I never said anything about gOg closing, that is something completely different....

and that guarantee is only worth the value gOg put into it themselves. And no, you are not legally obliged (wrong ord here?) to refund it. gOg can make any changes to their products, it is in the ToS. And not to forget, that ToS can be changed at any time as well

edit - it basically bils down to a matter of trust. You do not trust EGS as much as you trust gOg, but that is only you personally, Legally and all other whatnots - there is no difference here. Yes, gOg must have a good reason to introduce DRM, but also so far there has been many DRM free games on EGS thag have staid DRM free through many updates. A

You were talking about GOG being bought by Epic (and therefore DRM-free going bye-bye). Still my argument stands. The probability if this is by far not as high as a game getting DRM'd again after an update.

You are wrong. These are parts of the contract that were crucual to me as a buyer - of course I would be able to refund. TOS are woth nothing if they aren't legally binding and not everything in a TOS is legally binding.

No, it is a matter of probability but since it seems as if you don't don't want to understand this, I am stopping this discussion here from my side.

imo gog should spend their resources on drm free only, they look like hypocrites using money and resources on drm games.

How about a goal of having parity between GALAXY releases and the offline installers? Most of us know that this isn't happening on a constant. Kinda makes dealing with the GOG.COM store to be a joke when we don't even get the most up to date installers unlike GALAXY.

Here is a good example, Postal 4 for offline installers is 0.2.1 currently. With Running with Scissors issuing out patch notes for 0.2.0.2, which was released on GALAXY on 9th of this month. Normally the offline installer would of showed up at the very least on Wednesday or Thursday of this last week.

https://www.gog.com/forum/postal_4_no_regerts/updates_and_hot_fixes_thread_1/post23

Same thing happened with Ion Fury until a stink was made and then GOG finally got the update issued (which took over a month I have to add). A couple of days hiccup, fine. A few weeks to a month is way too much.

I know that there are quite a few more games such as this. It has been a running issue for quite a few titles, some of which haven't had updates for at least a year. Titles in which mrkgnao has mentioned in a post a little while ago. How is it acceptable that there are games updated on GALAXY where we are still waiting on those same updates for the offline installers?

This doesn't even touch the issues of parity of some games such as on Steam with the versions released on GOG. However, that is an entirely different issue between GOG and the publishers of those numerous titles, unlike what is going on here.

Can someone within GOG please keep better track over game updates and make sure that the offline installers get the same treatment as the ones downloaded through GALAXY? Or is that too much to ask that GOG's customers get what they pay for?

The more time passes, the worse it's gonna get for all involved, so please, some answers soon would be appreciated.

I very much agree, it would be nice if GOG would actually do something concerning answering the questions and concerns that many have raised in this thread and elsewhere. Truthfully, it really doesn't feel like much has changed around here. Just because a few blues are limitedly posting doesn't mean that things are being accomplished. GOG can say that they are going to answer questions and be more active within the community, but it is another thing entirely for them to stick to their word and actually do it.

I'm pretty confident that the releases you mention were negotiated and agreed upon quite some time ago, and before the idea of this in-GOG_Galaxy store went live. The fact that we got them isn't proof of how the DRM-free, and with standalone installers, releases are going to be affected once said store gets populated with more titles.

So while it's nice to finally see GOG acknowledge this thread, the questions and concerns are still in dire need of actual answers.


The way this in-GOG_Galaxy store is working is rather unclear, with GOG's support service and refund policy attached to it making things more confusing. Any chance GOG's going to share how exactly this works?


And here's the statement about improved communication coming soon™. Phew!


GOG's been listening to our feedback since Sep 2014, so there's that.

I'm not sure if it was this thread or another but I owe you an (at a minimum) "acknowledgement" for long response you wrote to me. I don't remember exactly what I said (relating to Galaxy selling Epic titles) but you brought up valid points I wasn't thinking of at the time (about the No Man's Sky situation I wasn't thinking of). I'm sure we'll continue to disagree somewhat on whether some of the things GOG is doing are good or bad (or in-between of course), but I did want to mention this.

Cheers. It's always good to try to see both sides of the coin, whichever side we step on more often. Thanks again.

Well said, InkPanther.

In the long run, I'm convinced this move will undermine all the hard work put into the DRM-free movement thus eradicating the need to maintain a DRM-free store and replacing it with GALAXY: the store/app/client/thingamabob to be ruled by all clients.

I'm tired of all these corporate non-answers that only in a roundabout way attempt to address the real issue at hand (by waving a wooden stick and uttering the magic phrase: As always the choice is yours™). And I really don't think it's fair of the higher-ups to let their hard-working support team handle all the criticism. They're obviously doing the best they can with the meagre material at hand. The joke is not on them.

In short, keep diggin', GOG, we can still see you... ;(

Indeed. It's getting quite tiresome, to put it mildly. But I guess that's the point: boring us into uncaring submission.

Still waiting for those questions to be addressed...

Nothing like a little misdirection to make people forget, a freebie here, high profile release there and boom issue forgotten. No need to answer because who is going to hold their feet to the fire afterwards? Which is a little funny because one would expect a fire, at least with all the smoke that the blues have been blowing up our collective asses as of late.

