As long as the newest version is DRM free and can be backed up I don't really care about that, but even if it's an issue for some they could easily continue to host the patches as they do now in addition.

Which isn't really a problem if the publisher's game license authorizes you to legally be able to play multiplayer on a single computer system. LAN multiplayer works without any license keys also.

The problem with online multiplayer is that game publishers on their own fruition choose to require a license key on their multiplayer servers for whatever their own reasons are, and they are the only ones that can run a game server or authorize someone else to be able to do so and they generally do not do that. So you have a scenario where either everyone that buys the game from anywhere at all period either all uses the same central game server - and if it requires a license key then everyone requires a license key regardless of where the game was purchased, or you have it where there are multiple isolated islands of game players, some able to play the game without a license key on one distributor's custom servers and everyone else able to play the game only on the central server that requires a license key. Some number of people on both isolated islands will have friends that bought the game on the other isolated island and you have a terrible end user experience for these people who are now angry at both the game developer/publisher, and the distributor/retailer they bought it from. The other option is that they simply remove all multiplayer functionality from the GOG version of a game if they have no solution in place that allows for license-key free playing of the game. That will upset people who purchase the game and don't notice that multiplayer is removed in advance of their purchase (or the person who bought it as a gift for them) - again creating a bad user experience.

Even if each distributor did get the ability to run their own private cloud of game servers from the game developer, the extra financial overhead that would put on GOG would have to be paid for by someone, namely the people buying the game even if they weren't planning on ever playing multiplayer and it would only be there due to extremist purist ideological views of a small fraction of the customer base.

So the only other actually business viable option is to simply refuse to sell games in the GOG catalogue that have a license key requirement for online multiplayer and just not lose the potential profit that would have been gained from such sales, and all of the customers who would have bought the game solely for its single player or LAN multiplayer functionality or whom either don't care about having to use a license key for online multiplayer, or they do care but are still willing to buy it - don't even have a chance to do so and now have to go buy a DRM-loaded version of the game from Steam instead.

While I definitely prefer a game publisher having online multiplayer services that do not require a license key it is not the norm for the majority of games and I'd rather be able to buy the games on GOG DRM-free even if the online multiplayer requires a license key. A license key does not affect your ability to backup the software, make copies or install it on multiple computers and isn't really a form of copy protection as a result. It is crappy still yes, but many people have bent and twisted what DRM actually means into meaning "some aspect of the licensing of a game I don't like" and others consider DRM to mean "anything at all I don't like about the game". There's some crackpot GOG user on Youtube that has a video claiming that GOG isn't really DRM free because the games come with a EULA that tells you what you can and can't do concerning copying the game etc. This guy has no idea what DRM even means and doesn't know the difference between DRM and copyright licensing. His idea of DRM free is basically "I can download and do anything at all whatsoever I want with the software including making 1000 copies and selling them, giving them to friends, etc." That particular guy has a serious entitlement mentality disorder really.

Seriously though, if people feel shaky about GOG's stance on DRM, don't trust their own word and philosophy from the interviews I linked above, and are worried about things "getting worse", then why are they buying games here in the first place? They should simply choose another online retailer that has a more "pure" view about what DRM-free means that matches their own idea of it and buy all their games from that other retailer. I could be wrong but I think that other mythical retailer doesn't exist.

GOG should be praised for what they're doing, and they're doing a great job of it. They've built up a great base of customers by being an honest business for gamers by gamers, and they've went out of their way to do business the old fashioned way by trusting their customers and trying to provide unique value at every opportunity. The 30 day money back guarantee is another example of treating customers with respect and trust. They talk about trust building in the videos I posted (if anyone watched any of them, which I'm rather doubting), and how if they were to do something that would breach their customer trust in a major way - that would be the end of them. They talk about how sometimes they might goof up and make a mistake unintentionally and then they need to figure out the best way to correct it and make it right for everyone, and they have done that a few times also.

People need to stop nitpicking about very minor details about things that are either beyond GOG's control or which are small trivia and look at the awesome things they have done and continue to try to do, and look at the serious efforts they are making to convince big name publishers to embrace this open trust model. I really don't understand why people want to rip into GOG as if they're some big evil corporation or something when it's very clear they are the good guys and are "on our side" so to speak.

Then again, I worked at a company that was on the customer's side fighting the battle against competing "evil" companies for several years too, and there were always people out there that tried to paint our company in an "evil as Microsoft" manner at every opportunity.

Anyway, I can't help but notice some of the GOG FUD is from people with extremely low rep scores and so haven't been around long enough to really know anything about GOG to begin with. I'm just saying.
;oP

Yes, let us institute a positive feedback only policy, so GOG never improves. Sounds like a plan.

Feedback both good and bad can be constructive and both forms are needed. I totally agree with that. But GOG's actions and doings have earned them a stellar reputation and the benefit of doubt IMHO. Unfounded irrational fears some people might have aren't constructive feedback though, nor is opposing useful optional functionality that would benefit a lot of users and draw a lot more people to the service based on nothing more than unwarranted fear, uncertainty and doubt.

This post is originally about someone disliking the patching process. I'm content with it for the most part, but I will also recognize that it isn't the best it could be in the grand scheme of things, especially for users who are less technically inclined or computer averse. So the commentary (albeit a little harsh in nature, but still a valid complaint) about the update process being in need of an overhaul is certainly a valid criticism and valid request to GOG IMHO. It might be negative feedback but it's towards a positive end ultimately.

