avatar
Amerika-p4l: #1 reason was because you could get American Nightmare for 25% off rather than just 10% off. The other reasons are I had never bought from here and I had always heard it was a good/reliable place to get games. A while back I had never bought from Amazon's digital distribution and it turned out to be a rather nice experience. So I wanted to give GoG a try. I don't mind throwing my money around to things I've heard are good and I don't mind giving new services a try.
I'm not being snarky when I ask this but why not just download a game and try the GOG service if you don't mind giving new services a try? Copy it and move it to another computer just for the hell of it or something. Give it a whirl. Maybe you'll enjoy the freedom of not having to ask permission.

Also, it's hard for me to take you seriously with a user name like Amerika. Not that my name is much better being as unoriginal as it is.

avatar
Fifeldor: Well, you may not actually play it as b the time you finish the installation your laptop will be running out of battery, but you get my point.
avatar
SimonG: Electricity, the one DRM to bind us all ....
But, but, but...oh just get one of these. You can run a laptop real-time in good sunlight with one. There is always a way if you are willing.

avatar
Fred_DM: jesus, once again the oh so friendly GOG community proves that it is full of complete assholes. what a surprise.

can't you see what's going on? GOG is starting to offer newer and brand-new games in order to bring in new customers. people read and hear about Alan Wake for $15 on GOG, people who AREN'T GOG members already. the exact same people GOG is after now.

Alan Wake was a SteamWorks title up until it appeared on GOG. every other digital distributor and physical retailer only offers the SteamWorks edition. it is entirely reasonable that a customer new to GOG would expect to be able to activate the game on Steam, even if it was only an optional activation next to a DRM-free download.

this issue was bound to come up. like it or not, many gamers want their games on Steam. now GOG is the only place selling the game WITHOUT the ability to activate it on Steam. since the average gamer doesn't care about DRM, they won't know or care that GOG is all about being DRM-free.

if GOG continues to offer SteamWorks games without optional Steam activation keys, these problems will only get worse and GOG's reputation will suffer. a relatively simple solution would be for GOG to strike a deal with Valve and the publisher(s) involved and provide a Steam key for (former) SteamWorks titles as an OPTION, maybe even at a slightly higher price.
Oh, it's you again. It seems like anyone who doesn't want Steamworks attached to every existing PC game is an asshole. Yeah, let's just ignore the thread title. Let's see how far back you can remember.

Once upon a time, games were sold without DRM. People owned the games they bought. Then, around November 16, 2004, a long-awaited PC game was being sold at retail stores in a physical box, just like normal. Many people bought this game and took it home and put it in their disc drive only to find out that they couldn't play it without some online activation. You may find this surprising, but the average gamer didn't even know what the hell DRM was. It's entirely reasonable, like it or not, that most all customers fully expected to be able to put the disc in the drive and play the single player game they paid good money for just like they always had. This game wasn't presented any differently than any others had been in the past. The main reason for going to a store to buy a game in those days is because their internet service sucks. Even if they could get decent service, it cost money to pay for that better service.

True story, that. I even bought the collector's edition of Half-Life 2, and guess what? I couldn't get a refund for it. The retail clerk asked me if the game was broken and I told her that, yes, it was but it appears that they intended to make it that way. Well, no refund for me then if that's the way it's supposed to be. I could have tried another clerk or the next store and told them that the disc was missing or that it was shattered when I opened it, but that just would have been dishonest plus all I likely would have gotten was an exchange for the same game.

You know what I did? I accepted my mistake and ate the loss. I also quit buying PC games once I figured out that this trend wasn't going away. I only started buying PC games recently again through GOG.

I will say that I never once went onto the Steam forum and complained though. Sure, I've complained other places but never there. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe GOG isn't trying to take away customers that love what Steam has to offer? If people love it, they'll stick with it. Maybe they're trying to get people who might be reluctant buyers of DRM'd games that would rather not have DRM but have no choice? That they're trying to get people like me who quit buying PC games altogether even though they loved playing on a PC?

