GameWorldObserver.
Can they be trusted?
The former employee knew what they were doing with their choice of words.
Current employees are running over to Steam.
Using a release Valve.
This makes me sad. I wanna believe in gog. The last bastion of hope for gaming.
In what way? I know it’s great but I don’t know if I’d call it the last hope for all of gaming. It’s a good store front. Their application has better FOSS alternatives and there are other pretty okay ways to buy games too. I don’t follow them closely. Are they doing anything particular that warrants that description?
They’re like the only store that actually sells you the game and not a revokable license to a game
You never have bought a game even when buying it on physical media. You always purchase a license to the game.
You really need to look at what you’re buying. Whether it’s a download, a DVD, or damn floppy disk, you’re still just buying a license. A very revokable license. If it’s online, the publisher can cut you off.
GOG Seels DRM free games that you can download the installers and all necessary files. No matter what they do, once you’ve downloaded it, they can’t stop you from playing it.
Those are terminologies corporations care about. But, for real life use there is a difference between a product that can be remotely taken away and products that can’t. Otherwise could be argued there is no difference between a pirated copy of Red Dead Redemption 2 and a legit one, which there is once you try to play offline.
GOG installer is offline:
https://x.com/GOGcom/status/1844752098145038435
A purchase of a digital product on GOG grants you its Offline Installers, which cannot be taken away from you.
GoG isn’t the publisher. Y’all don’t read the shit you agree to, and know fuck all about media distribution. You’ve never owned a video game, a movie, or even a book that isn’t in the public domain. You’ve only ever owned licenses for personal use, and those licenses have always been provisional and revokable. Always. Your ignorance is not change that.
Enhance your calm. I was merely pointing out that the game installers are offline for GOG, meaning there’s not a physical mechanism to cut you off. As you mentioned, if it’s online, then they can cut you off, which is true for Steam but not GOG.
And how does that work when they close down and servers that host the games can no longer be accessed to download your license free game?
Wheter you have a revokabke license or not, you still won’t ever be able to access the game…… how do people need this explained to them? And yet use this single reason like it matters lmfao.
When you buy a game on a CD or Cartidge, it’s up to you to make sure you continue to own it from then on. That is the same model as GoGs digital downloads. You own it, you make sure you still have it on hand for as long as you want to still have it on hand for.
You own the media but just have a license for the game. You have never owned a game the media has always given you a license to play the game.
GOG installer is offline
You download it immediately after purchase, and should archive it somewhere, same as everything else you purchase digitally
how does that work
…
When I buy a game from GOG, it comes with the presumption that I will download the installer in a timely manner and store a copy on my local storage device. Assuming I have good backup practices, that’s really the end of the story. I can build a 100 new computers and install the game I bought on each one. GOG went bankrupt ten years ago? That’s a shame, but my installer works just as well as when they were kicking.
When I “buy a game” on Steam, I technically get an installer, but Steam isn’t going to help me keep it. Those 100 new computers are going to download that installer a 100 times. And if the 51st install comes around and Steam isn’t around anymore? Or Steam decides not enough people play this game anymore and it no longer makes financial sense to host the installer? Well, at that point I guess I’ll just regret not buying the game on GOG.
how do people need this explained to them?
How do you need a simple concept like a backup explained to you? All while being smug…
I thought itch did that too
They do
That’s only if you download the game and store it in a way that won’t degrade, when their servers are offline, you can’t download it anymore…
This is such a red herring reason, and I don’t know why people hold onto this like it matters, at all.
Ummm… That’s the case for disc games too of only being able to retain possession once it’s shipped to you and you properly store it. Or any tangible good for that matter. I don’t what point you are trying to make.
That’s literally the point, it’s a useless argument since it doesn’t fucking matter lmfao.
That GOG downloaded installers can’t be forcibly deactivated or taken away? Your phrasing is confusing so I don’t think people are able to tell whether you think GOG installers are a good or bad thing, or acting like it is useless and provides no further benefit than DRM alternatives.
How can the installers access a file that no longer exists since the servers are shut down and the files can no longer be accessed…?
My phrasing is confusing since the point literally is fucking pointless, it’s moot, doesn’t matter since it can’t be accessed licensed or not.
That’s true for pretty much every product you buy.
