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

371–380 of 574 posts

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

#371

Post by jack1243star »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #319
dmantis wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't prove that DRM free is not a viable business. I also grew up pirating, but I haven't been pirating games for more than 10 years now. A few bucks costs much less to me these days than a headache with finding a cracked version and installing potential malware on my computer. Not even talking about supporting the artists and developers. Gabe is right that piracy is a service problem. If you have proper easy i…

This is a valuable lesson I learned when I worked with someone, not at Elastic, but who had previously worked at Elastic. Elastic was one of the original companies who made FOSS but with enterprise licensing work well. We were discussing in a meeting at this place we worked how to design license checking into the product. What the guy said I found very insightful: he said that you don’t really need to spend a bunch o…

Totally understandable and even reasonable position, but the paying customer gets the worse treatment, which does not sit right.

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

#372

Post by georgeecollins »

trinsic2 wrote: post #358
cogogo wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up playing pirated games on the Apple II 35 years ago. The fact that many people pirate is not an opinion.

It's an opinion that "Most" people pirate games and it's also an opinion that pirating games translates directly to lost sales. As Gabe said and I agree with him piracy, if it's anything a service related problem. You don't need DRM to overcome that. You just need to make a good product and respect you audience. The people that pirate for the wrong reasons will do it anyway and you don't gain much from restricting co…

>> The people that pirate for the wrong reasons will do it anyway and you don't gain much from restricting copies.

That is also an opinion. Also-- as an aside-- I am curious what you think the "right" reason is for piracy. DRM free games is not a new idea. They have always existed and people have tried different models with them like including advertising. Do you remember the Ford driving simulator? The skittles game. there have been other models and there is a huge universe of DRM free games for decades.

If you don't gain much from restricting copies, please explain to me why it is so common in the best games?

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

#373

Post by georgeecollins »

generic92034 wrote: post #368
georgeecollins wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but the model that Valve pioneered is the model that supports 90% of all commercial PC games made today, a higher percentage if you cut out MMOs and free to play games, which you certainly don't own. I love GoG and I have worked closely with a lot of people there on projects they are great. This announcement seems like good news. No one has to sell games on Steam. No one has to use a model where they "rent licens…

> They don't because too many people pirate games to make that a viable business. So, how does it work for Valve to sell games which are also available at GOG without DRM? If too many people are pirating, why would anyone buy the Steam version?

That's actually honestly a really good point. Things are changing. In real dollar terms games are getting cheaper and the size of the market has grown so I don't know if maybe a DRM free store will soon support premium games.

I can't think of a game available on GoG that sells on Steam for > $20. I am sure one exists, but in general these are older, cheaper games.

You could also point to games that the Epic store gives away that are sold on Steam. That's an even better example. You are right that people don't just pay for games because they can't get them for free, they are also willing to pay to get them in a convenient format even when another format is free.

My question is, does that really support the model for most premium games? Nobody likes DRM, the game industry didn't used to have it.

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

#374

Post by afiori »

eviks wrote: post #242
afiori wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because the price isn't binary? Also, the total spend isn't fixed either, it depends on how easy it's to pirate. So it's by definition still lost revenue, even if later/at reduced price

Consider the two cases

A: I pirated a game 25 years ago and played it after school

B: I didn't

which cases do you think will make me more likely to buy more versions of that game later?

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

#375

Post by Doxin »

generic92034 wrote: post #368
georgeecollins wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but the model that Valve pioneered is the model that supports 90% of all commercial PC games made today, a higher percentage if you cut out MMOs and free to play games, which you certainly don't own. I love GoG and I have worked closely with a lot of people there on projects they are great. This announcement seems like good news. No one has to sell games on Steam. No one has to use a model where they "rent licens…

> They don't because too many people pirate games to make that a viable business. So, how does it work for Valve to sell games which are also available at GOG without DRM? If too many people are pirating, why would anyone buy the Steam version?

Because it's easy. Say what you like about steam but it sure as hell made acquiring games super easy. On-par or easier than pirating.

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

#376

Post by afiori »

Tarball10 wrote: post #239
afiori wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

The reason why publishers like DRM is because it allows them to turn anything into a subscription-lite service plus tracking and advertising.

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

#377

Post by zx8080 »

georgeecollins wrote: post #361
ninth_ant wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They don't because too many people pirate games to make that a viable business. This is an opinion, stated as if it’s fact. There are many factors contributing to the ongoing success of steam. Ease of access, a strong network effect, word of mouth from satisfied customers, a strong ecosystem of tools and a modding platform, willingness to work across many platforms and a variety of vendors including competitors, an…

True, this is an opinion but I am guessing you don't know my background. And having some expertese doesn't guarantee my opinion is correct. But I guess I can say I am considered enough of an expert to be asked to speak on panels about the game industry or serve on juries for awards. And you are right it is a complicated question.

> I am guessing you don't know my background.

Don't be shy, share it.

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

#378

Post by eviks »

afiori wrote: post #374
eviks wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the price isn't binary? Also, the total spend isn't fixed either, it depends on how easy it's to pirate. So it's by definition still lost revenue, even if later/at reduced price

Consider the two cases A: I pirated a game 25 years ago and played it after school B: I didn't which cases do you think will make me more likely to buy more versions of that game later?

Consider reality instead, you can make any fantasy case you want:

C. You didn't pirate, but played because your friends were deeply into it, so you skipped buying lunch to save money and pay for the game (pirating was hard for this specific DRM). You bought it at a discount on sale (remember, the price isn't fixed?). That feeling of overcoming hardship and friendship fused into a very positive experience, making it 10 times more likely for you to buy the next version than in A. or B. The overall likelihood still was tiny because now you have a family and don't have time to play, so that and

D. Considering the amount of uncertainty (your game company will go out of business in 25 years) the value of your "more likely" is $0

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

#379

Post by serf »

georgeecollins wrote: post #91
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…

OK, but the model that Valve pioneered is the model that supports 90% of all commercial PC games made today, a higher percentage if you cut out MMOs and free to play games, which you certainly don't own. I love GoG and I have worked closely with a lot of people there on projects they are great. This announcement seems like good news. No one has to sell games on Steam. No one has to use a model where they "rent licens…

>OK, but the model that Valve pioneered is the model that supports 90% of all commercial PC games made today, a higher percentage if you cut out MMOs and free to play games, which you certainly don't own.

OK, but this model deployed in other parts of essentially any industry is equally scummy and abusive, no matter how much is liked, no matter how well they deployed it, no matter how many buckeroos it made someone.

in fact it's scummy any time the concept of sales and ownership gets warped aggressively, and even more so when it's done so in such a way that the leasee doesn't realize what they are until they get screwed somehow.

also, REMINDER: steam doesn't solve piracy, it helped to solve distribution. anti-piracy was sold (and lobbied to devs by Valve) far after the fact when it became clear that Valve had to have enough benefits to shove devs and customers into this style of non-ownership. Same reason why Steam also tries to be a half-assed discord/social media outlet.

Yes it's wildly successful. A lot of scummy shit is.

Steering the world that way (by example of business success) is sure to end well. Isn't that what FernGully was about?

Post reply on HN