EDIT: Now I see better what you mean. I guess I'm paying GOG for the work they've done to make the games compatible (or at least testing them through), and still the same safety concerns. Knowing that if everyone just pirated the GOG versions of old games, there'd be no more incentive for GOG to do that work.

Plus, I'm paying up to vote with my wallet to show the publishers that DRM-free titles could also bring them some more money. As was said in Starship Troopers: "I'm doing my part!"

I guess your question applies to any games, ie. "why would you buy any PC games (or any goods for that matter) at all, if you could get the same games just as hassle-free without paying a dime?". Well, that's always the question with piracy, isn't it?

What you seem to be saying is that you are willing to pay e.g. 50€ for a new PC game just because keeping track of the "free" pirated version would be too much hassle to you, so you rather pay e.g. Steam 50€ so that it keeps track of it for you, and a copy on their server?

I can turn your question around: if there was a pirate site that offered all your Steam games for free, for just as little hassle as Steam does, would it mean you would have gotten all your Steam games from that illegal pirate site instead? Why not? Let's "for arguments sake" say that the pirate site is not under any threat for closure from CIA, FBI or NSA either, because it is located in the moon.

That's why I'm hoping for a GOG downloader that does it semi-automatically, ie. by running it it downloads only those installers that are either missing or outdated in my repository. I don't want to try to track it down manually either.

As for Steam, you don't necessarily need to back up all your games. Only those you care enough for. If you feel you'd probably never (re)play some game your've bought there, obviously there is no need to make a backup of it. Then again, maybe not even rebuying it either from another service.

So, if I lost all my GOG backups and GOG went down, I most probably would not rebuy ALL of them them from another service even cheaply, nor necessarily even pirate them. Only those I'd really wish to see again, e.g. that "Manhole" game I got in some "increasing discount promo" from GOG would probably go unnoticed.

As for the physical game collection, keeping it around has been quite a bit of hassle, but in the end if I didn't feel like keeping them around, I would have simply sold them cheaply in Ebay, or threw them to trashbin. I haven't felt like doing that, and the last time I organized them into boxes for easier storage, I was quite exhilarated by many games I had there and had actually forgot owning, thinking to myself that I'd really need to install it and play it. I definitely don't feel like getting rid of them, except maybe for those which I now own on GOG too, and/or have finished already without urge to replay them.

But one step at a time, there's only so many games I can have installed at a time, and only so many PSOne/PS2 save games my Sony memory cards can hold...

They invented disk image files for this purpose, indeed....

No, the question was really only aimed at those who already had a copy of the game, and still rebought the game. Pirating is another matter completely.
I've pirated enough in my day to know that pirating can be perfectly safe long as you use the right sites, and especially in the cases with DRM can actually be more hasslefree in some cases.
As for the Steam question, it's exactly the reverse. Steam is actually the site that got me off that habit. It allowed me to make purchases easily and simply and without the need for local physical copies that'd dust up the closet or throw away in a moment of 'whatever', also didn't need the discdrive anymore. For me Steam is the primary reason I stopped pirating my PC games and started buying them (again). It's not that I didn't want to buy games (heck I used to pay monthly for MMO's), but just like the excess of 'storage' CD's etc, the games eventually found their way into the bin as well. (I can just hear people screaming in agony each time I say that... lol). Digital storage is perfect for me. I now have over 400 games on Steam, probably over 500 digitally "owned". And that's despite having access to sites that allow me to 'pirate' pretty much every PC game released with no worries about trojans or virii and the like.

The backup feature/checker does sound like a really nice thing to have, that would be a good addition, although it does assume you have all your backups in one location, and it's not unthinkable the collection here would outgrow a USB stick over time (assuming that was the medium of choice)

As for my collection as a whole. There's a few games I have no desire to play but the rest is kind of all games I did/do like at some time or another. I've gone back to games I barely played and enjoyed them, I also haven't touched a lot of them in a long time, but it's all about waiting for the right mood. And when i do have one of those, they're right there. So for that I'd have to back them all up. But i agree, I may not re-buy every single one of them, however, I wouldn't be surprised if I re-bought a lot of them.

Good lord no, that's not what I'm asking. My question is more centered around the DRM-free installer thing vs the Digital download.

I know a lot of people here buy because it has DRM-free installers. So even if something happened to Gog, they could still play their games. But for me personally, I wouldn't be content with just that. I want to be able to download them at will, not have to be bothered with storing them locally (for reasons mentioned above). So for me, Gog going down, would devalue most of my purchase, since the main reason I bought it, was to have digital access to it. And that's why I'd most likely try to find an alternative again.

Doh...

While typing that I realize that what you just wrote is probably a very good example to highlight what I mean, yes. Maybe I should have put it like that.

Two Examples:
1) "Purchasing a game on Gog allows you to download a DRM-free installer for two weeks"
OR
2) "Purchasing a game on Gog allows you to download a DRM-free installer indefinitely"

@the people who have already answered they'd be fine with their DRM-Free installers if GOG were to go down. Is this then the same to you? Would you be fine if you could only download the game for a short time?

I don't think there is anyone who'd _prefer_ that GOG didn't offer "unlimited" re-downloads. That's always a nice option to have, since it is a "free" extra service (not really free, see the end of this message).