The difference is that Ikea isn’t going to take your shelf when they feel like it or if they run out of money. Neither is GOG. That’s why it matters.
I didn’t know IKEA made video games?
And why does that matter? When they go out of business you can’t download even if you do or don’t have a license.
That’s why it matters.
Because you now have a game that you don’t need a license that you still won’t be able to access or play? So how does that make a single fucking difference lmfao.
It’s like you’ve never heard of archival or how to keep data safe, protected, or backed up.
Also intentionally missing the valid point when compared to physical items just shoots yourself in the foot for any further arguments.
I didn’t know IKEA made video games?
They don’t, they make furniture. You clearly don’t understand metaphors.
When they go out of business you can’t download even if you do or don’t have a license.
If Ikea goes out of business, you can’t buy their products anymore and the ones you do have you need to protect and make sure they don’t degrade. Your argument is true for every single product, digital or physical.
The games from GOG don’t have any DRM so you can very easily make copies of the game and safely store them elsewhere, even on new computers.
Games that do have DRM lock you down to verify that you’re allowed to play their game, which severely limits how you can use your own product. If that game publisher or developer goes out if business than you can’t play the game that you already have, even if it’s kept “pristine”.
People who bought The Sims 4 couldn’t play their offline game because the DRM stopped them, meanwhile people didn’t buy the game were free to play it when they wanted. The legitimate buyers of the game were punished simply because of DRM.
when their servers are offline, you can’t download it anymore…
I have no idea what else you would be expecting?
That’s my point… it literally doesn’t matter that they can revoke you license or not, when the servers are down, you’re fucked regardless.
Hence why it’s a pointless argument to bring up…
What else do you think I meant here?
But you don’t need to download it again. Keep good backup practices and it’s eternal. If you lose it, that’s the same as losing a physical object you bought at a store. Or if you don’t maintain your backup like you would clean and maintain a physical object you bought, it’s your fault you lose it. I can buy a game from GOG right now and keep it and use it until the day I die, then my grandchildren can use it after that.
You obviously don’t even know how it works.
when the servers are down, you’re fucked regardless.
As long as you keep the files you don’t have to access their servers to play it again. That’s exactly the same as even physical media. It’s not like a company will send you a new DVD for free if you throw out the one you bought.
I’ve read through your various comments, and I’m not sure you see the difference here.
With other platforms such as Steam, you download the Steam program that acts as a single installer for every game on the platform. You have to be logged into a valid Steam account to download a game from their single installer. If you use a new computer, you have to log into Steam and download from Steam. On GoG, you download an installer per game. Those installers can be transferred to any device and download the games even if the computer has never logged into GoG or even connected to the internet. You can store all the installers on an external drive, which you can’t do for Steam.
If Steam eventually dies or your account is banned, you can never install those games again. If GoG eventually dies or your account is banned, you are correct that you can’t download new installers, but you can use any installer you have already downloaded.
If Steam dies or your account is banned, the game you already have downloaded may not even work anymore due to DRM (this is on a game-by-game basis). If GoG dies or your account is banned, your games are guaranteed to still run since they are not dependant on GoG DRM (with a small list of exceptions people aren’t happy about).
You may not care about any of this, but there’s a decent chunk of people who want to keep their games regardless of anything the purchasing company does.
That’s just wrong. They just sell you a license and provide a DRM free game. You are not supposed to continue playing the game if the publisher terminates your license. They just give you the ability to do it, but it has no legal value
I hope you’re paid well to spread this easily disproven lie.
https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212632089-GOG-User-Agreement?product=gog
We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a ‘license’) to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations, which are explained later on.
How do you disprove that this “GOG content” are offline installer files that, as long as you keep them backed up, work indefinitely even if GOG revokes your license to download them again?
I don’t. However, using those files after GOG revokes your license would be piracy.
the reality of the situation is that these 2 things look exactly the same in 99% of circumstance and 100% of circumstances that consumers actually care about
This is just the license to download the game installer, not to install it.
Once you’ve downloaded the software they can’t revoke the license for that installer file.
Yes they can. They cannot stop you from installing the game, but once they revoke your license, it would be piracy.
GOG shills always twist reality to try to make it conform to the “you own you games” lie, but the truth is GOG is no different than Steam.
How do you use a Steam game after its license was revoked?
