Tarm: If you like Dwarf Fortress I suggest you have a look at Gnomoria.
TheJadedOne: Note that Dwarf Fortress in fortress mode and Dwarf Fortress in adventure mode are two very different beasts, and it is the adventure mode that I described as probably being the "closest thing we have now". You can't really role-play in fortress mode because you're not a character in that mode. (I couldn't find anything to indicate that Gnomoria supports an adventure mode.)
Anyways, Gnomoria does appear to be more accessible than Dwarf Fortress, but it's still in alpha. Even though it's fortress mode only, I may take it for a spin once it's done. I also came across some game called "Towns" which I may have to check out.
Aha. Thanks for clarifying.
I haven't played Towns yet but I'll probablytry it when I'm tired of Gnomoria which by the way already is fun I think.
Phc7006: Fully agree with both statements. Let's hope GOG listens ...
I'm not against having newer games around, I havew even purchased some, but GOG should not run after Steam. It's a battle lost in advance considering the size and strenght of that maketing warmachine. There still are whole areas of "classic" gaming that are left in limbos ( true pre-RTS strategy games , flight simulators , just have a look at Microprose's or SSI's catalogues )
Huinehtar: I don't see why complaining about new games release on GOG. You mentioned Steam. But think about tomorrow. 1 year, 2 years... 10 years... etc... Should interesting current games be only release on Steam, considering they could be classics years after, and could not be available on GOG, because of Steam-only contracts? Should "good old" games be stuck on ages before 2005, and never after? I can love old games, but I don't want GOG to die, and I'm thinking about the future.
If a platform is stuck in the past, it's doomed. Because the whole possible catalog is locked. No new game = interest locked, and it would decrease years after years. Because if someone has bought all old games released, could you think that he/she would be interested in the platform where he/she has bought his/her games? I don't think so. He/she would let the platform die and would go towards platforms which have new games, or at least, old games released after the date the previous platform decided to determine between "old" and "new".
Personally, I do not buy games in a dichotomous way (Steam for new games, and GOG for old games). I am confident to see that some Kickstarter projects will be released on GOG, and looking at the community wishlist, I am not the only one. Good games now will be classic "good old games" for my children in the future, maybe.
Yes, I am waiting for more old games release, too. But I can't play all games, new or old. So if a week, there are no games I'm interested in at the moment, it's fine, I have aldready some games to play, and I am waiting for some new games release. I'm ok with that. There isn't dust on each game I buy here ;-)
If you are complaining because there are releases on both platforms you use, I don't think it's GOG fault. It's nobody's fault. It's just conflictual consumer habits. It could be annoying, I understand. But, some people are fine with that (DRM-free is another stance). And GOG has to evolve, to survive, to live: Good old games of the past, Good old games of the present, Good old games of the future.
I don't agree with your example at all. Here's one of mine.
What GOG did is like if Porsche suddenly started pumping out lots of ordinary estate cars and almost no sport cars. Porsche is still in the car market but the customers and competition is very different.
If they instead had done as you think they did by just spreading out their catalogue, starting making two or three new car categories but not doing this big shift I'd have agreed with you.
The core GOG customer was a good one too. Nostalgic old gamers with a job and stable economy that often bought games just because they wanted them in their collection. Combine that with hardcore young gamers that want to try the old classics and the gamer subgroup that hate DRM so they always choose to buy the version without DRM even if it's more expensive.
A lot of other game distributors would kill to get that kind of customers.
FraterPerdurabo: Yeah, they are definitely losing the interest of people such as myself who come here to buy classics and ease-to-play. Let's look at Amnesia and Penumbra, the two latest "old" releases. I bought all of those during the Steam sale years ago and actually played a bit of Amnesia a while ago. I don't think that GOG had to make a great effort (and by that I mean probably none) to make those work on newer rigs, because I don't think that Steam had to do anything there and my game worked just fine right off the bat.
So let's see: higher prices, worse and less frequent sales, generic catalog additions from the near-past, new games which will be available at a fraction of a cost on Steam in the near future. Not good enough. For me as a customer, if GOG wants to compete with Steam or other digital distributors, it must up its ante by releasing way more games way more frequently to build up a catalog which can in size and variety compete with those of other digital distributors. I can understand their motivation though - now that it has built up a reasonable reputation it is probably far more profitable for GOG to churn out newer titles because of the price difference. I can also understand how it claims to be "championing" the DRM-free movement (which is to be lauded), but I am not going to repurchase a game on GOG that I already have on an alternative digital distribution platform just to get it DRM-free (unless it is one of my absolute favourites).
Replacing two GOGs a week with two indie games a week is not good enough.
I don't agree with you, but what I want to bring up is that you have to remember the process that GOG goes through when it comes to releasing games: chasing the IP owners, putting some order in the history of every game, and reaching a DRM-free agreement to release. This kind of work is relatively easy when it comes to new and recent games, but if you go back even 15 years ago or so the process is not as streamlined, since IPs are often lost in some no-longer existing company limbo, or the people who made the game don't care anymore, have changed professions, countries...
The DRM-free principle is what makes GOG what it is, and you also have to think that most people either do not care about it or they fully support it as a form of copyright. They've been fighting an uphill battle
ever since the beginning, and I believe this is why GOG had to shift its strategy and change its name. In the surveys they made at the time, the majority of us voted that yes, GOG should go on even if it was to sell new games - what we love about it is the concept and the service, not just the games they provide. After all, look at how long they took to release System Shock 2, a game that people had asked for for years! The games exist, but that doesn't mean that GOG has easy access to them or that the DRM-free policy will be attractive to developers.
That's why I wrote that GOG have to tell us customers up front why they have done this drastic change. If they do have problems getting more old games to sell tell us so that we don't feel fooled and deceived.
The DRM free principle is what makes GOG now. Before that it was old games period. DRM free was never as important before. I've been here since almost the first day and old games is what made GOG as big as it is today and not the DRM free policy.
Many of us voted for GOG adding new games without realising that new games was going to be GOGs new focus. Had they told us that during the poll the result would have been very different.
