The GOG team have confirmed in a new update on their plans for the store, and it seems they will continue to note that their Galaxy client is optional.
It comes at an interesting time, since there was a bit of an issue with the HITMAN release that ended up being pulled down since it required online to do a lot and unlock a lot of things. GOG is well-known as the DRM-free store, and this isn't exactly changing but they're tweaking what they mean by it.
They talk a little about how things have changed, and that some "of the most infamous DRMs of the past are thankfully long gone, it doesn’t mean the constraints are fully gone". It is a complex thing, as they say, as so many games now offer online features even for single-player titles, so GOG has more of a plan to handle them now.
Here's the three main points they will stick to:
1. The single-player mode has to be accessible offline.
2. Games you bought and downloaded can never be taken from you or altered against your will.
3. The GOG GALAXY client is and will remain optional for accessing single-player offline mode.
Point number 3 is an interesting one, as it's only optional for single-player. There are already a few games that use the Galaxy API for multiplayer instead of a standalone solution.
They also said they will continue to "make games compatible with future OSs and available for you for years to come".
When it comes to multiplayer "games with those features belong on GOG", although they will be updating the GOG store to let you more easily discover them and add more info to store pages to help better inform potential buyers.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
All posts need to follow our rules. For users logged in: please hit the Report Flag icon on any post that breaks the rules or contains illegal / harmful content. Guest readers can email us for any issues.
Good news everyone! We will continue to make games compatible with future OSs and available for you for years to come.*
*
*
Spoiler, click me
Unless the OS is Linux of course, then we will continue to ignore you, fart in your general direction and revel in the tears of the several Linux gamers on the planet lolololoLLOLOLOL!!!!!11one
18 Likes, Who?
I can't help feeling point number 1 doesn't do much to clear things up.
Wouldn't the release of Hitman (2016) on GOG be able to tick that box? Single player mode was accessible offline. Just not all of it. I would have given them more credit for including the word 'fully'. Or even 'fully*' with some allowable *-caveats.
Last edited by brokkr on 18 March 2022 at 10:46 am UTC
Wouldn't the release of Hitman (2016) on GOG be able to tick that box? Single player mode was accessible offline. Just not all of it. I would have given them more credit for including the word 'fully'. Or even 'fully*' with some allowable *-caveats.
Last edited by brokkr on 18 March 2022 at 10:46 am UTC
5 Likes, Who?
I can't help feeling point number 1 doesn't do much to clear things up.I think that's the point of what they're saying, so stuff like HITMAN would now be allowed on.
Wouldn't the release of Hitman (2016) on GOG be able to tick that box? Single player mode was accessible offline. Just not all of it. I would have given them more credit for including the word 'fully'. Or even 'fully*' with some allowable *-caveats.
2 Likes, Who?
I can't help feeling point number 1 doesn't do much to clear things up.I think that's the point of what they're saying, so stuff like HITMAN would now be allowed on.
Wouldn't the release of Hitman (2016) on GOG be able to tick that box? Single player mode was accessible offline. Just not all of it. I would have given them more credit for including the word 'fully'. Or even 'fully*' with some allowable *-caveats.
Ah, I see. I thought they were renewing their vows, not negotiating an open marriage
14 Likes, Who?
Offline mode for AAA titles is pretty much dead by now, since publishers want to milk anything with the label "game" in it. Is simply out of GOG hands. If they want to survive, they had to bend over for the publishers demands or not have a game to sell.
0 Likes
Good news everyone! We will continue to make games compatible with future OSs and available for you for years to come.*
*Spoiler, click me
Unless the OS is Linux of course, then we will continue to ignore you, fart in your general direction and revel in the tears of the several Linux gamers on the planet lolololoLLOLOLOL!!!!!11one
Obviously Linux is not a *future* OS :D
3 Likes, Who?
Mountain Man Mar 18, 2022
Seems like every gaming company that champions DRM free eventually caves at some point. I remember Stardock's Brad Wardell and his infamous "Gamers Bill of Rights" that he never talks about any more, mostly because he almost immediately violated it when Sins of a Solar Empire was released in a crippled state requiring users to sign up at Stardock's website with a valid CD key so they could download the day one patch. There's just too much pressure on the industry to keep games locked down despite the fact that DRM has done nothing to curb piracy in the slightest and only serves to inconvenience the honest paying customer.
The only entertainment industry to get it right is the music industry which has embraced truly DRM formats like MP3 and FLAC which can be downloaded and used with zero restrictions.
Last edited by Mountain Man on 18 March 2022 at 12:30 pm UTC
The only entertainment industry to get it right is the music industry which has embraced truly DRM formats like MP3 and FLAC which can be downloaded and used with zero restrictions.
Last edited by Mountain Man on 18 March 2022 at 12:30 pm UTC
4 Likes, Who?
PublicNuisance Mar 18, 2022
Given I prefer to play single player games and to download the installers through their website this is good news for me !
