So all you're really saying is that you'll only buy games when they're below a certain price? Apart from a few exceptions I generally do the same. But I don't feel the need to soapbox about it.

for example your pardon?

dont let me say what i didnt. i agree with u about DRM, but how can u consider "DRM" the stupid password check of games from 80's? in that case, i would not modify the code.

me too, GOG is my only digital distributor and i always do the best to promote it...
anyway, they have to improve the relations with their loyal customers in term of clarity..

what happened exactly about the lack of EA games expansions?????
what happened exactly about the probably bugged version of King's Bounty????
what about the use of cracked exe's from the "scene" and without a notice???
what about the exe's recognized as threat by so many AV programs (if false positives, did they try to contact the AV companies to fix the issue)??
why sell as stand-alone game, something that was born as an expansion and required the original (ie SpellForce 2)?

inside a pub, soccer debates are in the air..

as said, i dont like DRM...

$60 for a game? good for u!
yes, it's not too bad to not pay in € ;)

may u mention a very game without a "revision"?

as said, thoughts of mine.

oops! ;)

try to read it again...
yes, u are right, they are here because they are waiting for the re-release here of the very games they are playing right now.

never thought or said.

the only true doubt i have about this, is the prices of these so called newer drm free games, will they be fitted into the current 5.99 or 9.99 or will it be more ?

There is some blue text around here that says $ 13.99 and $ 16.99, iirc.

please ask it in the official thread, not here..

But how can you make that comparison? Has Daikatana become an objectively better game since it's been released? Will Duke Nukem Forever become a better game in five or ten years' time? There's a documented and scientifically studied process by which wine does become better with aging, but no such process applies for games. If a game suffered from poor design, bad voice acting, and balancing issues, those are problems that a game will suffer for the rest of its lifespan, regardless of how old it is. MoO3 with its mod support is the exception, but only a handful of games have been in the unique position that MoO3 has found itself in. It's certainly not the rule.

it is a metaphor...., dont u?....
games get better by patches and a more suitable (subjective) price.
and to make this alchemy to work, time must pass!.....

Patches aren't going to fix fundamentally flawed issues in the game's execution. Duke Nukem Forever is a great example of this. Gearbox's patch which removed the game's original two-weapon limit was a band-aid solution that didn't solve the game's fundamentally flawed issues. Oh, and it wasn't brought to consoles either.

Apart from some developers like Blizzard (pre-WoW/Activision buyout), or other isolated cases like the TV voice pack for ST:EF, patches generally don't do much to make a game objectively better in terms of fundamental game design.

In other words, if a game is fundamentally broken upon release, you can't count on patches to make it better.

No they don't. In most cases, a patch can only hope to fix problems with a game that are technical in nature; or gameplay issues that don't require drastic reworking of the game's code or art assets. And then consider the times where patches have made a game worse due to added bugs or questionable gameplay changes; the NGE and CU "upgrades" for Star Wars Galaxies comes to mind here.

As for price, that may only get worse with a game's age; consider Fallout, Fallout 2, Planescape: Torment or FreeSpace/FreeSpace 2, all of which could generally only be had for grossly inflated prices on eBay. Availability on GOG solved that problem for all of those games, but there are plenty more for which this issues still exists, and may never be solved, like System Shock and System Shock 2.

Let me quote what you said: "i dont want to remark too much the DRM-free policy, because, as i already said at the beginning of this thread, i consider it right with regard to any kind of online check system, but undue about any kind of offline check system (ie passwords). "

So, you're fine with DRM (online verification the very definition of DRM), unless you've made a grammar error that gives that quote the opposite meaning that you intended. You hate CD keys (which are not technically DRM, i.e. no third party is managing your ability to use the software, if you have a valid CD key and a copy of the software it will always work). Don't try and spin that as you saying "I hate DRM". You just said you were fine with it.