The reason that console games still sell at retail is because they don't have the kind of DRM PC games do. It appears to me that the average PC gamer migrated to consoles because of DRM. Hell, music CDs are still selling well and they don't even have copy protection on them. I can buy a CD, rip it, and copy it onto a flash drive all in a few minutes and then give it to a buddy if I really wanted to and yet they are still stocked on the shelves. If music CDs had continued down this route, I would bet my savings that physical retail music sales would have gone the way of the dodo much like PC games are going now. Whether or not that would be good for the industry by causing people to look for better non-DRM alternatives on the internet is up for debate though.
Post edited May 10, 2012 by KyleKatarn
avatar
wormholewizards: If OP keep his words, he'll come back here and bought some stuff.
Since the OP seems to like all his/her games on Steam I seriously doubt it, despite his/her comments to the contrary.
avatar
cogadh: There most certainly is such a thing as race, it is a category used to differentiate humans with specific genetic traits, usually associated with a common geographic origin. It has both legal and scientific definitions associated with it worldwide.
avatar
Vestin: I was fairly certain it doesn't, not since the 1930s...
The US Census Bureau disagrees with you as would most of the US residents with English as a first language. Whether what you say is "technically" correct in very specific circles, most people just don't belong to those circles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census

I don't wish to argue technicalities or specifics, just to point out that the word "race" seems to mean something wildly different than what you seem to imply to the majority of our (over 200 million) citizens.
Post edited May 10, 2012 by orcishgamer
avatar
orcishgamer: The US Census Bureau disagrees with you as would most of the US residents with English as a first language. Whether what you say is "technically" correct in very specific circles, most people just don't belong to those circles.
Agreed. I remember hearing that biologists have been phasing the term out for some reason or another but - that's anecdotal and I can't back it up in any way. Not my purview.
Besides - the term can and will function in language, even if it is no longer accurate. That's just the inertia of things. I might as well switch to "bigotry"...
avatar
orcishgamer: The US Census Bureau disagrees with you as would most of the US residents with English as a first language. Whether what you say is "technically" correct in very specific circles, most people just don't belong to those circles.
avatar
Vestin: Agreed. I remember hearing that biologists have been phasing the term out for some reason or another but - that's anecdotal and I can't back it up in any way. Not my purview.
Besides - the term can and will function in language, even if it is no longer accurate. That's just the inertia of things. I might as well switch to "bigotry"...
I prefer bigotry as a term as it covers more of the same type of bad behavior in a single term (for example homophobic bigotry wouldn't typically be covered under the term "racism" and I encounter that kind of thing more often).
avatar
Adzeth: GOG didn't stick to their refund policy. Does this validate that they have no integrity? :D
LOL! :-D
avatar
cogadh: Sorry GOG, but making an exception for this guy was the actual loss of integrity here. You bowed to epic whining instead of sticking to your clearly stated and otherwise evenly enforced policies. This guy was clearly the one in the wrong here, not you, but now you have completely validated his position that willful ignorance and erroneous assumptions are valid grounds for a refund. For shame GOG, for shame.
I imagine the decision was more to make a public show of being flexible and having good customer service than it was about pacifying the guy. But I do agree with your overall sentiment- breaking policy because someone decides to throw a temper tantrum on the forums doesn't really set a good precedent. If the guy had come in, hat in hand, and basically said "I know I screwed up here and I know I'm asking you to go above and beyond what could be reasonably expected of you, but any help you could offer here would be appreciated" then offering a refund would basically just be a case of GOG staff being really awesome people. Giving a refund because the guy throws a big enough fit publicly... not so much. Then again, the other option would be to pretty much say "We're sticking to policy and that's all we have to say", then either let the guy continue ranting or lock down the thread, so there doesn't really seem like a good resolution that results in GOG looking good to everyone. As it stands, the choice that GOG made probably makes them look good to most people, with just a few hard-ass bastards like you and me less than happy with the outcome.
avatar
Amerika-p4l: #1 reason was because you could get American Nightmare for 25% off rather than just 10% off. The other reasons are I had never bought from here and I had always heard it was a good/reliable place to get games. A while back I had never bought from Amazon's digital distribution and it turned out to be a rather nice experience. So I wanted to give GoG a try. I don't mind throwing my money around to things I've heard are good and I don't mind giving new services a try.
avatar
KyleKatarn: I'm not being snarky when I ask this but why not just download a game and try the GOG service if you don't mind giving new services a try? Copy it and move it to another computer just for the hell of it or something. Give it a whirl. Maybe you'll enjoy the freedom of not having to ask permission.