1 Likes, Who?
Urgh, when they start having to decide what technically counts as DRM-free to justify themselves things are pretty fucked.
To be fair, it is a non-trivial matter. Not all restrictions are created equal; while some are explicitly labeled as DRM, and fit a strict definition, some are more subtle about their control but accomplish similar goals. Hitman was one such case - "it is totally not always-online DRM, it is just a system to offer additional features!" and clearly lots of people saw it as equivalent to DRM. Or Steam's "you need the client to get the first copy of the DRM-free game" and "you need the Steam API and workshop for some features" - it is clearly not DRM from any rigorous definition, but for some people it hardly matters. Multiplayer is another big one, as the statements make clear, because usually publishers have so much control over multiplayer that it doesn't make much sense to talk about DRM.
But GOG advertised themselves as a DRM-free store. They don't get to wriggle out and exploit technicalities, not without severely undermining their claims. "We stand against DRM because we need to, but keep trying to find loopholes to allow it" is not a good selling point. Yeah, this means refusing precisely the super popular AAA games, that is the trade-off they were making since the beginning.
To be fair, it is a non-trivial matter. Not all restrictions are created equal; while some are explicitly labeled as DRM, and fit a strict definition, some are more subtle about their control but accomplish similar goals. Hitman was one such case - "it is totally not always-online DRM, it is just a system to offer additional features!" and clearly lots of people saw it as equivalent to DRM. Or Steam's "you need the client to get the first copy of the DRM-free game" and "you need the Steam API and workshop for some features" - it is clearly not DRM from any rigorous definition, but for some people it hardly matters. Multiplayer is another big one, as the statements make clear, because usually publishers have so much control over multiplayer that it doesn't make much sense to talk about DRM.
But GOG advertised themselves as a DRM-free store. They don't get to wriggle out and exploit technicalities, not without severely undermining their claims. "We stand against DRM because we need to, but keep trying to find loopholes to allow it" is not a good selling point. Yeah, this means refusing precisely the super popular AAA games, that is the trade-off they were making since the beginning.
4 Likes, Who?
If they want to survive, they had to bend over for the publishers demands or not have a game to sell.
I don't think they have much in the way of surviving. Might be too late for that, I'm afraid. Let me tell you a story.
Some thirty years ago, a person who shall remain unnamed, opened a second-hand clothes shop. It was a low-budget enterprise that gave modest returns. It had many happy customers and the money was flowing. But she wanted more so she took the money and opened a bigger shop in a better (and more expensive) location to sell *new* clothes. Invested pretty much everything in the new shop and the first batch of new merchandise and... that was the beginning of the end. Operating costs went way up while the turnover went way down. The customers didn't come to the shop as there were many other similar (and arguably better) shops. The "old" customers were coming to buy second-hand clothes so they saw no point in coming to the new shop, they were only interested in what the old shop had to offer. Long story short, the business went belly-up after a few hard months.
This is not a made-up story and yet it's a perfect analogy to what gog has done. They had a good business packaging and selling good-old-games, but they thought they could "do better" and invested lots of money to become a "new games" shop. But they never stood a chance. That was not what their customers were expecting, and new customers were hard to draw in. Had they remained in their niche, their business would be small but steady. Low operating costs and modest returns. Right now, they will just keep posting losses until the board decides to close it all down. Tough luck. Maybe there is a way back, maybe there isn't. Probably the latter.
7 Likes, Who?
I hope not, or else even a "minimal, insignificant" part of the game could be played offline in single player.I can't help feeling point number 1 doesn't do much to clear things up.I think that's the point of what they're saying, so stuff like HITMAN would now be allowed on.
Wouldn't the release of Hitman (2016) on GOG be able to tick that box? Single player mode was accessible offline. Just not all of it. I would have given them more credit for including the word 'fully'. Or even 'fully*' with some allowable *-caveats.
1 Likes, Who?
"2. Games you bought and downloaded can never be taken from you or altered against your will."
Fine print here, "bought AND DOWNLOADED", so bought but not downloaded can be taken away, understood.
I'm disappointed on GOG since they decided not to give us a Linux client.
Now, I'm everyday less confident in the service "as promoted", because they didn't give us any real method to easily back-up our entirely library, so we don't have to worry to loose anything on a policy change.
REALLY OWNING OUR GAMES was the appeal of this platform, from the beginning. That was the difference from other platforms, were we all know we are just "renting" the games, because if those go offline, there goes our games. I remember the first GOG client, a simple downloader, that was simple enough to have an option to DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE LIBRARY WITH A CLICK. (yes, there is community scripts out there, but I think GOG had to make this official)
Without that, GOG is no different, and actually, for me at least, nowadays is really inferior to Steam. (yeah, Steam is no so much better legally speaking, sure, but I'm more confident in their reliability just because is a behemoth that seems unlikely to do down any time soon)
Fine print here, "bought AND DOWNLOADED", so bought but not downloaded can be taken away, understood.
