Interesting news regarding the future of GOG

[MusicallyInspired]

http://www.gog.com/en/news/gog_coms_pla ... _some_news

If you've been checking out the news on gaming sites around the 'Net, you've very possibly heard that GOG has announced some exciting news about our plan for 2012 and beyond.

In particular, there are three main elements that make up our announced path for the next few years: adding newer games to the catalog, focusing on continuing our impressive growth, and bringing exclusive game releases to GOG.com. There are a few common questions we've seen about this, so before we link you to some of these discussions online, we thought we'd create a quick FAQ for you.

Q: Oh no! GOG.com is never going to sell another classic PC game again and my favorite game never made it here!

A: Don't worry, GOG.com will continue to release classic PC games. We are, however, looking to expand the availability window of games on GOG, so we won't focus only on PC classics anymore.

Q: Isn't your name Good Old Games? It seems kind of silly to sell new games on an old gaming website.

A: We've always been about our core values: DRM-free games, flat prices worldwide, and extra goodies included in our releases. So don't think about us as "Good Old Games"; think of us as "GOG.com", and perhaps you can work your way around that objection.

Q: I see your terrible plot! When you guys start selling games with DRM, I will leave the Internets in disgust and never return.

A: Don't worry: we're devoted to those three core values that we mentioned above, and we know that if we ever abandoned them we'd quickly become just another digital distributor. Our goal is to become the best alternative digital distributor out there: the guys who do it differently, who respect their customers, and who can help change what the industry is doing as a result.


If you have any other pressing questions about our future plans, feel free to ask them in the forum and we'll do our best to answer as many as we can. Keep in mind that we can't always answer questions you ask for a variety of reasons, so apologies in advance if you happen to ask one of those kinds of questions.

[DeadPoolX]

I don't see how they can sell new games. Just about every new game from a major developer and publisher comes with some form of DRM attached.

There's no way these publishers are going to say, "You don't want our DRM? Sure, no problem! It's gone." If it were that simple, we wouldn't have the whole DRM mess to begin with.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be thrilled if we could ditch DRM entirely. I just don't see publishers like Ubisoft, EA or Activision agreeing to this.

[MusicallyInspired]

It's definitely a bold step. But I welcome it and wish them luck. They do have The Witcher 2 on their site without DRM.

[OmerMor]

Maybe they're thinking about indie games, where it might be easier to convince the publisher to drop the DRM.

[DeadPoolX]

It's definitely a bold step. But I welcome it and wish them luck. They do have The Witcher 2 on their site without DRM.

Yeah, but that's a unique case. CD Projekt developed The Witcher series and also owns GOG. So obviously they can release their own game without DRM if they want.

Maybe they're thinking about indie games, where it might be easier to convince the publisher to drop the DRM.

You're probably right. It'd make more sense to go after Indie developers, particularly European ones, considering GOG is based in Poland.

[Rudy]

While I admire what they've accomplished so far, I haven't seen any new Sierra title re-release in quite a while, and i do believe i follow them up closely. I wish them the best, but IMO they're slowing down considerably on new releases (in general, not just Sierra), and old releases don't sell forever.

[Collector]

I haven't seen any new Sierra title re-release in quite a while, and i do believe i follow them up closely.

They haven't since I have added this agreement to the installer page:

These installers are free for personal use. By downloading
any of these installers you agree to not redistribute them
or use them for commercial use without prior permission.

All kidding aside, though, they have used some of my installers and other resources to prepare at least a few of their releases without so much as a mention of me.

[DeadPoolX]

All kidding aside, though, they have used some of my installers and other resources to prepare at least a few of their releases without so much as a mention of me.

Is there a way you could prove that? I don't mean to suggest I don't believe you; I know you've worked quite hard on these installers. I'm just wondering if there's some way you could say: "Hey, see this? I did that. You're welcome."

[Collector]

Perhaps nothing that would hold up in court, but the evidence in a couple of cases is very compelling. For one thing I format the RESOURCE.CFG in an unconventional way to make reading it easier at a glance and these same exact files have ended up in some of their releases. The games that I suspect that they have used my installers have exactly the same configurations, right down to the same after market drivers that few are aware of outside of those that tinker with the Sierra SCI games.