Also, it's hard for me to take you seriously with a user name like Amerika. Not that my name is much better being as unoriginal as it is.

avatar
SimonG: Electricity, the one DRM to bind us all ....
avatar
KyleKatarn: But, but, but...oh just get one of these. You can run a laptop real-time in good sunlight with one. There is always a way if you are willing.

avatar
Fred_DM: jesus, once again the oh so friendly GOG community proves that it is full of complete assholes. what a surprise.

can't you see what's going on? GOG is starting to offer newer and brand-new games in order to bring in new customers. people read and hear about Alan Wake for $15 on GOG, people who AREN'T GOG members already. the exact same people GOG is after now.

Alan Wake was a SteamWorks title up until it appeared on GOG. every other digital distributor and physical retailer only offers the SteamWorks edition. it is entirely reasonable that a customer new to GOG would expect to be able to activate the game on Steam, even if it was only an optional activation next to a DRM-free download.

this issue was bound to come up. like it or not, many gamers want their games on Steam. now GOG is the only place selling the game WITHOUT the ability to activate it on Steam. since the average gamer doesn't care about DRM, they won't know or care that GOG is all about being DRM-free.

if GOG continues to offer SteamWorks games without optional Steam activation keys, these problems will only get worse and GOG's reputation will suffer. a relatively simple solution would be for GOG to strike a deal with Valve and the publisher(s) involved and provide a Steam key for (former) SteamWorks titles as an OPTION, maybe even at a slightly higher price.
avatar
KyleKatarn: Oh, it's you again. It seems like anyone who doesn't want Steamworks attached to every existing PC game is an asshole. Yeah, let's just ignore the thread title. Let's see how far back you can remember.

Once upon a time, games were sold without DRM. People owned the games they bought. Then, around November 16, 2004, a long-awaited PC game was being sold at retail stores in a physical box, just like normal. Many people bought this game and took it home and put it in their disc drive only to find out that they couldn't play it without some online activation. You may find this surprising, but the average gamer didn't even know what the hell DRM was. It's entirely reasonable, like it or not, that most all customers fully expected to be able to put the disc in the drive and play the single player game they paid good money for just like they always had. This game wasn't presented any differently than any others had been in the past. The main reason for going to a store to buy a game in those days is because their internet service sucks. Even if they could get decent service, it cost money to pay for that better service.
Yes. I remember getting a game years ago - my girlfriend bought a physical copy at Wal-Mart - and I can't even remember what it was! - and when I tried to install it it said I had to have a Steam account. At the time I had no idea what Steam was, and I thought that meant it was an online game. So we took it back, and remarkably managed to somehow get our money back.

But yes, I'm one of those people who played games before there was any DRM, and not having it certainly didn't ruin the gaming industry. It's just an excuse.
avatar
DarrkPhoenix: As it stands, the choice that GOG made probably makes them look good to most people, with just a few hard-ass bastards like you and me less than happy with the outcome.
Agreed.

It's been shown, publicly, that, under certain circumstances, the terms of service can be considered more 'guidelines' than rules. Exactly what those circumstances are.... who knows ?