Maybe one way to ask it would be: if GOG offered two options, which one would you choose:

1. Unlimited downloads (for as long as GOG is around), for which you pay default price for your GOG purchases (no discounts ever).

or

2. Limited download for two weeks, after which you may not re-download your game from GOG anymore (unless there is e.g. a bug fix or new installer for that file) but you'll have to rely on your local backup. But for this, you'd get a 50% discount for all your GOG purchases.

So basically the ability to re-download would be an extra service that will cost you something. I presume you would opt for #1, while I might actually go for #2. Even more so if we were talking about new 50€ games, not GOG 6€ games.

It could be made different ways, like only the first download during the first two weeks would be free, while subsequent downloads for the same game would cost you e.g. extra 20% of the game's original price.

Who knows, maybe that's where it will go at some point. Providing the bandwidth for customers to re-download their games unlimited cost GOG (and Steam) money, which they have currently embedded to the original game prices. Maybe the delivery cost could be separated from the initial purchase price. :)

Well, it's not really about the feasability of the question but rather to highlight the difference I am talking about.

I highly value the unlimited download part, which is why in the end, for me, a DRM-Free installer is irrelevant, since i want access to the digital download.

But for those who say a DRM-Free installer is enough for them, then where is the line? If it's fine if GOG were to go down, then why is it not fine if they offer 2 weeks download and that's it?

Sure, one might be preferable, but most people here claim they'd be fine with just the backed up installers. There shouldn't *really* be a big problem with the loss of it if that's really your way of thinking is it?

(I'm certainly not advocating GOG doing this in *any* way. It's a hypothetical to highlight a way of thinking >.<)

Question. At some point does redownloading multi-Gigabyte games from a vendor (or as someone put it "clouding," your backup) become somewhat disrespectful to the service?

GOG allows you long term download access to your games, but that is not a service everyone offers. Those that don't are thought to not be wanting to pay for the excess bandwidth that might be involved by allowing that access. If that is a real issue for DDs Is it in some way hurtful to the service that you are relying on to make such heavy use out of it?

I would guess you are not redownloading things everyday, but if everyone downloaded 2 unnecessary gigs a week, do you think that could risk creating a similar situation to the one you have proposed in the beginning?

Photos are also a nightmare to store and not loose something along the way. If there was a "photo organizer" for you game installers would that be attractive. People probably would need to shell out 50-100$ for USB HD just for game backups, which does make redownloading financially more attractive.

I would buy less, because I worry about my bandwith sometimes. I would feel less secure if they were not backed up longterm by GOG, but I would still support the site. Amazon only lets me download music 1 time but I still buy all my music from them because its DRM free and much easier to store and move between devices.

I'd be fine with a limited time download if they offered patches for any game fixes they may add down the line.

The company going out of business is more likely than not, something they can't do much about. Choosing not to offer the download indefinitely (when the files are stored anyway, for future purchases) is most probably just a decision of "we chose to be dicks", especially if the files are likely to receive updates after the download period ends.

Personally, I download my GOGs soon after I pay for them, check for updates every once in a while, and I do acknowledge the fact that until I fetch the files their availability is completely outside my control, so the site becoming unavailable is a risk I'm already accounting for when paying for downloadable goods (and that goes for other places too, not only GOG).

For me it would be "fine" (if GOG went down), in that I could still play the games I've purchased from them earlier, thanks to being DRM-free. It is always preferable to me that I can play the games I've bought earlier, compared to not being able to play them (or have to at least re-buy them in order to play them, even for the first time).

But of course it woudn't wish that to happen. Since I don't have to pay any extra for the service (or rather, it is already embedded to the price of the games I buy from GOG, Steam etc.), of course it is nice to have there, just in case. Gives me time to figure out when and how to download my games. But it isn't essential to me.

So, my order of preference:

1. Having DRM-free installers, and the option to redownload them at any time from the site.

2. Having DRM-free installers without the ability for subsequent downloads (either because the company went belly up, or they don't provide such extra service).

3. Having DRM-games, with the ability to re-download them from the site, as long as it stays online.

If I got you right, for you at least #2 and #3 swap places in the priority, and maybe #3 could be #1 as well, ie. DRM is completely irrelevant to you.

As I said, I have bought e.g. Penumbra series and Amnesia straight from the Frictional Games site and downloaded them from there as I purchased them, thinking that this is probably the only time I download them from there. Same for some indie bundles. So that's good enough proof to me that apparently I could live with that kind of system.

Yet, at the same time I certainly would prefer that I had bought those games from GOG instead, and could redownload them from there at any time. But, if GOG ever carries Penumbra and Amnesia games, I personally don't think I will rebuy them from GOG, unless it is something very insignificant like 50 cents per game. Then it feels about the same to me as getting them for free, same way like I don't mind getting Steam games with my indie games, as long as I also have the DRM-free installers.



Frankly, I feel many sites are fine with "unlimited downloads" because currently they feel most people never get to download most of their purchases they've bought in grazy sales with dozens of other games. As said, I haven't yet downloaded most of my GOG games either, even once. So in the end they save bandwidth this way, as many people never play most of their games.

If they said you'd have to download your game in one month from purchase, then the bandwidth requirements would shoot up, especially during sales, because every purchaser would try to download all the games pretty soon too.