How do you use a Steam game after its license was revoked?
By default Steam is a mere download manager without any DRM. You can zip the game folder and back it up anywhere. Whether or not publishers go through the additional steps to enable one or more DRM solution is a different matter. My favorite Steam games have no DRM at all.
Same as GOG: piracy.
They can’t, actually, because they don’t hold the rights to that content, only to GOG and the installer. Once it’s installed their distribution and license rights end.
If the game you install has its own license from the rights holder that gets revoked then you’ll be in breach of that license, if anything.
Yeah I was aware of that. I don’t know if that constitutes the last hope for all gaming, but it’s definitely a positive. Other stores have a much better user experience, and until they rival stores like Steam in functionality and ease of use, actually owning your own game is just a very nice to have feature and nothing more. Of course, I wish all stores did that. I don’t want to have to resort to piracy if my steam library goes poof, but so far I haven’t had to, and piracy is still an ethical choice in that scenario.
My point isn’t that steam is better, but that GOG has a couple nice features and several downsides, and it is by no means changing or saving the industry. They have a long way to go, and I don’t think saving the industry is the end goal for them.
No, but saving the industry is their “hook”, if not explicitly stated as such. I know that every game I buy from them will be impossible to take away from me if I backed up the installers first.
I don’t know if that’s true anymore. There are games on there that require login into PSN after installing.
Are you sure? I haven’t played any of Sony’s games on GOG. From reviews, it looks like Horizon still sends telemetry if you’re connected to the internet, but I don’t believe it’s gotten the remaster update that mandates PSN. I could be out of the loop though. I do know that GOG caught flak for allowing Hitman 2016 on the store, which is technically playable from start to finish without an internet connection, but the connection to their server gates all sorts of extras, so the customers rebelled and got it removed.
The word choice is certainly not accidental.
GOG was good for acquiring and re-releasing OLD GAMES. somewhere along the way they decided they wanted to compete with the big platforms and be “We’re just like them but without DRM”
I haven’t used GOG for years, they allowed me to relive a few of my old adolescence favorites, but stopped being useful to me a long time ago :/
Selling old games and new games isn’t mutually exclusive, and more money tends to be spent on new games than old ones. It’s not unreasonable to expect that selling new games too could subsidise the work to make old games run on modern platforms.
i mean I get that, but what I was saying was the original purpose of the store became an afterthought.
Let’s be honest, this was apparent for a long time. Steam, a centralised platform, has been making strides in Linux gaming and has been making innovation after innovation together with its steam deck. Gog, a forefront to freedom in gaming, barely did anything for the Linux gaming scene. No innovation either. Its just the simple (and well needed) premise of no DRM. It’s necessary, but not enough. It didn’t cater to its niche, it just committing to creating one under a premise. That’s not how you go forward. How does this connect to bad management? Well, I think that with good management gog would make different moves. And wouldn’t rest on its laurels so much.
That’s… Largely a financials problem.
Steam: $8-10 billion/y
GOG: $80-120 million/y
Steam can throw 10 GOGs worth of resources at a problem and barely break a sweat. Yeah, of course they are making huge strides, that’s how consolidation of wealth works when that wealth is actually reinvested.
It’s pretty hard for GOG. Many of the things people don’t like about GOG are not really GOG’s fault, they are just a result of small market share. Steam is the bigger platform, and so naturally it gets priority for basically everything.
You game doesn’t work on Steam? Then you’d better fix it immediately, because that’s where the bulk of players are. But if your game doesn’t work on GOG… well… maybe fix it when you get some spare time. (Or maybe don’t have a GOG version, because you don’t want to have to keep multiple platforms up-to-date.)
So publishers and developers are generally less cooperative with GOG. And GOG themselves obviously have much more limited resources to do stuff themselves.
Steam’s recent work with Linux has been great. And I do wish GOG would have something like that. But again, Valve has vast resources for that kind of thing - and they’ve been working on it ever since the Windows 8 appstore threatened to wipe them out. (That threat fizzled out; but nevertheless, that was what got the Linux ball rolling for Valve.) I’m in two minds about whether GOG should try to boost their Linux support. On the one hand, GOG is all about preservation and compatibility… and so it makes sense to have better Linux compatibility. On the other hand, it would be leaning further into a niche; and working on a problem that is kind of solved already. i.e. We can already run GOG games on Linux with or without a native linux version… it just could be nicer… Maybe it’s not a good use of GOG’s resources to go for that.
