I used to buy everything on Steam and the same game, if available, on GOG as preservation – as a backup I don't need a licence or internet connection and I could play even in ten years a head, no matter what happens to any company, as long as I have a operating and working PC.

But paying extra just for back up, just for an unlikely event, was too much since my financial situations has changed (I quit my job and started to study, full time).

Now, I don't care about Steam achievements or trading cards. I just buy wherever it's cheaper and I tend to favor GOG in last couple of weeks, because a) I have my back up copy and the game is preserved forever (as long as my two back up HDDs last) and b) I still can play it and doesn't matter anymore to me on which platform I play since I already need both because I have games only on GOG, and others only on Steam.

Right now I'm quite happy with the practical use of Steam. Of course, purchasing a licence is not what we were used to do back in the days. Then again, it comes with many advantages, and right now everything works like a charm. Theoretically, this *could* change over night. But it's unlikely and I don't even remember when I last had any problem with Steam.

So yeah, as of this moment, no reason for boycotting this service for me.

Thanks for indulging my questions and letting me drag you back. Bye!

I think you've misunderstand was you've been buying.
You've always bought a licence for a game. All software is licenced, whether on disc, from Steam or from GoG.

The difference is with Steam as well as the license you get a subscription. Its the subscription that lets you access the Steam download, or more importantly access the DRM validation.

Valve can not revoke your licences (only the publisher), but the have total control over the subscription and can cancel or alter that at any time.

I know that software is licenced, but it's just terminology in my case. Whether it's just a licence or not, I have a physical product (or back up) I can use without any other authority to deny it (apart from my computer not working). What I meant by my post should be clear, nevertheless. If it wasn't: when I said "licence" I also meant what you call "subscription".

I guess you guys know what I mean... Steam games can be revoked, can stop working when there's no connection to the server or Valve shuts down its service. GOG games, and those I have on disc, won't stop working.

Sorry I get very tetchy over the terminology. To me a licence is an asset, it disturbs me how for consumer products it become so disposable.

Not a complete boycott, no. Not counting the free indie shovelware games and the Humble Bundle stuff (back when they were still "indie" too) I think I have about 6 "AAA" and "AA" games; I won't buy anything on steam unless it's a GOTY for $4.99 or less. If I'm just renting the game (which is what DRM boils down to) then I'm not going to pay full price, I'm going to pay the rental fee.

Honestly, I don't think I'm missing too much these days.

This

(+1 btw)

whatever the figure, lets run with 8%. That is 8% of steams market that is up for grabs for people like Gog. 8% of steam is a viable financial incentive.

People need to seriously realise that voting with your wallet is the only power you have against anti-consumer practices.

Now I will go back to a point I previously mentioned regarding a devs financial decision to move to a steam only exclusive release. As mentioned, this steam exclusive (I can assure you opponents of this idea had every kind of bullshit thrown their way as to why this could not be achieved, including remarks that steamworks functionality prevented releases via other platforms). Yet the game is now released here- and whilst the game was universally panned from the outset- it is still released years later here on Gog.

There is a very important lesson to be learned here- the dev considered steam for maximum sales (and basically said fuck you to anyone who was not happy with this model). The game is now here on Gog for one reason only- to maximise revenue to an untapped market in order to help back their latest upcoming project. And you know what? You would be living in a dream world if you thought that product would be made available to Gog at launch. They would of course consider sulking back to Gog a few years down the line when their next steam only IP is in the pipeline.

Games will come to Gog if you wait, and you should especially consider this ruthless money grab route by devs.

Vote with your wallet.

Edit: for posperity

https://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=333164

I'm confused about what you're recommending. Reward them by purchasing it anyway when they finally decide to release here or vote against purchasing it because they choose to ignore this route for so long?

I'm assuming the first since that's the only way incentive remains for people to release on GOG but realistically it also reinforces that it's ok to do it that way.

It is not my intention to confuse.

Personally speaking, I boycotted this dev as soon as they made their steam exclusive intention clear.

I, personally speaking again, continue to boycott their release of ANY title touted as steam exclusive and subsequently released here. That is my personal war only. This will continue until I see a simultaneous Gog release announced.

My overall point remains the same- there is nothing wrong with boycotting steam, people should not be judged harshly for boycotting steam and that boycotting steam is a real and very effective means of changing behaviour. If steam do not recognise it, other companies will.

I've been avoiding buying games from them for the past year or so, only buying Huniepop in the last year with the absolute last of my steam wallet. Valve just acts too unethically as a company for me to support, as well as allowing DRM on their platform. GoG on the other hand, despite a few problems, kicks the heck out of them. Its also nice to browse GoG's library without having to sift throujgh the literal mountains of shovelware that Steam has, but that's more a personal preference.

If a good game comes to Steam, I will strongly hesitate to buy it, if not not buy it outright and wait for an eventual GoG release or something. It really is frustrating GoG doesn't get more releases though, especially for niche games and japanese games.

No. The explanation is simple:

1-There are many games that are added to steam and that are not sold in gog because the developers do not want.

2-There are many games that are added to steam and not sold in gog because gog rejects them for belonging to a certain genre such as sports games in many cases.

3-There are many users that we like the achievements, profiles ... that have support in steam but that in gog many developers do not want to add even though gog galaxy is optional.

4-There are companies that do not buy a game for not respecting the users of gog.

No. Unless you use the Galaxy client to launch the game, which I don't do.

So dun dun dun: not like Steam. Surely you realize the difference?

So your saying you haven't purchased a GoG game?
Funny cause your profile says you have achievements in the game Hard west you've played 13h 38 m
and you played Expeditions: conquistador with 36m in game. so YES your being tracked, even if it's outdated information.

Here.

I haven't bought a Steam game since HL2 and I never will.

Requiring an online connection to play a game is inexcusable.

Don't boycott, but buy opt for GOG games if option is available.