I'm disappointed on GOG since they decided not to give us a Linux client.
Now, I'm everyday less confident in the service "as promoted", because they didn't give us any real method to easily back-up our entirely library, so we don't have to worry to loose anything on a policy change.
REALLY OWNING OUR GAMES was the appeal of this platform, from the beginning. That was the difference from other platforms, were we all know we are just "renting" the games, because if those go offline, there goes our games. I remember the first GOG client, a simple downloader, that was simple enough to have an option to DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE LIBRARY WITH A CLICK. (yes, there is community scripts out there, but I think GOG had to make this official)
Without that, GOG is no different, and actually, for me at least, nowadays is really inferior to Steam. (yeah, Steam is no so much better legally speaking, sure, but I'm more confident in their reliability just because is a behemoth that seems unlikely to do down any time soon)
3 Likes, Who?
Honestly even the people that have a problem with their DRM stance on Hitman I feel like they're intentionally misunderstanding GOG's stance so they have something to be angry about. Well, not everyone, I'm sure there are plenty of people that honestly felt mislead and lied to; In this day and age people love to get worked up though, even if they never misunderstood in the first place. Maybe I've always had a different understanding of their DRM policies (which happens to coincide with GOG's perspective), who knows.
To me DRM, and DRM-free, refers to the store and the installers, essentially. Do you have to download the gog installer from gog for it to work? Can you copy it, does it call in (TO GOG), etc and soforth? I think they assumed people were on the same page that they weren't restricting you by their DRM free claims. You know, like how Steam games do (well, optionally, not all steam games do) or you know, Securom. I do understand people taking it quite literally that DRM-free should mean any form of rights management at any level in the game, which honestly, I agree with too. It probably should mean that.
Clarifying their stance like they are is probably the best choice, because they're not wrong, GOG has to continue to do business and new games tend to blur the lines like that. They've stated before that the well is running dry on old games, and why that was. Hopefully they take the approach to never add games like the most recent hitman again, or free to play, that kind of stuff, and just sidestep most of the problem that way. It could be wishful thinking.
To me DRM, and DRM-free, refers to the store and the installers, essentially. Do you have to download the gog installer from gog for it to work? Can you copy it, does it call in (TO GOG), etc and soforth? I think they assumed people were on the same page that they weren't restricting you by their DRM free claims. You know, like how Steam games do (well, optionally, not all steam games do) or you know, Securom. I do understand people taking it quite literally that DRM-free should mean any form of rights management at any level in the game, which honestly, I agree with too. It probably should mean that.
Clarifying their stance like they are is probably the best choice, because they're not wrong, GOG has to continue to do business and new games tend to blur the lines like that. They've stated before that the well is running dry on old games, and why that was. Hopefully they take the approach to never add games like the most recent hitman again, or free to play, that kind of stuff, and just sidestep most of the problem that way. It could be wishful thinking.
0 Likes
While it may not fulfill our libre fantasies, I think this is a sensible move. It's more important, I think, that GOG flourishes because, if their financials are any indication, they're at risk of disappearing forever. While we'll always have itch for DRM-free small or indie games, GOG selling AAA games like Horizon Zero Dawn is, I think, a direct result of CDPR's market power from games like Cyberpunk 2077. I find it unlikely that itch (or anyone else) will be able to make the inroads that CDPR has made, and they need to do everything they can to maintain & defend their position.
3 Likes, Who?
I feel like GOG just can't please everyone, especially the die-hard 'old guard' of DRM-free proponents. Famously vocal on the forums.
I would cut GOG some slack, they're already posting losses or minimal profits. I don't mind if there's a small whiff of something resembling DRM on one or two games, as it's still optional to my understanding. And if it's not then don't throw the baby out with the bath water - GOG is still the best we got at DRM-free games and their selection.
Despite no Linux client (which bothers me less everyday due to alternatives), I like them. They try. I'll keep buying from them, screw it.
I would cut GOG some slack, they're already posting losses or minimal profits. I don't mind if there's a small whiff of something resembling DRM on one or two games, as it's still optional to my understanding. And if it's not then don't throw the baby out with the bath water - GOG is still the best we got at DRM-free games and their selection.
Despite no Linux client (which bothers me less everyday due to alternatives), I like them. They try. I'll keep buying from them, screw it.
4 Likes, Who?
Honestly even the people that have a problem with their DRM stance on Hitman I feel like they're intentionally misunderstanding GOG's stance so they have something to be angry about. (snip)Just to be clear, I'm not all that bothered by GOG's shift of position here. I get that they're in financial trouble, and I get that the definitions have gotten slippery, and I get that modern multi-player games are often sort of DRM-as-basic-design.