Yes, I can say "a lot of us" because I've spoken over time to many members of this community and they've expressed the sentiment I'm relating. I did not say "all of us" or "we" as you seem to prefer. I made no statement as to the whole of the GOG userbase, I simply gave you a counter example to your statement which included all GOG users (because you used "we") and said, no, here's some counter examples. You're statements about all community members not liking new games, not being willing to pay for new games, and that we didn't care about GOG's "no-DRM" stance, were all fundamentally bullshit. I only need one counter example to prove it, but since I know what others have related to me I can say there's a lot more than me.

Oh boo hoo, I can pay 60 USD for a game and not euros. Well, you bitched about $30-40. I don't know what the fuck dollar you were referring to, but 60 USD is more than 30-40 of any dollar currency on the world market.

You seriously can't find any new releases that are good out of the box? I guess that's not surprising since you claim to hate new games, but I have a XBox Live library full of games and shelf of XBox 360 games that work just fine and have no patches, old XBox 360 games often only have a patch to add Kinect integration and that's it. There were plenty of older games that were unplayable on launch, holy crap, some formatted your hard drive due to bugs, some games couldn't be won, some games took 5 minutes to load a saved game... you know what's funny about a lot of those? Some of them are on GOG. But just because some old games launched as bug-ridden messes doesn't mean they all did, and the same holds true today.

Look, I don't really care what you do and don't like. The only reason anyone's debating you at all is you keep misrepresenting your views for all user's views when in reality there's a wide-variety of viewpoints here. Quit saying "we" and start saying "I" and then everyone will be happy to let you say whatever the hell you want. As long as you keep saying "we" or "all GOG users" and the like, we're going to keep pointing out that you're arguments are bullshit when applied to the whole community, and probably bullshit when you apply it to most.

What you think the last survey GOG did that specifically asked about this came back "90% of GOG users really hate the idea of GOG carrying new games at all" and GOG immediately said "Yep, 90% of our users hate it, let's do that!"?
The Witcher 2 isn't that price point either. As someone else said, they were thinking of new price points. I don't think you'll get Arkham City for 9.99 in the first year after release (though I'd expect it'd eventually end up at that price).

GOG has dropped the price of several of their catalog items in the past, even popular items. I suspect they'll be working out a contract for price decreases over time on all newer titles as they add them.

Well, I doubt anyone that isn't wealthy would pay 40$+ dollars for a game that is several years old, no matter how good the game was.

I guess they could contractualize (no, it's not a word) it to prevent the "either it sells for 40$+ or it doesn't sell" bs, but I think that at least 95% of rights owners will want to lower the price when they see that it doesn't sell.

I'm not sure if you two understand the phrase the same way.

If "aging like wine" means that games don't get worse with time (with the exception of maybe games where graphics and presentation were the main selling point), I agree with you.

If the phrase is supposed to mean that games somehow magically get better over time, then I agree with Navagon (ie., normally they don't, even though I may prefer getting a 2011 game in 2014 for 1/4 the price, with all DLC and fixes included, when my PC is fast enough to play it properly).

To me the true game classics are like good books, ie. they are just as good today as they were years ago. Not worse, not better. I'm happily surprised how much enjoyment such old games like Magic Carpet and Dune 2000 have provided me this year, even if they don't look as good on a 42" HDTV as Uncharted 3.

Well, diehard grognards will. Take a look at www.matrixgames.com, but be sure your heart can take the sticker shock on some of those titles.

Edit: however, part of the draw of GOG is the pricing, and I suppose there is a significant number of us for whom that is a primary reason to get our games here. I, for one, love the fact that I can get from four to fifteen games for the price of a new top-tier title.

is it clearer for u now?...

misunderstood even here. i said "good for u!", if u can afford to buy games at USD 60.
then i said that for us europeans it is a good deal to buy in USD instead of EUR...

i dont hate new games (because in a couple of years they become old too), but simply i would have tons of old games to play and finish before them, if i would find the time.....