If GOG are such a freedom heroes why do they rely on megacorp Windows OS? That’s what I like about steam - it makes gaming on linux dumb easy. And not just on linux, their “package” is ridiculously good - mods, cummunity, reviews, friends, non stop sales, mobile app (although I hate they removed chat to standalone app), and much, much more.
I’m not shitting on GOG. I love those guys, they brought back so much memories with reviving long forgotten games, I have hundreds of purchases there. But… it just needs a lite more polish (pun intended).
Not sire how it’s now, but couple years ago that “new galaxy” thing felt like it was precisely crafted to NOT run on linux. I tried multiple ways to run it, but all of them were unstable, crashing and very laggy. The best one was through Bottles but still… Heroic came and was instantly way ahead.
Yeah. I intentionally buy my games on Steam for ethical reasons because Valve contributes to a positive gaming ecosystem by making things run seamlessly on Linux.
GOG contributes to a negative gaming ecosystem by making Windows the “easy” option and not making use of Proton (or similar tech). Hopefully they fix that one day, but they don’t seem to care.
I’d take a guess that from their perspective, putting all that time + money into developing and supporting a Linux version isn’t worth it when probably ~3% of the user base is using it.
These articles are basically just advertising for GoG.
They have the same issues as steam does regarding only selling licenses, or not having inheritable or transferable accounts.
DRM free is great, but as a service they aren’t fundamentally different from steam. They just like to market themselves like they are.
This has been posted a million times already, but I am still going to repeat it. Yes you are right, in their own legal docs they also only talk about licenses.
Difference for the consumer however is that you get the installation files which are supposed to work offline. Meaning if you take care to store that, it will not be gone ever, no matter if GOG goes down. With Steam this gets more complicated and may only work for some games.
I get that. DRM free is great and better. I just don’t like the advertisement that casts it as “you own the game”, or entire articles built around posts by their marketing department.
It feels very ambulance-chaser-y.
Steam should have taken the opportunity to recommend a gamer to GOG, mentioning that it’s only a license unfortunately. Or offer installers that can’t be taken away.
Yeah. And also choice not as wide as Steam exactly because of DRM free. Can’t buy monhunt or any of Capcom’s game on GOG. But if you want to play old game then GOG is the place to go, they make sure everything run.
I like steam as a user but it’s still proprietary software and I’m slightly concerned about what is going to happen when Gabe Newell steps down as president and ceo of Valve.
As long as you understand the terms of your agreement with Steam as a platform, everything is fine. Physical media for games are outdated anyway, especially with frequent updates, patches, and DLC releases. Regarding older titles that are no longer supported, well, as the saying goes: “If buying isn’t owing…”
This has literally always been the case with Steam, the only difference is that people are told up front now. Things will likely continue to operate exactly the same as it has until now, I doubt Valve wants to disrupt the giant money train they have.
As far as I know there is no mandatory DRM on Steam either, so if a publisher wants to they can just make their game be portable and not require Steam to even be installed. Pretty sure all the re-releases that use DOSBox or ScummVM are like this, for example.
Yeah there are loads of DRM free games on steam (mostly indies of course). Steam just offers a very basic (and easily bypassable if you know how) DRM to devs/publishers but they absolutely don’t need to use it.
It’s made much worse by the games “journalists” industry paying too much attention to X. They find some crackpot spouting off controversy, elevate that shit to the moon, and suddenly other people are talking about this opinion that only lives in a vacuum.
IGN, PCGamer, RPS, Kotaku… they all live for this shit.
I like GOG, but this is just weasel-words to take advantage of the ignorance of the public. Whether you receive the installs directly or not, you still don’t own your games, you are just licensing them, same as Steam.
This doesn’t tip the scales into the “this is wrong” territory for me, but I do think this kind of word manipulation exploiting an unknowledgeable public is a little bit slimy.
edit: I had a bit of knee-jerk reaction to the sensationalism of the headline; what GOG actually says is fine and doesn’t imply anything beyond licensing in my eyes.
I don’t think “weasel words” is the right term here.
You own the GOG games like you own a book you bought, and like you don’t own a DRM-crippled book, even though you might be entitled to read it under certain circumstances. The difference between downloading an installer and downloading a game on Steam is, the installer will continue to work even if GOG folds or decides they don’t like you anymore. But if Steam blocks your account, all the games you bought are gone, and Steam is fully in the right to do so since you don’t own their games.
That’s not true. You still only receive a license to play the game, you do not own it. Directly from GOG’s website:
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.
Practically this means you cannot resell your GOG installer in the way you could resell a physical book.
I think OP is saying that, while you can buy a book to read it, you do not own the copyright to that book. They’re saying it’s basically the same idea with GOG.
The illustration does break down, but I think their point still stands.
I think it is fair. When you buy games through GOG, you get the offline installer. Nobody can take that away from you.
When you buy games through Steam, you can only install them via the Steam client. If the Steam servers are offline, you cannot install your games. In theory, some games are without any DRM, and you can just zip them up, but even then that doesn’t always work, and you shouldn’t have to. That’s not to take away from Steam, of course, it is great at what it does.
Providing an offline installer that works no matter what is as good as “owning” the game IMO, even if “technically” you are just purchasing a license to use the game.
edit: I went and read what GOG itself actually says. The headline is slimy, GOG’s disclosure is fine. I don’t think they’re implying anything beyond what they offer.
Are you referring to the use of the word “killshot”? Otherwise, the headline says exactly the same thing.
Its offline installers ‘cannot be taken away from you’
No implication of outright ownership, just that they can’t take away the offline installers. I mean, I guess it doesn’t outright say “that you’ve already downloaded,” but given the length, I’d say that’s a passable omission.
We don’t have to do this. It’s the juxtaposition of GOG’s claim paired being intentionally paired with the steam disclaimer so as to present it as if an alternative.
pcgamer.com
Najnowsze