(That said, when I look at their linux
start.shscripts and seecd "${CURRENT_DIR}/game" chmod +x *it makes me think they could probably put at least a bit more effort into their linux support.)As someone with no Linux experience, what’s wrong with that code?
It adds the executable permission (without which, things can’t be executed) to all the files in the game’s directory. You only need to be able to execute a few of those files, and there’s a dedicated permission to control what can and can’t be executed for a reason. Windows doesn’t have a direct equivalent, so setting it for everything gives the impression that they’re trying to make it behave like Windows rather than working with the OS.
I mean i assume thats just easier to deal with updates where a game has multiple exe files that may or may not change names. Assuming everything in the directory is assumed to be safe, is there any downside to applying it to everything, aside from opening up the possibility of a user accidentally trying to execute like a texture file or something which I assume just wouldnt work? I actually don’t know and im curious.
You’ve pretty much got it. It’s bad, but it’s not horrible. Trying to execute some random file such as a texture basically just doesn’t work… but only by luck. It’s possible, but unlikely that the data might look enough like an actual program to run and do something unpredictable.
I’m not aware of any major reasons why its a problem to make everything as executable (and I know that when I open an NTFS drive from linux, all the files are executable by default - because NTFS doesn’t have that flag). From my point of view I just think its sloppy. I figure it can’t be hard for GOG to just correctly identify which files are meant to be executable. For most games its just a single executable file - the same one that GOG’s script is launching. And presumably the files that developers provided GOG have the correct flags in the first place.
Anyway, not really a big deal. Like I said, I just think it’s a bit low-effort.
Yeah that’s fair, and im not defending the practice, it just made me think of some games that Ive seen that have multiple executables, usually with an inbuilt launcher that i have to bypass. Or when games used to come with a dx11 and dx12 executable. Personally i find that in itself super sloppy and annoying as well, but it makes a kind of lazy sense to just apply it to all the game files, in that its just one less thing to have to change if you make an alteration to the name of the executable file or add a new executable for whatever reason. Just one less possible failure point. But yeah I can see how its definitely not best practice.
How would a game “not work” on GOG? isnt their whole thing that they give you just the game files with no DRM or whatever?
experienced this with BG3 on gog while my friends had the steam version, when it launched. Patches on gog were delayed by sometime a week, preventing us to play together.
The conspiracist in me wonders if this is intentional as the result of a deal with other publishers. Maybe its just that ‘the devs didnt get around to it’ but honestly with how simple it should be to release things on GOG i more wonder if it isnt suppression.
Are you seriously asking how a piece of computer software might fail to operate correctly? As much as DRM sucks, it isn’t the only thing that can cause something to not work.
No im saying theres no such thing as a “GOG” version afaik. Its just the game files. What features differentiate a ‘GOG’ version from the same game acquired anywhere else? Their whole business model is offering games without any DRM or storefront added features, you dont even need to use their launcher, you can just download the game files directly. Whereas ‘Steam’ versions have all sorts of code added to be compatible with Steam.
You pretty much said it. The Steam version often has all sorts of stuff for Steam integration… and the Steam version is the default version. So various hooks for achievements and networking and mod installation may be different. Messing with any of that could easily break something. Furthermore, GOG does have its own API that some games use (again, for achievements and cloud saves); so if a game has chosen to use those features they may accidentally break something.
But even aside from possible difference between versions; bugs in the game itself still have to be addressed on every platform. Even if they don’t bother testing the new version, they still have to at least push the update - which is still more work than zero work. This is why it is fairly common to see games that are under active development only have their beta version on Steam (or in some cases only Epic), even when they intend to launch on a bunch of platforms.
So for some games (certainly not all, but definitely some), patches come on Steam first and GOG at some point later. Maybe a day later, or a week later, or in some rare cases not at all. Similarly for DLC. And that definitely isn’t GOG’s fault. There isn’t really anything GOG can do about it. It’s just a side-effect of Steam being the far bigger platform.
