It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Cool to see RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 back here. :)
avatar
timppu: I can only speak for myself and not "most GOG's customers", but I was drawn to GOG mainly due to their DRM-free releases, not that they are selling MS-DOS era "abandonware".

It was the news of DRM-free The Witcher 2 (and the first Witcher) game that made me take GOG seriously, before it it was more like "Oh ok, a site where I can legally buy "abandonware" MS-DOS games, cool I guess...". My excitement was hindered also by the fact that back then it seemed most of the notable old classics GOG was offering I already had as retail versions, I still have a collection of hundreds of retail PC games (which is closer and closer of being thrown to trash), so buying them from GOG mainly meant buying them a second time in order to get a digital version without copy protection.
+1.
I concur that the main drawcard for me was the ability to buy a digital copy of some games I had already bought, including most of the games for which I had physical copies at the time, as well as those I thought I would never play again because I no longer have the firmware.
The close affiliation with CD Prjojekt RED that has yielded the most notable AAA games for Gog was a secondary consideration. (I haven't played past the intro of The Witcher II, for instance, since I was happier with the Aurora engine modification that the first game was since I found it to be a near-perfect mouse-only interface, meaning it can be played one-handed.)
avatar
timppu: Also, I can't really say GOG has become "lame" in my eyes over the years. Yes its game selection is very limited when it comes to especially those semi-new AAA releases (and many interesting indie games don't come here either, I'm hoping for Kingmakers to come here too at some point)... but I feel it is still the best option when it comes to DRM-free stores. Even if the store died somewhere in the future, I'd still have all my GOG games. Can't say the same for my Steam or Epic games.
Perhaps the problem is that people are exposed to games in their Interweb habits and then look to see if Gog has them. I come to Gog and look to see what is available here and choose whatever I feel suits me best at the time. I have no need nor desire to play "everything" and if I miss a few genuinely good games I'm not bovvered. (Apologies to Catherine Tate.)

avatar
UnashamedWeeb: But focusing on the client is the wrong path IMO.
avatar
Timboli: Yep, weakens their stance on DRM-Free for one thing. Misdirects many customers to not bother backing their games up, for another. And until a game is backed up locally, it isn't truly DRM-Free.

But no doubt it can be a big draw card to those who want a client, who may be the majority of GOG's customers now. So I can kind of understand why they went that route. I just don't agree with the way they did it, and continue to do it. And it's not just about customers and Galaxy either, it is also about Galaxy and game providers.

Offline Installers and backing up have now been relegated to the back set.
+1
It seems people are willing and eager to spend more to have less hassles: give them a single button to press that installs and configures their timesink so that they needn't concern themselves with all that mucky command-line legerdemain. Who cares if it's not perfectly optimized, as long as they can complain when it doesn't work out of the box? Apple has built a three-trillion dollar company by giving people convenience at eye-watering expense.