All I want is XCOM: Enemy Unknown, Worms Reloaded, and many others on here and all kept in a single place that can be backed up and reinstalled as many times as I choose. If that means I have to migrate my Steam library to GOG somehow (so that I strip out the nasty crap in so doing), then so be it.

BJ

I think Tim Schafer once mentioned how a patch/update on XBLA costs $40,000

Yup, found it: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-17-schafer-microsoft-has-ignored-warnings-over-xbla-decline

That just seems like such a huge number just for an update. How could most indies afford it?

I'm not sure what patching on Steam costs devs, but certainly it must be far less than $40k.

As a side note, one thing I like about "old games" is that, aside from some cases where patching or modding is necessary, the GOG version more or less should run out of the box. I don't mind having games in multiple places, since newer ones are going to require some updates, and with Steam it is just a little easier.

Try nothing.

Steamworks costs nothing, updating costs nothing. It's a super developer friendly system so that developers want to use it. The console model is more like forcing developers to use it by being popular with consumers.

Cool, yea that's what I thought but just wanted to be sure. :)

I know the topic of Steam can sometimes lead to heated discussions, but certainly as a delivery method for developers, especially indie ones, it certainly has many advantages, one primary one being free patching/updates.

Reasonable "Steam haters" acknowledge this. It's really not hard to understand how a platform with so many advantages for both developers and consumers could become so huge. Anyone in denial of that needs some serious introspection.

That said they could easily offer DRM free singleplayer versions or remove the Steam requirement in the backups. They don't because they don't have to, and they like the control, and anyone in denial of that also needs some serious introspection.

It's a two-sided coin. Since consumers don't give a shit about DRM though they have no reason to change what they're doing.

To bring it back to the topic of the thread, with people being so used to Steam updating games which have just come out, I can't see as many people buying 10 GB AAA games from GOG, since these tend to have such updates/patches.

It ultimately comes down to a trade-off (not the only trade-off, but the one regarding new games on GOG):

DRM-free vs. Auto Patching

And like you've said, more people seem to prefer the patching/updates/effortless installation to the DRM-free aspects. Everyone's different and has their own preferences. I guess from my perspective the important thing is for consumers to have a choice.

I think it can work out well as GOG themselves said they aspire to. In an interview they basically said "Steam for new games, then once those games are completely updated and the DLC is finished, sell them on GOG as archived classics."

That's what I want, personally. I buy a game like Assassin's Creed 3 on Steam/Origin/Uplay, buy the DLC, play with friends and get my achievements etc., then 5 years later it comes to GOG for $10 as an archived DRM free version for history. I think that works out well and covers all bases.

Mass Effect is a good example. That game was complete a long time ago but it still burdened by stupid DRM and hassles. To get the "free" DLC working you need to jump through some pretty ridiculous hoops. Release it here complete with everything in one package for $10 and I will rebuy it.

Yea that seems to be how a lot of people feel. It makes sense. Now with GOG trying to release newer games, I wonder how that changes. Most of the newer games coming to GOG aren't those huge AAA titles that you can guarantee need updates. I'm not sure how many of the new/indie titles here on GOG have required updates, but again it's something for people to consider.

I have enjoyed this pleasant conversation.

:)

Yeah I think that is one reason the new games are mainly indies. They aren't as reliant on those Steam features. Still, as someone pointed out to me recently my copy of Grimrock does not support Steam Workshop because I bought it on GoG for DRM free. I kinda got boned.

Perhaps, yet there is an ease of use factor there. Everyone is using the Steam Workshop because its the standard and popular way to do it. I lost that functionality because I didn't pay attention - my fault, yes, but it illustrates an issue GOG has with selling new games. Many of them are designed around the Steam platform.

I pre-ordered Primordia. I knew in doing so I lost out on Steam achievements and other features I would have gotten on that platform. I knew that going in. I should have paid more attention with Grimrock.

Me too Roman! This is what I'm really hoping for.

On topic, for very new games, maybe not. But once the game gets about 8-10 years old, a publisher is being a bit delusional, if he is still up in arms about piracy, when the game is probably already cracked to the moon and back.

However, another reason, is that they do want a slice of the digital pie. Some major distributors have sprouted out their own digital stores, although with DRM.

DRM doesn't really have anything to do with auto patching. They can both exist in the same product, unless someone feels that none of the Steam games in this list support auto patching?

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/list_of_drmfree_games_on_steam/page1

Another example would be e.g. the _optional_ Humble Store client for Android games. You can still download the DRM-free apk packages, even if there is also an optional client which can do both the downloading and installing for you, and checking also if the installed game is up to date. Kind of like the current GOG downloader, only with even more functionality.

So your question should have been "Client-free vs. auto patching?". You can have even both, like Humble Bundle Android games offer. Or, like many PC games in the past have offered both in-game autopatching, and also a way to download and install the patches separately.

It only may become the problem if the client/autopatching is the only way, like shown with the "Rise of Nations autopatching system went offline for good, and no official offline patches ever released" case.

EDIT: Ok, maybe you were just talking about current situation, ie. if you choose to buy a DRM-free game from GOG, then you choose not to have auto patching. Just wanting to make clear so that no one feels adding optional features (e.g. in a form of client, which GOG already has) would automatically be DRM. Heck, GOG could have cloud saving and achievements too, even without DRM!

Nevertheless, I am unsure though how much the client really matters in the end. Even if GOG had an auto patching client, would the die-hard Steam extremists who require a Steam key for everything still opt to buy from GOG?

Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2 have both autopatching and no DRM.

That isn't at all what I said, though. We were talking about the games which have Steam DRM, and comparing having a game with Steam DRM to one with a downloadable installer, such as GOG might offer.

Previously I've hoped that GOG might one day have a client that installs and patches games for you as necessary, but still offers DRM-free installers for backup. That really would be the best of both worlds, but it's probably unlikely.

Yea, your edit is what we were discussing. Of course all those things are possible without DRM, but as StingingVelvet pointed out for most gamers it seems that the convenience of auto updates is more important than DRM-free.

Hope what I was saying is clearer. :)