An official Steam Deck mod would probably be nice. Heroic Launcher kind of works.
running out of steam
THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO GET DEGREES IN FUCKING ENGLISH TO DO THIS
they need to use super generic popular idioms in order to be search engine optimized. technology killed journalism
The other day I was thinking about the movie Scrooged with Bill Murray, and how during one of the Scenes of Christmas Passed he got his girlfriend a pack of Ginsu knives for Christmas and how that’s on-theme for his character who is obsessed with TV because Ginsu knives were a big As Seen On TV product and how someone on the writing staff must have went to college to think of that.
That’s nice sweetie 👵
I’d certainly love to hear that they’re at least turning a profit. It’s my default store now, but given the ambiguity of what I’m buying in the multiplayer space, and the lesser experience I get as a Linux customer, they’re not making it easy.
The fact that you have loyalty to a commercial storefront makes you a fucking gonk. - Johnny Silverhand
I think I openly admitted in the comment you replied to that I don’t have loyalty to them.
What’s your default store then?
The one I shop at first, all things being equal. But all things are frequently not equal.
Default doesn’t mean only
OK but this is the storefront without DRM. It’s the biggest one that doesn’t make you rely on it.
NOOOOOOO I LOVE GOG
Shit I really like GOG as it’s the only competition to steam
Shit I really like GOG as it’s the only competition to steam
There are plenty of competing PC game online stores, it’s just that they all suck monkey balls when you’re not using Windows. Microsoft is currently using their old monopolist playbook and release Blizzard games to the fucking Microsoft Store and Game Pass and not a single 3rd party store.
And don’t forget that the other publisher-owned storefronts like EA’s and Ubisoft’s are also still alive. They suck hard but they exist and apparently they do well enough to continue to be around.
Steam is the only PC games store that fights Microsoft’s Windows monopoly. GOG Galaxy has been written using the Qt framework. Making a Linux version of an existing Qt application is relatively easy (at least compared to a full port). Do that, integrate umu-Launcher for Windows games, bundle everything up and release GOG Galaxy on Flathub. Boom, done. But they don’t do that despite their massive pile of Witcher and Cyberpunk money.
So plenty of competition exists but if you happen to not be Windows-exclusive, everyone but Steam is bad.
I mean, the Epic Store exists. Well, not on Linux. And it’s missing a lot of features the other storefronts have.
The approved competitor to a monopoly is… *checks notes* a wannabe monopoly that’s trying to buy their way into the position by providing less for the customer and instead bribing the publishers for exclusivity?
No, thanks. I would rather stick with the existing monopoly than reward Epic’s anticompetitive and anti-consumer bullshit.
Yes, I never said that they are good, just that they exist.
I guess, yeah. I will say, though: it feels morally wrong to acknowledge their existence as anything other than a anti-consumer cashgrab, and thus give them legitimacy as a competitor to Steam, GOG, and Itch.
Wdym I’m playing several games on arch through epic games since I got them for free
Epic exists on Linux to the same degree gog does: heroic launcher.
Also, fuck Epic and the ass they rode in on.
I liked when they made Jill of a Jungle, Unreal, and One Must Fall 2097
Yeah, Epic Megagames were a part of my childhood, it’s sad to see them turn into another greedy coroporation.
Holy shit, a OMF mention?!?
fistbump
You just heard the lightning bolt, and now the theme song is pumping in yo head
Yes yes, bitch eating crackers and all that.
But can we maybe focus on what they actually are shit at (which is a lot) rather than manufacturing virtue for other companies?
I’m not sure which part of that guys comment suggests anything other other than “fuck epic,” but here’s a short and sweet list:
- Designing a service for their customers instead of relying on paid exclusivity to encourage social pressure or FOMO
- Halfway decent customer support
- Unreal Engine 5’s performance
- Keeping their old of games accessible
- Not scamming kids out of virtual money
Also, they
- Fucked over Unreal fans by dropping the new Unreal Tournament the moment Fortnite took off (this one is personal, I was looking forward to that)
- Fucked over people who bought Fortnite Save the World (the original paid PvE mode of the game) by dropping that the moment the Battle Royale mode took off (this is objectively worse than UT because people paid for this)
Edit: Also want to mention Timmy’s frequent trash talking of Linux on Twitter
Not nearly the same degree. GOG sells actual Linux games with no 3rd party software necessary to play them. The same cannot be said about EGS, one simply cannot launch an EGS game in an officially supported way.