A precedent has been set - time will tell if it'll turn around and bite GOG on the @r$e.
Guys, is there really an point to arguing this further. This is just going in circles. The OP keeps saying he's right, other say he's wrong, and nothing new gets said, nor does their seem to be any reason whatsoever for saying it. The matter's been resolves, the OP won't change his mind no matter what you say to him, and the OP won't change anyone else's mind no matter what he says to them, so what is the point.

As much as I shudder to quote this, "give peace a chance"
give peas a chance.

if cooked well, they're not as bad as everyone makes out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y4vIzEkd6s
avatar
Psyringe: I read TET's reply some hours ago, and came back now to offer drawing a line under this issue and starting fresh. And then the first thing I see is another "I'm right! I'm right!" post from you. :(

GOG did go over and beyond duty (and broke their own policies) to correct a mistake that you made. GOG basically laid a red carpet in front of you. Firek mentioned only one single thing which can be seen as a disagreement, and that's his statement that he doesn't see GOG's sticking to their rules as "no integrity".

And in your reply, instead of simply being glad that GOG doesn't seem to take offense for being insulted that way, you feel the need to keep on harping why you see the thread title as justified. Even now. Even after GOG did exactly what you wanted.

It's hopeless. :(
Entitlement is a bitch.
avatar
Vestin: There's no such thing as a "race", it's a relic of the early XX. century nomenclature. Being "racist" nowadays means singling out an arbitrary trait and making inductive judgments based on it (most likely using stereotypes). "Sexism" is a type of "racism" in this sense and "racism" is an umbrella term for justifying prejudice through logical fallacies (as outlines above).
avatar
cogadh: There most certainly is such a thing as race, it is a category used to differentiate humans with specific genetic traits, usually associated with a common geographic origin. It has both legal and scientific definitions associated with it worldwide. What you are describing is not racism, but bigotry. Racism is a form of bigotry, just as sexism is. That is the "umbrella term" that pretty much all forms of prejudice fall under, not racism.
You are sounding a bit like a race realist with the beginning there.

Also, yeah racism is not an umbrella term, though some people treat it as such, which is weird.
avatar
KyleKatarn: Oh, it's you again. It seems like anyone who doesn't want Steamworks attached to every existing PC game is an asshole. Yeah, let's just ignore the thread title. Let's see how far back you can remember.

Once upon a time, games were sold without DRM. People owned the games they bought. Then, around November 16, 2004, a long-awaited PC game was being sold at retail stores in a physical box, just like normal. Many people bought this game and took it home and put it in their disc drive only to find out that they couldn't play it without some online activation. You may find this surprising, but the average gamer didn't even know what the hell DRM was. It's entirely reasonable, like it or not, that most all customers fully expected to be able to put the disc in the drive and play the single player game they paid good money for just like they always had. This game wasn't presented any differently than any others had been in the past. The main reason for going to a store to buy a game in those days is because their internet service sucks. Even if they could get decent service, it cost money to pay for that better service.
avatar
DieRuhe: Yes. I remember getting a game years ago - my girlfriend bought a physical copy at Wal-Mart - and I can't even remember what it was! - and when I tried to install it it said I had to have a Steam account. At the time I had no idea what Steam was, and I thought that meant it was an online game. So we took it back, and remarkably managed to somehow get our money back.

But yes, I'm one of those people who played games before there was any DRM, and not having it certainly didn't ruin the gaming industry. It's just an excuse.
Yeah, I would have understood what I had done if I purchased an online multi-player only game without LAN capability (except I wouldn't have bought it then because it would have said so on the box, much like GOG has drm-free plastered everywhere on the site.)
This thread is almost physically painful for me to read... instead of bashing a newcomer who is having an issue (which will undoubtedly force them further away from the site), how about we all stop being such hateful assholes & try to see something from his point of view? As much as people like to talk about how "classy" this forum is, not much of that "class" is being shown in this thread.
Post edited May 11, 2012 by Roberttitus