dear GOG, im a loyal customer here since years now.
first some clarifications:
why am i here?
because i find OLD games.
what do i mean for OLD game?
a game in a definitive version, that is to say, the most bug-free possible version.
what do i think about DRM-free policy?
i agree with it about any kind of internet-connected system, but i dont agree with it about any kind of password-check system (like it was mostly in 80's), because it is not that big hassle to type sometimes a password and also the game code remains untouched.

if u GOG starts to publish NEW games, im not going to buy them immediately, because, as said, i look for OLD games.
in any case, nowadays, it is also true that a 3-5 years-old game is de facto an OLD game...
so, if u GOG starts to publish such games (3-5 years old), i think that it really doesnt distort your nature.

we, games lovers, want always to find here the best possible version of our beloved games, and u too should always try to improve to accomplish this goal, that is, with no doubt, the key of your success.

FTFY

Don't put words into my mouth I really don't like it.

In other words think before making over broad statements

I'm pretty sure this is simply his opinion.

EDIT: Oh, the use of "we"...

Internet activation one time (on install) is ok - but internet connection required to play every time, either once off at the start or constant is a nightmare if you happen to have a weak connection or spend time without a connection.
Pass codes aren't a problem at all - install game - enter code - play. The only time they are a problem is if you lose the code, though with proof of ownership most companies (still running) will give you a new code. I'd agree with that stance, though I'm a little confused at what prompted this post since the only brand new games GoG has launched are the Witcher series which are made with their sister company - so it makes sense for them to support their own game through their own service.
I'm also pretty sure that GoG isn't aiming for adding more new releases because their distribution system isn't geared up toward supporting such a structure by modern standards - ie no automated game to client connection for downloading and installing patches - all must be done manually.


In the end I think GoG knows their market area; though I wouldn't be surprised if they push for some newer titles in the future, but they would have to broaden their pricing structure.

Ah yes, another obtuse and trollish post from wodmarch.

Because obviously we can only make statements that apply both universally and at all times, because god forbid that anybody spend some time to think about the specific limitations or use some common sense.

GOG's new stance is a win-win position any way you see it. They have developers WANTING to have their games sold here, but due to their newness they can't. As long as the flow of new games does not interfere with the flow of the old ones, we're in the clear. Don't want to buy new games immediately? Good for you. Wait a little until they become old and get patched and buy them later at a cheaper price. It's what happens in other digital stores anyway and it doesn't affect them that much.

Not everyone will think the same way though. Some buyers will be happy to get new games DRM free at a higher price on the day of release. This appeals most to gamers who don't like having a client software hooked to the internet all the time. Nothing like owning that baby in your hard drive forever, so the new approach is quite the good news for a lot of people.

That is actually false. You can make other kind of statements as well. :p

In this case, the specific limitation would be defining games lovers as people who want to find stuff A and only stuff A in gog.com. Since it's a word that probably has other definitions and the intended meaning may as such be elusive to some, I think wodmarach's post is valid assuming he considers himself a games lover with some other definition.

If he wanted to seriously nitpick (as I think you sort of suggested he did), he'd probably have pointed out that the "with no doubt" part implies he can see into the future, which is pretty cool. (used as an example, I get what he probably means with it)

Anyway, meudoland. Your open letter is nice and all, and your intent is conveyed through it, but I think it needs a bit more work still.

I'd suggest spelling "you" as a good start, if I wanted to nitpick the OP.

FTFY :P

Well, that's of course important with the presentation, but it has very little to do with the content, and I wouldn't devalue his opinions just because of that. I agree that for linguistic nitpicking it's a prime target, though. :)

How the hell am I trolling?
He's claiming all game lovers I personally can not give a fuck if the best version of a game is here or somewhere else I give a damn about DRM free games, and classic games that are no longer available, from my past. But for all I care they could just give me the original installers and let me sort it out.

If he had made the statement as his personal view I wouldn't have minded but putting words into my mouth and the mouth of others is a pet peeve of mine. How about if I said...

"We, game lovers, want nothing except UBIsofts always on DRM it makes a game more fun when we could lose hours of game play when our network drops"

or

"We, game lovers, want nothing except cheap COD:MW rip-offs and QTE's set on rails with no freedom"

would you accept that as a broad generalisation?

The OP should speak for himself, instead of trying to speak for other people. His opinion certainly isn't mine. Personally, I'm very happy that GOG branches out to include newer games - actually, when I joined GOG, my #1 wishlist item was to have newer games on GOG as well.

It's also a bit baffling for me that there's a group of users who actively try to _prevent_ GOG from offering games that I might happily buy. Why not just be happy for those with different preferences than yourself?

I mean, personally I have zero interest in WW2 games - but I would never even think of suggesting that GOG shouldn't offer them. I'm happy for the people who _do_ play them that GOG caters to them too, and I simply don't buy those games myself. I don't even see a shadow of a problem with that, and I have a hard time understanding the ruckus.

QFT

I couldn't agree more

I fixed it for you. ;-)