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

×
Some rather strong statements from Michal and Adam... great read (it's not often I enjoy articles as I'm fixing up little Polish grammatical mistakes... but this one... oh yeah.)
Good Old Games at Ars Technica
Post edited September 26, 2008 by Rostek
Ok, so let's help to spread the news: http://digg.com/gaming_news/Interview_Good_Old_Games_and_the_idiocy_of_DRM
Digg it, if you like GOG :)
Post edited September 26, 2008 by Balrog
i also gave it a thumbs up on stumble to help spread the story. was a great read thanks to the guys at GOG.
Great article. I'm sending it to everyone who can read english around right now :D
Lots of people wrote that with the $6-$10 price points, it's just not worth searching for pirated editions of those games. You don't know if they will run properly on your system, and you'll have a lot of other problems with pirated versions.

Well, I'd say anyone who was around in the DOS era or fooled around with getting older games to run would find no extra difficulty or problems with pirating the games. Myself included. GOG is worth supporting even so, simply for the "no DRM" aspect and the concepts behind it.
I am for GoG and absence of DRM, however,
the majority of these articles I see are blasting people who are for DRM by calling it absolutely stupid.
While I admit, it's not the best idea ever, these people may disassociate these terms to be calling them stupid.
I don't am really upset at these articles editors for making it appear as if GoG.com is blasting people who believe in DRM.
Maybe I'm a minority in that I'm willing to live with some DRM. I don't mind using things as they are intended to be used. It'd be great to go without it, but at the same time, it's not a big deal for me.
There are some instances where it would be an annoyance, like with retail steam games, those things cannot be resold once the key is activated.
If you get bored, or tired of a game, you cannot resell it. It's pain because you can with console games (other than downloadable distributions).
I would just like to see that these editors etc start writing their articles in a positive light without blaming DRM for all the troubles in the world, although it may be the cause, it's not going to win anyone over. It's negative attention for GoG..
avatar
Weclock: I am for GoG and absence of DRM, however,
the majority of these articles I see are blasting people who are for DRM by calling it absolutely stupid.
While I admit, it's not the best idea ever, these people may disassociate these terms to be calling them stupid.
I don't am really upset at these articles editors for making it appear as if GoG.com is blasting people who believe in DRM.
Maybe I'm a minority in that I'm willing to live with some DRM. I don't mind using things as they are intended to be used. It'd be great to go without it, but at the same time, it's not a big deal for me.
There are some instances where it would be an annoyance, like with retail steam games, those things cannot be resold once the key is activated.
If you get bored, or tired of a game, you cannot resell it. It's pain because you can with console games (other than downloadable distributions).
I would just like to see that these editors etc start writing their articles in a positive light without blaming DRM for all the troubles in the world, although it may be the cause, it's not going to win anyone over. It's negative attention for GoG..

Moderation in all things, huh? ;)
I see what you mean, though. GOG is walking a fine line by publicly calling these publishers "idiotic" for employing such harsh DRM measures and then trying to do business with possibly the same publishers to have access to their back catalog.
On the other hand, this is what a lot of consumers want to see. In a world of extremes, where you're either for or against, limited activations has just become too much for many people and it has dragged the whole process of all DRM into question.
GOG's stance is pretty bold. Is it going to win over publishers, in general? Not likely, at least not for the moment. But it will probably win over the consumers. And if GOG can prove their statement by showing that non-restrictive games, DRM or otherwise, can translate into more sales, then the publishers will have no choice but to concede that they were wrong and need to find something better than restrictive DRM.
Post edited September 26, 2008 by ethanpd
avatar
Weclock: I am for GoG and absence of DRM, however,
the majority of these articles I see are blasting people who are for DRM by calling it absolutely stupid.
While I admit, it's not the best idea ever, these people may disassociate these terms to be calling them stupid.
I don't am really upset at these articles editors for making it appear as if GoG.com is blasting people who believe in DRM.
Maybe I'm a minority in that I'm willing to live with some DRM. I don't mind using things as they are intended to be used. It'd be great to go without it, but at the same time, it's not a big deal for me.
There are some instances where it would be an annoyance, like with retail steam games, those things cannot be resold once the key is activated.
If you get bored, or tired of a game, you cannot resell it. It's pain because you can with console games (other than downloadable distributions).
I would just like to see that these editors etc start writing their articles in a positive light without blaming DRM for all the troubles in the world, although it may be the cause, it's not going to win anyone over. It's negative attention for GoG..
avatar
ethanpd: Moderation in all things, huh? ;)
I see what you mean, though. GOG is walking a fine line by publicly calling these publishers "idiotic" for employing such harsh DRM measures and then trying to do business with possibly the same publishers to have access to their back catalog.
On the other hand, this is what a lot of consumers want to see. In a world of extremes, where you're either for or against, limited activations has just become too much for many people and it has dragged the whole process of all DRM into question.
GOG's stance is pretty bold. Is it going to win over publishers, in general? Not likely, at least not for the moment. But it will probably win over the consumers. And if GOG can prove their statement by showing that non-restrictive games, DRM or otherwise, can translate into more sales, then the publishers will have no choice but to concede that they were wrong and need to find something better than restrictive DRM.

good point.