Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GOG is getting acquired by its original co-founder

gog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 574 posts

Re: GOG is getting acquired by its original co-founder

#231

Post by afiori »

andoando wrote: post #169
stavros wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can pirate games easily, but I buy them on Steam because it's more convenient. If it's too expensive for me, I just never play it (or wait for a deal). I can't be bothered dealing with the installers and the potential viruses and the hassle.

>because it's more convenient Yes, now imagine if we just removed the barrier to piracy completely. An easy to use client just like Steam, except all the games are free cracked copies. There is no way thats not going to drop sales.

What has been proven many times is that people overwhelmingly choose the least effort/risk option.

A free Steam full of certified pirates games with official games updates would obviously drop sales but this is moot as it will never exist.

Re: GOG is getting acquired by its original co-founder

#232

Post by afiori »

eviks wrote: post #216
Mathnerd314 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Research from the University of Amsterdam’s IViR “Global Online Piracy Study” (survey of nearly 35,000 respondents across 13 countries) found that for each content type and country, 95% or more of pirates also consume content legally, and their median legal consumption is typically twice that of non‑pirating legal users.

Why do you think this contradicts anything? Heavy users hit a budget limit and continue consuming more via pirating. You really need something way better than some shoddy survey to counter the obvious fact that price matters

Yeah but if a pirate would have not paid the full price why care? It is by definition not a lost sale, the most likely outcome is just an increase by one the player count

Re: GOG is getting acquired by its original co-founder

#233

Post by danaris »

eviks wrote: post #216
Mathnerd314 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Research from the University of Amsterdam’s IViR “Global Online Piracy Study” (survey of nearly 35,000 respondents across 13 countries) found that for each content type and country, 95% or more of pirates also consume content legally, and their median legal consumption is typically twice that of non‑pirating legal users.

Why do you think this contradicts anything? Heavy users hit a budget limit and continue consuming more via pirating. You really need something way better than some shoddy survey to counter the obvious fact that price matters

It contradicts the post it was replying to, which was saying, effectively, that people don't want to spend any money on stuff.

I don't think it's required to be making some universal point when you clearly respond to the argument put forward in the post you reply to, do you?

Re: GOG is getting acquired by its original co-founder

#234

Post by izacus »

dundarious wrote: post #170
embedding-shape wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally sitting with Lutris in front of me downloading a game from GOG right now. Can Heroic Games not handle it themselves like Lutris? Seems easy enough for other FOSS projects to do, I'd rather GOG continue focusing on ensuring the games run on modern hardware, and acquiring licenses to good old games, rather than now expanding the support for their already mediocre launcher.

Heroic works perfectly, in a manner identical to Lutris (from a user perspective). I tested both several years ago and have been a happy Heroic user since. However, neither support 2 key features of GOG Galaxy: 1. cloud saves 2. achievements These are 2 of the most significant features of competitors like Steam, IMO, so missing them for GOG on Linux is unfortunate.

That's simply not true at all, Heroic Launcher supports both cloud saves and achievements. I've been using them for a long time on Deck now.

Please don't lie :/

Re: GOG is getting acquired by its original co-founder

#235

Post by Tarball10 »

afiori wrote: post #225
andoando wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they don't. I am tired of this feel good nonsense. I pirated games because it was free and I did not want to pay $60. Just make your games a donation model if you really believe this. Or lets put up a version of Steam where all the games are free cracked copies of the game and see how it affects sales. People pay precisely because they dont want to deal with the hassle pf pirating

If someone pirates 100 60$ games it does not mean that had piracy been impossible they would have spent 6000$ on those games

They might spend $600 on 10 of those games, though. It's not all-or-nothing.

Re: GOG is getting acquired by its original co-founder

#236

Post by kgwxd »

Gormo wrote: post #64
kgwxd wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is GOG functionally different from Steam? They're still just a middle man. For actual DRM-free software, both GOG and Steam are nothing more than a convenience layer. If they're anything more than that, the software simply isn't DRM-free.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. The distinction is pretty clear: GOG distributes standalone installers without any DRM, and Steam does not.

What does the installer matter for DRM-free software? For software with other forms of DRM built-in anyway, who cares if the installer has it?

Re: GOG is getting acquired by its original co-founder

#237

Post by eatsyourtacos »

Fiveplus wrote: post #23

> Can I still download offline installers? Yes. This is the only line I was looking for. I stopped buying on Steam sometime ago because I realized I was just renting licenses. GOG is the only major storefront where I feel like I actually own the product. As long as offline installers remain a core tenet, I don't care who owns the company. That said, it helps that it's someone returning to their roots rather than a pr…

Literally the last thing on the internet you can complain about is Steam. PC gaming would be the biggest cluster fuck in the world- if not fairly dead / super niche.

You would need to install 12 front-ends like Steam that would be hot trash and have a handful of games and be the most miserable shit ever. You wouldn't have sales, reasonable game prices, or family library sharing (this would be absurd to any other company).

Steam is a prime example of when a monopoly ends up to be the best for the consumer.

Re: GOG is getting acquired by its original co-founder

#238

Post by mariusor »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #184
mariusor wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The games have DRM, and rely on cloud servers to authenticate you. That is not true as a global rule. Game developers can release fully independent versions of their games even on steam.

They can. Do they? Statistically?

If I am a person interested in this specific thing (backing up my games) I would for sure check. Wouldn't you?

Re: GOG is getting acquired by its original co-founder

#239

Post by Tarball10 »

afiori wrote: post #231
andoando wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>because it's more convenient Yes, now imagine if we just removed the barrier to piracy completely. An easy to use client just like Steam, except all the games are free cracked copies. There is no way thats not going to drop sales.

What has been proven many times is that people overwhelmingly choose the least effort/risk option. A free Steam full of certified pirates games with official games updates would obviously drop sales but this is moot as it will never exist.

Isn't that exactly what companies use as justification for DMCA and DRM protection?

Without those, you'd have sites full of pirated game downloads easily found through search engines. DMCA takedowns force those sites into shady corners of the internet, making them harder to find and riskier for the average user. And (effective) DRM makes users have to wait for a crack which may take weeks or months.

The result is that it's easier for the average person to just log into Steam/Epic/PSN/eShop and spend $60 to play immediately.

Re: GOG is getting acquired by its original co-founder

#240

Post by eviks »

danaris wrote: post #233
eviks wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think this contradicts anything? Heavy users hit a budget limit and continue consuming more via pirating. You really need something way better than some shoddy survey to counter the obvious fact that price matters

It contradicts the post it was replying to , which was saying, effectively, that people don't want to spend any money on stuff. I don't think it's required to be making some universal point when you clearly respond to the argument put forward in the post you reply to, do you?

No, you misunderstood the comment, it said that paying nothing is compelling, not that paying something was inconceivable or something; it was a response to a comment with a common misconception that pirating is only some "service problem"
Post reply on HN