GOG sells actual Linux games with no 3rd party software necessary to play them.
Ah yes, stand-alone binary installers that work only on a very tiny set of Linux versions because they rely on specific version of system libraries, sometimes contain distribution-specific hardcoded paths, and so on. I especially like those older Linux ports that exclusively target Nvidia drivers because why would anyone just have coded to the OpenGL standard back then…
We have Flatpak Runtimes and Steam Linux Runtimes since years. CD Project / GOG can’t even be bothered to pick these existing open source solutions.
For a very limited subset of games, they provide linux binaries. For the rest? You are up a creek and in the realm of “Figure it out”. Which… is generally the Heroic Launcher (or Lutris for a subset) which puts you in the same boat as Epic.
If you insist upon saying one store is more virtuous than the other… okay? I personally don’t like defending companies but you do you.
But for the vast majority of games? Epic and GoG are in the same category as basically everything but Steam. And both are in the exact same category regarding launchers and download services since they both heavily rely on the Heroic Launcher (which is awesome).
And, to be clear, neither should be applauded for Linux support.
Well, to be clearer. The folk behind the Heroic Launcher (and Lutris) SHOULD be applauded. And I think there is actually a very strong argument that store fronts should not be expected to build out entire social media ecosystems with attached updaters (what launchers basically are). But both Epic and GoG have decided to half ass that so they should be called out for not doing it “right”.
If you insist upon saying one store is more virtuous than the other… okay? I personally don’t like defending companies but you do you.
Could you please not put words into my mouth? Neither is “virtuous” and I am not defending them. Let’s stick to the facts instead. It’s clear that EGS is being actively hostile towards Linux, while GOG is merely negligent. EGS actively removed Linux support from previously supported games on at least one occasion (Rocket League).
You’re doing it again.
As a publisher: Yes, Epic stopped the Rocket League devs from continuing to build Linux binaries. To my knowledge, they have not disabled “support” for Proton in any of the anti-cheat solutions.
Similarly, the development branch of CD Projekt (the parent company of GoG), apparently had Linux binaries for The Witcher 2. They do not for The Witcher 3 or Cyberpunk.
Both companies decided it was not worth internally supporting Linux and instead rely on Proton/Wine to do it for them. Whether that is good for gaming is debatable, but both are “actively hostile towards Linux” in that regard.
If you do want to criticize the handling of Linux then I would suggest looking into the Unreal Engine marketplace (or whatever they call it now) being a complete shitshow for Linux developers. Which is ironic since the UE documentation is actually great for Linux devs. I cannot speak to the CDPR efforts with their modding SDKs since I haven’t opened one since The Witcher 1 (when it was either a hacked version of the NWN toolkit or an officially hacked version of the NWN toolkit).
But that is Epic and CDP not EGS and GoG.
Epic exists as an alternative to Steam in the same way that Russia is the world power opposing the US.
Kelso from That 70’s Show: “BURN!”
So, they’re both out to fuck everyone, and just playing for different teams?
At least it has been sometime since the US invaded a neighbor for territorial expansion…
Easier to install puppet governments than try to integrate more angry people into the population.
Steam, for all of the good it did still normalized digital distribution of games. Its normal now that we dont own the games we play they exist on corporate servers, and can be rescinded at the drop of a corporate whim.
There’s also itch.io, which is great. It does have a lack of game selection, but we’re comparing it to GOG, so…
Yeah itch lacks the bigger titles GOG has been able to pull.
At the same time, GOG hasn’t been able to pull many, and Itch has much better indie coverage, including for the higher-end indies, due to its much smaller royalty fee. I’d say they’re pretty even overall, with Itch catering to Indies and GOG to old games.
GOG has been closer to offering the more mainstream indies and big studio titles that interest me. I guess itch library doesn’t really appeal as often to my tastes.
That’s completely fair. I personally really like the site because it feels like being part of a creative community, but that also makes the selection of games that are available more eclectic.
Ah yes, poles fucking up another good idea cuz they are not able to create a good working condotions yay
Unfortunate. Competition is generally good for the consumer and I’d hate to see one of more more customer-friendly storefronts go away.
