Yeah, I haven't heard anything about that so I didn't mention it. Would be a cool feature.

Having a think about it, i dont think options like that will be too bad for GOG.

I wonder what the numbers for the other survey were?

I don't see a problem with this one. CD keys are already required for other multi-player enabled games on GOG, and while they are technically DRM, they are a rather benign form of it. There seems to be an account, and a server to connect to, but they're completely optional (though not doing so seems like it would gut the game; all you're left with are skirmishes against AI or other people).

That said, I probably wouldn't get it, because the part I would care about is the campaign. With how big my backlog is, there's no guarantee that the server would still be around by the time I got to it.

My only concern is that the parts that require being online with an account/connected to a server need to be made very clear on the game card, with big bold wording.

And since I didn't say it last time, thank you for taking the time and effort to ask and listen to us!

On a multitude of occasions, I have played games which have "optional" online features that require an account at the distributor/developer's machines and a unique key, of which I have had a legally purchased copy that came with a legal key. All of my games and keys are kept in a single room in my house where I live alone and my keys are NEVER at risk of being stolen by some other human being present in my house.

However, on numerous occasions, and in particular with Ubisoft games, despite being a legal owner of the games, when going to use the online features of the game even such as just basic multiplayer, the game company's server not only tells me that my own key is "Invalid CD key", but it tells a friend of mine that his key is invalid too, and 2 other friends have since bought their games and got the same result. As a result none of us are able to play these games online as we intended when we bought them. Doing research into the matter it turns out that "pirates" have cracked the algorithm used to generate the license keys and over time have generated and used at random - keys which are legitimate and collide with legal keys of other users. When the game servers detect multiple people using the same license key, they flag that key as being pirated and "invalidate" it.

This means that the customer who PAID for the game in order to be honest and do the right thing, and to have a simple no-hassle gaming experience - ends up being the one unable to play the game, has a miserable experience and is the one punished by the game developer. The pirates however just generate another bogus key and continue to play the game anyway, and the legitimate customer has to either generate bogus keys too in order to play the game, or as is the case for my gang of friends that bought the game - we had to install Hamachi VPN software and play the game through the VPN as a LAN game which does not validate the license keys, but it does almost double the in game latency, giving a greatly reduced gaming experience.

There are other games I've played where a key was required for online play only, and the game company shut down their online servers a few months after I bought the game, leaving a game that no longer had any functional multiplayer, even though the game itself was fully capable of multiplayer without any game company server-side requirements other than them making it that way for no reason. I'm not talking about a World of Warcraft type game where the gaming world is centralized, I'm talking about your average first person shooter where you start a game and everyone joins in - but the game company forces it to happen through their service which they then shut down leaving you have to jump through hoops (like Hamachi) just to play the game.

Everyone will have their own feelings on these issues, and their own tolerance of game company shenanigans. I suppose there is no exclusive right or wrong, and I'm even more sure that there are people who will disagree with my own opinion, but if GOG is looking for opinions, and game developers are too, well.... this is mine.

I wont buy games that have DRM, and I wont buy games that have online components (optional or not) which are tied to a DRM strategy such as license keys to access an online world ran by the game developer. They can make it, they can sell it, I just wont buy it.

So... "Just don't buy such games then." Indeed, that is my option and the option I will take. What my concern is, is that bringing online-only type games, or games which have online-persistant or other online features (whether they are optional or not) on GOG, means that I need to take extra steps to carefully read up on every single game purchase before I make it - lest I be disappointed after the fact of a purchase. I've bought a tonne of GOG games somewhat whimsically knowing in advance that they are DRM-free and hassle free and don't have the disappointments I've had with various titles purchased in the past through standard boxed commercial games. Now I potentially have to read all of the fine print on every game. If these type of games are brought on board, a huge red flashing widget on the game page that is impossible to miss should be present IMHO for the fraction of people who think like I do (however big said fraction might be). If I can avoid such titles easily enough (by my own metric, not someone else's), then it isn't as big of an issue I imagine. But if I have to read the fine print on every title, I know that I will more likely end up buying less games whimsically and only buy when I have time to actually read all of the fine print.

One thing is good to see though, is GOG approaching the community to ask us what we think, and it is good to see all of everyone's opinions being expressed whether they are similar to mine or completely disagree with me. That's the beauty of this, simply to be able to express feedback like this of our individual choice and preference without it being right or wrong, but just ours.