The idea of having a GOG client that incorporates such a feature as well as other features common to various other gaming clients is another example - pointing out a weakness in the offerings which other services provide that could benefit the customer base should GOG offer similar optionally. It's a constructive suggestion for how to improve a perceived weakness in the service.

It is possible to praise GOG for being good at what they do, and simultaneously offer suggestions for how to improve the service without expecting that such improvements will turn them into an evil empire. ;o)

Right, then we're in agreement.

If the OP sounds harsh it's simply because I think the problem is pretty bad. It has nothing to do with being technically inclined, as you mentioned, it's more about avoiding hassle. I don't want to bother redownloading ten gigs and reinstalling the game, then installing a further patch after that. I just ended up avoiding the whole thing because I've got better things to do, which means I don't get the latest patch. Bad endings all around, whichever you choose.

Steam's DRM is an unfortunate mark against game preservation and not being able to block patches or DLC can be a hassle, but at the end of the day people love the service for exactly these kinds of reasons. GOG's DRM free policy doesn't prohibit a better patching system or client, so I'd like to see some progress in this regard.

Personally, I wouldn't use the client, but I can't understand why so many people think having a client equals DRM. Maybe browsing the concept would help.

Lots of people here loath the fact GOG sells newer games, so they don't buy them, but at least those who do like those games can purchase them on their seller of choice, DRM-free, with the stellar GOG support and consumer dedication. An optional patching/managing client would be the same thing. It would definitely broaden GOG's target audience, while tending to their already existing one. I wouldn't use it, sure, I'm not pro-client. But I am pro-choice, and just because I don't like something doesn't mean others don't have the right to it.

You're right, client does not equal DRM but I have no need for a client beyond what the current GOG Downloader does for me (download the executable files & allow pause/resume of large downloads) I'm a bit of a hoarder & I want to retain the control I enjoy with the software I install so I want to keep an archive of any available patches.

I used to be "pro-choice" myself but the gaming industry seems doesn't seem to like that in general so where should I draw the line?

I am pro-choice in the sense an *optional* client is just that: optional. People like you (and me) can still keep an archive of our GOG downloaded installers and files, and people wanting to have all that automated via client could have that as well.

Furthermore, a client doesn't have to be like Steam's, it can be, in essence, a launcher for less tech savvy people, I'm assuming that if GOG ever releases a client you'll still download everything you need and have access to it on your machine, the client would function simply as an easier way for those who wish so to automatically download and install games and patches.

My comments about technical inclination were not related to the original poster, but rather to the average computer user out there who might try to use the service. I don't get that impression of the original poster. The harshness naturally comes from being frustrated about the subject matter and anyone can feel that way from time to time of course. :)


Indeed, I totally agree.

Absolutely on all counts, and I would too. But if people stand up strong and shout out against any possible improvement to the software technology (such as a more robust standalone gaming client) that could make life easier for the majority of customers due to nothing more than unwarranted irrational fear over any possible improvement leading to the dark side and DRM it's a big Salem witch hunt and the service stagnates and does not and can not evolve.

Personally I'd like to see the service evolve for the better over time to make itself more convenient to everyone in general, as well as becoming more accessible to others while still preserving all of the values which have made GOG such a wonderful service to begin with without compromise. There will always be people in any community who are resistant to change but you move forward with goals in mind and great intentions and create wonderful new things that more and more people embrace and love and try to reassure those who fear change that it wont affect them in any material way, and let the hordes of new customers the positive changes bring drown out the naysaying of those who inherently fear change without cause.

GOG shouldn't ever be afraid to offer major improvements to the service optionally to customers. That'll only draw in a multitude more customers than any vocal minorities out there IMHO.

by allowing and being in favor of giving people choice?

(or are you saying that since the gaming industry is against choice, you should also be against choice?)

Sorry, but after 5 years of feedback about how their packages are crap, you kind of don't see the point anymore and just switch services.

Bingo, it really is quite that simple IMHO. I wouldn't be surprised also if there are some bigger named titles that would consider coming to the service DRM-free if it had a more human friendly intuitive client that made things easier for people, but are hesitant perhaps due to concerns over dissatisfaction or increased technical support queries.
That's a reasonable and not unexpected solution if one's needs aren't being met of course. :o) At least for games that are affected by the problem.

I have to say, compared to the 90s style updating process of hitting a search engine to find the game patch, possibly having to create an account on the publisher or developer's website, jump through hoops to find the actual patch (especially on Ubisoft and EA's websites) and manually downloading and applying the patch, modern update procedures whereby the game itself auto-updates itself if it detects an online connection or perhaps when one connects to the game's multiplayer services, or the Steam-like auto-update options are pretty much state of the art "problem solved" in nature and highly convenient to say the least. GOG's process lay somewhere in the middle between both extremes, but definitely could use some improvements! :)

Do we really need more clients?
Steam, Origin, Uplay, Desura, etc., why not a complete OS that can take hostage of your computer?

I'm by the way taking back what I earlier said and prefer the way gog is doing it now, if there are issues with save games not working because of an update it should say so and anyone can just consider not to apply the patch or start a new game.

Your computer is a hostage already.

X operating system.
Y processor architecture.