Especially competition that actually delivers something unique a segment of the population wants as opposed to simply existing. Their DRM free stance and standalone installers are a pro consumer move giving control back to the consumer once they download the files.
The launcher that they have is pretty rough. I downloaded it for Mac OS and it just wouldn’t run right. Kept closing down. If I could just download right from the website they’d have some money.
If they draw is drm free games why only allow purchase through a custom launcher like everything else?
Can you not download from the site on mac?
I’ll have to check. It seemed like downloads had to happen from the app.
I don’t use their launcher at all.
It’s kind of a convoluted process but you can definitely download every game you own through gog without it.
Yeah galaxy is sadly a bit of a mess. Back when i was still running windows it broke its own update capabilities once or twice.
It also has a bad habit of keeping a zombie process running after you fully close it
If I could just download right from the Website
You can.
They do not make that obvious. I downloaded the launcher and when it didn’t work I bailed. I’ll check closer
I hope they stick around they are great for gaming. I need to buy off there more often.
Too bad, I use Steam and it works wonderfully on Linux, but i don’t want it to be the only option.
i don’t want it to be the only option.
Neither do I but it is. GOG doesn’t support Linux. Heroic is a 3rd party community effort. Valve is currently the only company making financial investments into Linux gaming.
Many more companies than Valve are making financial investments into Linux gaming, including companies that own various Linux distributions (Red Hat, Canonical, etc.), CodeWeavers (who amongst other things have been contracted by Valve on a lot of Proton work) and to a lesser extent Humble Bundle.
It does support Linux: it lets you download Linux installer for games that have a Linux port.
The lack of GOG Galaxy on Linux just means you have to manually manage your games.
It does support Linux: it lets you download Linux installer for games that have a Linux port.
GOG lets publishers upload various installers but GOG does nothing to support them, let alone offer something like Proton (which is open source, so they could take and integrate it for free).
No one needs to “offer” Proton. It’s available freely for anyone. I think some people think Proton is a Steam thing. It isn’t. Yeah, Valve did a lot of work on it, which is great, but it isn’t limited to them. Vlave has essentially unlimited resources, and I’m happy they spent some making improvements for WINE, but GOG does not have nearly the same resources. I wouldn’t expect them to put their effort into that. Valve only did because they were building hardware that they wanted to run Linux.
On steam I can click install and run and most games windows and Linux just work without further effort. This makes gog worthless to me. I could just use wine I don’t know why I’d bother.
Valve only did because they were building hardware that they wanted to run Linux.
That was part of it clearly but I think more so they wanted an escape route as Microsoft enshittifies (further)
No one needs to “offer” Proton. It’s available freely for anyone.
And that’s how GOG does not support Linux: Paying customers need to figure it out on their own. They don’t even value their customers to a degree to take and integrate existing open source solutions.
Is proton entirely FOSS? I do know that they are built on wine, but now that I think about it, I am not sure.
GOG is the only big option if you want to own the games you purchase.
That’s not how copyright laws work anywhere. You don’t own anything, it’s just a license.
GoG Vault would disagree with you on that.
You can download the full installers and keep them, nobody can take them away or disable it remotely
GoG Vault would disagree with you on that.
They are free to disagree on laws but they are still bound by them.
You can download the full installers and keep them, nobody can take them away or disable it remotely
That’s true but if your license is revoked, you’re illegally in possession of the game assets.
It’s less clear than you say.
In principle the First-sale doctrine should apply but it has not caught up with reality yet.
That’s not how it works but hey, you do you
It 100% is how it works. Read that EULA next time you install one of those games via the installer you downloaded from gog.
Yeah & we still get to keep the installers, but hey I seriously do get your point
and?
How is that different from backing up the game folder on steam? In both cases it’s true that:
- You’re not doing anything illegal at the moment you do it
- You can use it to play the game on a different computer (as long as the game is DRM free which is not granted on either platform)
- The company (Valve/GOG) can’t remotely erase your copy
- If the company removes the license from you your backup is now technically illegal but it’s unlikely to be enforced
I fail to see how GOGs approach is any different, they still sell you a license and you’re backing up the installer in case the license gets removed and/or you’re forbidden from redownloading the game.
So you can just pop that folder on any computer and run it, without installing Steam and without a Steam account?
On most games yes, like I said before I’ve copied games from my computer to others to play in lan to convince friends to buy a game.