While it is not that hard to find UniSCI and only slightly harder to find the information for proper syntax to use it, the multi CD SCI games that GOG has released also have my configurations. The original GOG release of GK2 had many issues. It was most likely the Endroz 16-bit Windows version that they used and haphazardly added in the DOS files to run it in DOSBox. The RESOURCE.CFG that they used did not even come from the game and configured the game to use drivers not even included with the game. The fixed release had the exact same configuration and file/folder layout as my DOSBox installer had at the time. I have since modified it for the subtitles patch so you can turn the subtitles on and off.

It was most likely my installers that they used for the two Phantasmagoria games. The German installer for the first one, while it predates mine, is Win only with some fatal flaws. Also, Sierra released a patch to convert the Windows only game to DOS, but it does not run on any Windows since 9x. The StC installer for the 2nd one (windows only installer) is broken with UniSCI so could not have been distributed "disc-less" by GOG. Both have the same configuration as my installers had at the time.

The way that I do the installers now is a bit different. If they use my installers it will be more likely that they will miss removing something that would indisputably ID it as mine. This is not the reason that they are there, but they are not as obvious what I had added in the past. But so far, they have had no new Sierra family game releases that are so involved to set up that they would need to look beyond the games' original installers.

[DeadPoolX]

Well, this is what I've gathered from reading -- and responding to -- threads at GOG:

1. People are worried that GOG will suddenly "lose their focus" on older games.

2. Some people think that all the "13 year-old kiddie gamers" will come over if GOG begins selling new games.

3. For some reason or another, many seem to think that GOG can just grab any game they want, rip the DRM from it and sell it on their site.

[MusicallyInspired]

While I don't think the third point is true (or any of them), we can rest assured that they will never be selling games with DRM on their site. So whatever they DO sell will be free and clear. They don't grab any game they want, but they do partner with a lot of publishers and game developers to get these games out without DRM. I'm reserving hope that this is a good thing for the future of digital distribution.

[Collector]

Can't say about the first one. All we can do is wait and see. With the 2nd one I would think that that would depend on what kind of games GOG gets, but the "kiddies" are, in large part, the reason for some game forums' lack of civility, so it may be a legitimate concern. 3 probably comes from the same justification as "abandonware". I am not sure where the notion got started that copyright expires so quickly. Not even the original law's 17 years, let alone the current, which may as well be in perpetuity with all of the Mickey Mouse copyright extensions.

[DeadPoolX]

I am not sure where the notion got started that copyright expires so quickly. Not even the original law's 17 years, let alone the current, which may as well be in perpetuity with all of the Mickey Mouse copyright extensions.

I don't even think it's about copyright expiration. Lots and lots of people think any IP is up for grabs so long as they don't make a profit from it. I've also heard the "it's free advertising" line before and what these people don't understand is that if the parent company wanted that, they'd ask for it.

One guy I'm having a slight argument with on GOG seems to think that playing video games is a "core right" (whatever that means) and that DRM infringes upon that right.

I don't particularly like DRM, but video games aren't a right in any capacity. They're a privilege, like other forms of entertainment.

[Collector]

One guy I'm having a slight argument with on GOG seems to think that playing video games is a "core right" (whatever that means) and that DRM infringes upon that right.

What an idiot.

I understand the reasoning behind DRM, but think that it is, more often than not, counterproductive to the aim of protecting sales. Whatever prevented lost sales I'm sure is negligible when you take into account the bad PR or even what can amount to customer abuse that can lead to lost sales and an eroded customer base. It does not even slow down, let alone stop the pirates. Usually, it only adversely affects their legitimate customers. While I don't like it, the only ones that I get outraged about are are the ones like StarForce that reportedly caused physical damage to their customers' machines. If I find that a game that I legally bought has dangerous or irritating DRM, I'll just find the "workaround" for it.

[DeadPoolX]

One guy I'm having a slight argument with on GOG seems to think that playing video games is a "core right" (whatever that means) and that DRM infringes upon that right.

What an idiot.

Yeah, he also disagrees with me (rather rudely, I might add) that when you purchase software -- video game or otherwise -- you really only get a license to use it. You don't actually own it.

However, he claims that if he buys something (presumably it doesn't matter what that "something" is, judging by his response), he can do whatever he wants with it since it now belongs to him. That includes making as many copies of the game he wants and giving or selling it to whoever he wants.

I can understand his confusion and misconception, but he's just plain wrong. It's ironic that what he considers his "right" is what helped contribute to the rise and overall usage of DRM in the first place.

I gave up on the argument. He won't listen (or even consider anything I'm saying), so I'm simply wasting my time.