I for one believe that GOG knows how much some of us prefer to have the original versions of games. I also believe GOG does what they can to get those originals. They have even managed to get the additional content added to classics like Syndicate, Magic Carpet and Dungeon Keeper.

What GOG releases, and what systems they release for is ultimately determined by the publisher. And in this case what was released may not have been fully under this publishers control.

My main concern here is that it wasn't obvious how different this is from the original, which again was determined by the publisher. Usually when a game is a remake, or altered in a significant way, the name is also altered to clearly show it's not the exact same game. For example; Speedball 2 HD, Baldur's Gate Enhanced and Age of Mythology Extended. Had I purchased and expected the original, I believe I would have been disappointed by the differences.

Keep the games coming GOG, and keep them DRM free. I can't buy every game, but I will be happy. Now how about getting Overlord 2 released here?

EDIT - After reading some posts I have missed... developers, stay away from DirectX. Stick with cross-platforms systems so you can include OS X and Linux customers in the fun.

Another big hit by GOG!

What a joke. What kind of developer would port a game from tablet and not even include basic mouse functions in RTS like being able to click-drag to select multiple units?

Fucking touch control are cancer, shame on you GOG for allowing this bullshit on here.

This Z remake is OpenGL, for what it's worth; a separate OS X version is available on the Mac App Store.

Use your right mouse button to click-drag to select multiple units.

At the risk of some asshat chiding me for being "off topic", I will try to answer your question.

A program's executable is legally considered a non-transformational derivative work of the source (code and any other source). By default, whoever holds distribution rights (copyright) to all of the original work (the source) also holds rights to the derived work (the executable). Note that "transformational" has a certain legal meaning -- while compiling the source to an executable is technically a transformation of sorts, compilation is not legally considered transformational for purposes of copyright law. (If you want to find out more about the legal meaning, you can start [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_(law)#Basis]here[/url].)

GOG can't legally distribute an executable unless it has been granted that right by the rights holder. Bitmap Brothers is (at least currently) not the rights holder of the (original game) executable as a direct consequence of them not being the rights holder of the source. If Bitmap Brothers is able to acquire the rights of all of the original source, they will then also be the rights holder of the executable and can (assuming GOG is agreeable) distribute said executable on GOG.

As odd as it might sound, Bitmap Brothers wouldn't necessarily even need the source code itself at all -- the source code could be lost for all time and that might be OK -- as long as they could still get the rights to the source code.

Which means that the work conversion has been handled badly.

I remember this from back in the day and almost bought it just now, but the reviews here are absolutely killing it. I think I'll wait. It'll be $1.49 next summer.

I glanced over the reviews. The game rating is a little high of what it should be based on them due to a few people giving it 5 stars when it obviously doesn't deserve it. some of them say 'you don't understand, the controls are weird because it was an old game' but it's a new release as far as the page says so that doesn't qualify.

Bad ports and bad controls are just that. I'll bet if they patch it and fix a few key problems with the game it would be more playable, but based on what i see, i'd definitely hold off. Kinda like Fez where it was horrible before but is fairly good now.

I think you might misunderstand the role of GOG. They are not developers. GOG does not port games, modify source code, etc. They simply sell what is provided to them by the publisher/rights holder. Kiss, the publisher, said they did not have the source code of the original game. So when GOG asked the publisher if the original game was available, they were told no.

Why the dev/publisher can remake a game and sell it for profit, yet not have the rights to sell the original is beyond my understanding of law. Seems they would go hand-in-hand. But I guess that is not the case.

I won't try to post a complete explanation (as it's just too long and complex for this forum - anyone who is interested in such can start ). But I will warn any budding game developers that in general you <span class="bold">can't</span> (legally) unilaterally go and remake a game someone else holds the rights to and distribute that remake (neither for profit nor for free), not without sufficient modifications to pass "substantial similarity" tests (see previous link). This case is likely special, with Bitmap Brothers owning and/or able to acquire much of the rights of the original game (art, music, level design, concepts/mechanics, etc. -- whatever parts they actually reused in the remake), and <span class="bold">only</span> lacking the rights for the original source code. In that scenario it's perfectly legal to create new source code with same/similar functionality (see for example [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design]this), as long as that new source code is sufficiently original (as might ultimately be decided by a court). The new source code is then considered a new work worthy of its own copyright protection, the rights holders of the old source code have no say over what is done with the new source code, and the remake is free of any valid copyright claims by 3rd parties.

Technically they said they don't have <i>"the rights to the original source code"</i>. They may or may not have a copy of the original source code, but without the distribution rights that code doesn't do them much good.

Yes, actually, you're right and maybe I'm misunderstanding his role. xD

Porting? No. Modify source code? Maybe not. But what about file editing and/or hex editing, etc.? I always thought they were behind ripping of DRM from games, like throwing away those CD/DVD protections, activations, testing everything, patching up and more... I mean, apart from the obvious distribution after getting the rights, they were behind doing REAL WORK. So, are you sure they're only a >plain< distribution platform? Then again, you can be right about me and I'm still living a dream with my wrong understanding.

If is that so, why they would test the games in the first place if the publisher is the one who provides the material AND DO THE REAL WORK (Yeah, again) (I mean, hell, why I would care how the game comes if I'm just gonna distribute/sell), have a support service for the games they adquired, provide patches and take care of his material? And a lot more things that may I forget in the process.

Then again (sorry to be copious), you can be right and I'm so lost with this platform thinking GOG is working hard when in reality they are just a plain bunch of lazy chit-chatty people only taking care of what they sell (?)

The wishlist entry should not be marked as completed. The game requested on the wishlist is a different game than the game released here.

GoG is a storefront, nothing more. They sell DRM-Free games it provided to them by the developer/publisher in almost all cases. For many older games on here, there isn't DRM anyway so there isn't anything to remove unless it's something like the old manual key checks. They test the games to make sure they work with current operating systems because it is in their best interest to sell games that work with current systems.