Then there are badly implemented games, where you need to either delete the steam library from the game folder or replace it with an open implementation.
And the rest are the ones that have DRM (which are not available on GOG anyways so they don’t matter for this discussion).
Actually, some games have DRM on steam and have a DRM free version on GOG. I even saw a game that had a DRM free epic and gog edition but the steam version had DRM. Might be a edge case, but still exists
What they mean is that technically you still are being granted a license to use it. The same was true for things like DVD movies. They’re technically correct, but missing the point.
In case of Steam.
With GOG I get an actual license key & terms that state my ownership.
With GOG I get an actual license key & terms that state my ownership.
No, the intellectual property is not transferred to you. You have no clue how copyright works.
For most people that is a distinction without a difference.
Yes, but the same is also true for Steam, so it’s a moot point.
For most people that is a distinction without a difference.
So what’s the difference to making a backup of my Steam folder? The games I play have no DRM either.
Nothing at all. Most people are not creating derivative works.
I totally understand your point, but when people talk about “you own nothing” they don’t really mean you “own” the content on physical media, they mean it doesn’t have DRM that requires an online service. You’re technically correct, but your pedantry is making you miss the forest for the trees, basically.
but your pedantry is making you miss the forest for the trees, basically.
No. People here claim, that just because GOG cannot remote wipe your drive, people buying off GOG have a perpetual right to the games they’ve bought. But they don’t because that’s not how copyright works. If a game’s license is revoked, to keep playing the game is copyright violation.
Not only do so many people not grasp basic concepts of copyright, they claim Valve could take away all downloaded games. No, Valve cannot remote wipe my drive either. I can back up my Steam folder. Many games on Steam don’t have DRM at all. It’s opt-in and the actual Steam documentation outright says not to rely on Steam DRM because “it is easily removed by a motivated attacker.” If games rely on crap like Denuvo, 3rd party launchers, or invasive anti-cheat, the publishers are required to clearly state so on the store page in one of those orange boxes. Users can make an informed decision on a per-game basis even with Steam. And those games that ship crap like Denuvo aren’t on GOG in the first place.
So in the end GOG is a store that stretches the truth about game ownership in their marketing and despite all their Witcher and Cyberpunk money, they don’t care about users of platforms competing against Windows at all.
People here claim, that just because GOG cannot remote wipe your drive, people buying off GOG have a perpetual right to the games they’ve bought.
I think it’s pretty clear from context that they mean they have the ability to perpetually play the games because of the lack of DRM, not the right.
No you don’t. You get the same license as you do on Steam, here’s the license btw https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/16034990432541-GOG-User-Agreement-effective-from-17-February-2024?product=gog :
We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a ‘license’) to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations, which are explained later on.
Which is very similar to Steam. In both cases you can keep the files you’ve downloaded on your machine, and on most cases you can copy those files to a different machine and keep playing it. GOG has better marketing on this regard, but they’re both very similar, neither enforces DRM nor forbids it entirely, although GOG does tend to be a bit stricter (but they still allow it) whereas steam is a bit looser but knowingly implemented a weak DRM and let’s you know in the game page if the game has any stronger form of DRM.
@Nibodhika @Evil_Shrubbery Stop Killing Games opened my eyes to the software “ownership” situation. In USA, apparently, noone ever owns any software. It’s always licenced. Even if on physical media. Quite bizarre.
In rest of world it varies but also sucks.
Yup, GOG just has good marketing department and lots of people fall for the DRM-free (but not really) games you own (but not really) campaign.
@Nibodhika It’s freaking evil, but in their defence, it’s more America’s evil than any one business. They have set about systematically reducing freedom for decades.
@Nibodhika @dbat Steam did the exact same thing when it was new when they would say “If Steam ever shuts down, we’ll give you perpetual licenses to the games in your game library.” Probably around the same time in their existence as GOG hyping DRM-free.
Who says you have to respect the laws? Just pirate if publishers mess with players
Just pirate
What’s the point of GOG then?
Not everything is on GoG
We have itch.io
Morals
Morals
Nothing moral about a store that affirms Microsoft’s Windows monopoly.
People have different morals. It’s ok, it’s personal
Same reason we have Barnes and Nobles in the states. I like to browse before I hit zlibrary.