I do have a great question though, how the hell does the person in charge of their PR still have a job? Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned, but it seemed to me that if you didn't do your job an employer wouldn't have a use for you.

Time to get someone new for the job GOG, they obviously don't seem to want to do what they have been hired for.

This is wildly off-topic but I felt like addressing this reply.

You're not going to get far with an argument by calling reasonable points 'delusion'. No one was speaking about how long any medium has been available---not to mention I literally stated in the short post that Blu-Ray discs are currently used for all _console_ releases (due naturally to the fact consoles came with in-built BD optical drives and publishers had no choice for physical distribution, avoiding the chicken and egg scenario I described for PC).

The part you quote was referring to the valid point raised by many on this topic that for PC distribution of games the use of optical discs by users has dwindled enough and an adequate adoption of higher capacity optical formats hasn't occurred that it quite obviously hasn't been in serious consideration by game publishers. I was lamenting a lack more vocal advocacy and user persuasion earlier.

One can wax lyrical about the benefits of BD and its capacity benefits but given the actual reality of the market it's not 'delusion' to accurately assess the situation as 'the ship has sailed' in dramatically changing PC user adoption by this point, particularly seeing how online distribution has become virtually the de facto method of PC game distribution for around a _decade_.

I know specifically in the case of BDXL for pressings it is more expensive to produce and existing manufacturing isn't geared for it (though standard BD would be cheaper than USB which was the only point about price I had even made in the post you're responding to). There have been discussions about this on the Blu-Ray.com forums. Master discs used for commercial pressing aren't like consumer-burnable discs though. It took a long while for the manufacturing yields of the former for BDXL to even be feasible.

Meanwhile I was looking at burnable BDXL RWs for my own use (I own two BDXL drives) and the reviews of even ones from Sony are very middling. A common issue was high failure rates.

It's been around 15 years since standard Blu-Ray debuted and from my experience they're just as affordable as DVDs ever were. If anything it's Ultra HD BD that is priced higher but I'm personally not that fussed since it's the best consumer distribution format for films we have currently (and there are sales where films can even be as low as $10, tell me that's not DVD-level pricing).

Apple never supported Blu-Ray on their PCs. Windows never supported playback of Blu-Ray films natively. Samsung recently pulled out of manufacturing Blu-Ray players entirely---they themselves pointing to alternatives such as streaming as being the basis for the decision. There are other factors you're ignoring here but it's crystal clear that PC users face more barriers to adoption than console users who don't even have to think about it.

And despite acknowledging all that I'd still rather have PC physical releases come on BD as I outlined in my original post :p

*
You will have to excuse me but GOG has char message length limit.
So I will split my response in half.
Please don't respond until I post both.

P 1/2
*

My point (by calling your argument delusion) was that your argument was TOO DARN BROAD (you wrote it in such a way that anybody could read it as "the ENTIRE BD ship has sailed" and not "it's not feasible for PC distribution at this point anymore").

You weren't. You started going all "this tech is at a deathbed" while missing crucial point. Because whenever somebody starts such claims they should at least acknowledge how long the tech in question was available to GENERAL PUBLIC.
So I brought that point since it's VERY relevant. No need to get salty about it.

Ah yes... "all"...
As in PS3 / PS4 / XONE / PS5 / X-whatever ?
There are consoles outside of that area. SUCH AS SWITCH (and size is NOT THAT relevant. There are BD mini discs so IF Nintendo would want to they could make PSP-like console).

If you by any chance THINK that they have this type of drive ONLY BECAUSE specificly of FILM releases then you are wrong. Just saying.

Look, I don't feel like writing a book here. It's far more complicated than you imply.
Games are being released on physical media on consoles because consoles are treated differently in terms of how consumers look at them and treat them - technically PS4 is ALMOST a computer on a hardware level (let's not dwelve into details WHY it's NOT entirely a computer, such as lack of certain technical functions, signals, clock refs and such) - but consumers don't look at it like that - they just want to sit and play without any "computer like hassle" (so they don't want to wait for download either) - so THAT'S WHY physical media releases are CONVENIENT.
Even tho (and pay attention to this point) RTM game releases EVEN ON CONSOLES require day 1 patches most of the time.
But it's still better to download 20 GiB instead of 90 GiB. It's easier for the consumer, it's less load on servers and (of questionable quality) global network infrastructure. It's literally cheaper to produce say few milion discs instead of maintaining more server availability.

This specific problem is an endless feedback loop with close to nobody willing to break free of it.
Because if BD discs would be in use for PC releases then digital distribution would not be THAT relevant.
If you still have doubts then dig out physical / digital sales ratios for PS4 / XONE gen consoles (for the ENTIRE world, not just mesely one continent you live on, please).
The only real deal that's stopping companies from moving to BD releases on PC NOW is not so broad adoption of BD DRIVES on PC.
WHY?
Because coincidentially consoles started being used instead of set top boxes and standalone players and they just happen to have BD drives. So not so many people connect their computers to their TVs SPECIFICLY FOR BD anymore.
That problem would be far less effective tho if BD FILM releases would be CHEAPER (IN THE WORLD) - see my original response.
And btw, "archival consumers" are going to have BD drives anyway, so they are not relevant.
It's just that there is not much incentive atm for average consumer to have BD drive SPECIFICLY in PC.