To me DRM, and DRM-free, refers to the store and the installers, essentially. Do you have to download the gog installer from gog for it to work? Can you copy it, does it call in (TO GOG), etc and soforth? I think they assumed people were on the same page that they weren't restricting you by their DRM free claims. You know, like how Steam games do (well, optionally, not all steam games do) or you know, Securom.
But I think you're wrong here. I'm pretty sure that what you describe is not what GOG's position has historically been. Rather, I think it's pretty definite that they have always pledged not to sell you games with DRM on them, even DRM that the publisher rather than GOG put there. And so I think people who understand that to have been their stance are correct, and you are actually misunderstanding.
Mind you, that would have been a perfectly defensible position for GOG to have been taking, but it wouldn't have been that much of a selling point (doesn't really differentiate them from Steam all that clearly; yeah, there's some difference, but not really much of one--you can play Steam games offline, copy them to other computers and so on) and anyway, for whatever reasons, I'm pretty sure that is not in fact what they've been saying. They were actually taking the stronger position originally, not the weaker one you're talking about.
4 Likes, Who?
That was not what their customers were expectingOne customer begs to differ.
I basically bought all the "good" old games when they were brand new, and the only reason to perhaps buy them a second time on GOG would be to avoid the hassle of having to dig out the disks, CDs, DVDs, manuals, code wheels and what not. But why bother if there are still good new games coming out every now and then!?
So yeah, GOG as they once were would have been next to useless to me. If they don't turn a profit by selling new stuff that's really a shame, because I'd rather continue buying from them.
1 Likes, Who?
Mountain Man Mar 18, 2022
If they want to survive, they had to bend over for the publishers demands or not have a game to sell.
I don't think they have much in the way of surviving. Might be too late for that, I'm afraid. Let me tell you a story.
Some thirty years ago, a person who shall remain unnamed, opened a second-hand clothes shop. It was a low-budget enterprise that gave modest returns. It had many happy customers and the money was flowing. But she wanted more so she took the money and opened a bigger shop in a better (and more expensive) location to sell *new* clothes. Invested pretty much everything in the new shop and the first batch of new merchandise and... that was the beginning of the end. Operating costs went way up while the turnover went way down. The customers didn't come to the shop as there were many other similar (and arguably better) shops. The "old" customers were coming to buy second-hand clothes so they saw no point in coming to the new shop, they were only interested in what the old shop had to offer. Long story short, the business went belly-up after a few hard months.
This is not a made-up story and yet it's a perfect analogy to what gog has done. They had a good business packaging and selling good-old-games, but they thought they could "do better" and invested lots of money to become a "new games" shop. But they never stood a chance. That was not what their customers were expecting, and new customers were hard to draw in. Had they remained in their niche, their business would be small but steady. Low operating costs and modest returns. Right now, they will just keep posting losses until the board decides to close it all down. Tough luck. Maybe there is a way back, maybe there isn't. Probably the latter.
Reminds me of a bagel shop in my town. Extremely popular, extremely successful, always a line of people at the counter waiting to place an order, but nobody complained because the bagels were that good. Then the owner tried to expand into providing bagels to the local colleges but couldn't meet the contractual obligations, so he closed the shop to throw everything he could at the colleges but still couldn't fulfill his obligations, couldn't afford to hire more staff or equipment, and was forced to declare bankruptcy.
Companies that lose sight of their original focus tend to not last long.
3 Likes, Who?
TheRiddick Mar 18, 2022
I wonder if No Man's Sky ever got Multiplayer and if so, can those players see Steam players? It was a HUGE issue with the game on GOG. Essentially you got a downgraded version of NMS on GOG with no Multiplayer...... for same or more price....
0 Likes
If I had to use their game client, why would I buy games from GoG? I would just buy it on Steam, which is at least a good store platform and provides good services to users.
It seems GoG has been trying to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak. There's content I don't get for Cyberpunk2077 because I don't use the Galaxy client, but it's nothing I care about. It was disappointing in the sense that it felt like the beginning of the end, though.
I like GoG because I can just set up a game in Lutris and play it hassle free, irrespective of internet connectivity. I started buying as many games as possible from GoG, because I found myself with few games I could play one night while my cable was out. I only play single player games, I don't like multiplayer. Specifically I don't like being obligated to anyone else in any way, with gaming.
It seems GoG has been trying to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak. There's content I don't get for Cyberpunk2077 because I don't use the Galaxy client, but it's nothing I care about. It was disappointing in the sense that it felt like the beginning of the end, though.
I like GoG because I can just set up a game in Lutris and play it hassle free, irrespective of internet connectivity. I started buying as many games as possible from GoG, because I found myself with few games I could play one night while my cable was out. I only play single player games, I don't like multiplayer. Specifically I don't like being obligated to anyone else in any way, with gaming.
1 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me