Keep up the good work GOG!



(P.S. Some of the Ubisoft games I hinted at above include GRAW, GRAW2, some of the Splinter Cell and Rainbow 6 titles, but there are tonnes of other games plagued with similar draconian DRM that treats the customer as a criminal after they forked out $10-70 for the damn game. I'll never ever buy an Ubisoft game again, except perhaps from GOG DRM-free, and only then if multiplayer online works without license keys.

P.S.S. I'm aware that some GOG games already indicate that their multiplayer or other features require a license key to operate. I find that disappointing but know it is beyond GOG's control and understand the technical reasons why it is like this. For some games at least the single player and other elements may still be worth it even if the game's online servers are no longer available, but GOG does prominently indicate it in the game cards at least. Still, it would be nice if GOG had a way to bring up their own game servers for some of these old titles. I imagine the load of people who'd use them would be light enough it wouldn't cost much to keep them online, but then it may be too much effort expended for the manpower involved, etc. Ah well. :) Still, I don't want to encourage these industry practices, so have to speak out against them on ideological grounds at least. I do feel GOG has our best interests in heart in the end though.
)

I dislike DRM in the case where the company can decide to pull the plug out of my game. This is not the case here, so I have no problem with it.

Looking at previous comments, I'm not sure if we only get a single-player skirmish mode, or if the "Galactic War" can string together a bunch of single-player battles. In either case, I'd still be happy enough to see some games like this here, as long as GOG keeps adding other games with a full campaign, story, etc.

On the other topics - if everything works as described, and all this stuff is written on a game's page, that's fine. I wouldn't want to go any further, though. "Single-player play or LAN/direct connection multiplayer" shouldn't have any restrictions, and that "account with the developer's online service" should only provide optional things like scoreboards. Oh, and if the devs turn off their "online service" some time in the future, it would be awesome if GOG also got the rights to distribute some additional server tools, so a group of fans could set up their own version. I agree with previous comments that "GOG is a place for archival". One of the great features of GOG is that old games still get some level of support to keep them running - more than you'd get at other shops, at least.

P.S. Thanks for saying you'll share the last survey results, I'm looking forward to seeing them.

From a business aspect to keep gog.com financially viable: Yes, you need to add more games to your list and there is a finite list of old games that you can do that with. So it is only a matter of time before more and more new games are going to need to be added.

From a player/user standpoint: Yes, please add more new games to the site. But they must be able to adhere to the DRM-free platform. I want developers to see that people are willing to buy games but do not want the restrictions of DRM.

And lets face it, as players we want a big selection of games to choose from and newer games need to be supported if they are deserving of it, and we won't have a large selection of games if we only stick to a select few games that came out years ago.

I love old games, but I love new games that can deliver a full experience without restricting players.

Also, thanks for caring gog. This is why I come here.

I'm not very much interested in this game, but I don't see why it shouldn't be on GOG.

As long as the persistant online features are optional and you can play it in single-player, LAN and direct multiplayer mode without needing an online activation or a third-party-account, everything is fine for me.

No activation, unique codes, or third-party accounts are required for single-player play or, LAN/direct connection multiplayer.

Sounds good.

Sins of a Solar Empire proved, to me at least, that games can be very enjoyable without a campaign - As long as you can play singleplayer I'm a happy camper. Multiplayer only is a complete waste of cash these days.

For all I read about this game, it truly deserve to be in GOG catalogue and perhaps it will become a new classic.
LET IT BE GOG FELLOWS!!!

So basically, except for optional features that requires a central server, you can do everything you want with this game, including playing multiplayer through a direct connection (that can possibly go through the Internet)?

Sounds good to me!

I gave up caring about DRM unless it was intrusive and installed unwanted files on my computer a long time ago. I use STEAM after all and, as their whole philosophy is, they delivered an entire service around it so it's much more than DRM, it's something I actually want to load up as it is actually a benefit to me(It being more convenient and offering a way to sort my games list and interact with others across different games).

For me gog.com is all about the oldies and RPGs. I came to gog.com for that reason alone. A game that doesn't have a single player and is a new release just doesn't interest me, at least on gog.com. It's for the oldies ((And RPGS)) and that's what gog.com means to me.