LTH type can be produced about just as cheap and on basically same machinery as DVD (price per GiB, NOT per disc unit, also it applies to BD 25 AND BD 50, BD 100 and BD XL still have price markup).
HTL cannot be.
HTL is the original type of BD. LTH came later and is of lower quality and longetivity. Since it can be manufactured on same gear as DVD it is about same price to manufacture. End of the story.

You are confusing types of discs with grades.
Master disc is a type used like a printing matrix. As a "source" disc from which a factory runs a "copy" run (AKA "manufacturing"). It's like a MASTER CPU wafer at Global Foundries manufacturing plant. It's a source, "gold" copy, a matrix. That's what MASTER means.
What you are referring to are grades. Like FILM and game releases are on different grade of disc than recordable discs.
Archival grade is one entirely different world separate from both.

* P 2/2 *

The BDXL is NOT a standard for a goldmaster disk type.
It's just a standard for capacity / layers / technological aspects.
It's different from BD 100 in some ways and that's why it has a separate denotifier.

The brand by itself really means NOTHING. Doesn't matter if it's Sony, TDK or others. Most of companies which have optical media in their portfolio do not (partially or entirely) manufacture them themselves.
Both TDK and Sony (among others) outsource production to MANY different companies (examples being: Maxell, CMC, Ritek) and the corresponding batches vary A LOT in quality.

If you care about REAL quality you need to get Japanese MANUFACTURED discs. They ARE *REALLY* high quality.
( obviously, it's a kindergarten level advice to avoid LTH type discs AT ALL COST, you SHOULD ALREADY KNOW IT, but if you don't, then here you have it )
Just beware tho:
1.Some of Japanese companies producing those shifted manufacturing to off shore companies (like in Taiwan). You need to AVOID THESE AT ALL COST (specificly these batches, NOT the companies). Example being Verbatim / CMC (it REALLY pissed me off when they did that and I'm pretty sure A LOT of enterprise consumers in Japan got pissed too) moved "out of Japan" with production some time ago.
You need to look SPECIFICLY for ones with 100% certainty of being PRODUCED in JAPAN.
So even after obtainment you need to test the obtained batch for exact manufacteur debug data and autenticity (there may be NO visual difference between Taiwan and Japan based batch but the debug data WILL differ).

2.The BDXL has quite a markup of price compared to BD 100. ESPECIALLY the RW type. Unless you specificly need 128 GiB UNFORMATTED capacity (after formatting it would be probably around 119 GiB) OR you aim for very few technical differences between those then you generally probably should stay away from those.
Get BD 100. It's both cheaper (usually) and more easily available.
Also unless you need >90 GiB space you should generally go for like BD 50 GiB or BD 25 as they are STILL cheaper per GiB (at least in Europe).

You know, world and film distribution resolves around NOT ONLY US.
Please at least TRY to see a bigger picture.
If in US BD and DVD film releases cost about the same, good for you.
But it DOESN'T look like that in the rest of the world.
In Europe it definitely isn't like that.

I can give you specific examples for Poland since I heavily researched this market for various reasons over the years.

Price of an average DVD release: 25 PLN (for one singular film of average length, may sometimes contain price premium for "popular blockbuster" or other reasons), sale low 5 PLN, sale median probably around 15 PLN.
Price of an average BD release: 50 PLN and up (can be for example 75 PLN), on sales you almost never find them for less than 20 PLN.
Prices for anime releases (if they even show up) are absolute abomination every single time.
Price for a film cinema ticket 20 - 30 PLN (sometimes more).

Price for a PC SATA DVD 5,25 drive - 55 - 70 PLN.
Price for PC SATA BD 5,25 drive - around 300 to 400 PLN (depends on model, and because of the virus prices have gone slightly up). Sales? You wish. I am yet to see one.
And people in that country don't have so high wages like in US.

Insert "excuse me W T F" meme here.
PC is a marketing term for IBM Personal Computer and it's clones (it's commonly used to name Windows computers).
Just use word "computer" or be precise and say "mac" ( "totally not an overpriced locked-down-garden-type hardware for masochists" /s ).

Blame Apple and Microsoft.
World doesn't end on them. There is a TON of people using other systems.
And playing BD on Linux is no problem.
Also nobody (including Microsoft) is forcing you to use their (<< or Apple) crappy OS bundled software.

If you mean PC drives then that company never was any authority in that market. Samsung isn't Pioneer or Teac.
If you mean standalone TV connected players - yes - because more people have consoles nowadays and not much people are therefore not so interested in standalone players (because current gen consoles generally include BD drives).
But that really doesn't mean anything for the industry. It just means that that specific niche (SPECIFICLY standalone BD players) is just now MUCH smaller due to lowered demand (DUE TO CONSOLES CONTAINING RELATED DRIVES).

Hope you understand my points better now and you are now more educated ;)
Peace.
L.