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

561–570 of 574 posts

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

#561

Post by Gormo »

sanskritical wrote: post #226
fooqux wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly I've had the same experience. I've had to rebuy a couple games on steam because the older gog version wasn't version compatible with my friend's clients. That really burned my bottom.

Yes, it is so bad that I will no longer buy a game for its Linux release. Almost every single Linux game I have outside of actual Valve titles no longer works. I don't want to hear that they have a Linux release. I want to hear that they have a Windows release that works with Proton. Windows is the only ABI that I can expect to reliably run on Linux.

I've been gaming primarily on Linux for almost 15 years, and buying from GOG as my first choice, and have never encountered a single instance of what you're describing. I don't have a single Linux game on my GOG account that "no longer works", and I have dozens of Linux games there.

In fact the only time I recall a Linux-native game not working out of the box was when I got the game 'The Raven: Legacy of a Master Thief' on Steam, and that was due to some wonky configuration implemented by the game devs.

Do you have any specific examples of this problem?

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

#562

Post by Gormo »

kgwxd wrote: post #236
Gormo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> What does the installer matter for DRM-free software?

Requiring a network-connected proprietary client to install the software is itself a form of DRM.

> For software with other forms of DRM built-in anyway, who cares if the installer has it?

Again, GOG does not distribute games that include DRM, whether in the installer or in the game itself.

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

#563

Post by qwertfisch »

Tarball10 wrote: post #244
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

Not paying full price is not a "lost sale". People unwilling to pay full price wait for a discount or price reduction. Look at how popular the seasonal Steam sales are. Pirating the game very likely means they never purchase it at any price, which _is_ a lost sale.

I never paid for games as a kid (starting with 8 years and first PC). We didn’t have the money until much later. Other friends and uncles had games, we copied it all. Eight years later (with 16) I bought two game compilations for birthday and Christmas. Around 40 games, no more than 2 or 3 years old. I had fun for years.

And then much later being a university student, I had money of my own and have bought games I liked. Never pirated to save money. And you know, GOG came along, and I was thrilled having the old games from my childhood again as digital legal copy. With manuals and addons. I bought 20+ old DOS games I already knew. Better late than never.

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

#564

Post by account42 »

Aurornis wrote: post #470
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…

I’ve followed a couple indie game developers over the years who started with lofty ideas about selling DRM free games. As soon as they add an online component of any type (e.g. a leaderboard for ranks or high scores) they’re blown away by the number of connections coming in because the number of people playing the game is so much higher than they would have expected from sales alone. If you’re the kind of person who…

What makes you think the situation is any different with Steam-exclusive games (with or without additional DRM)?

And those indies shouldn't equate a non-customer player with a lost sale either.

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

#565

Post by account42 »

brigandish wrote: post #550
mikkupikku wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can play most games to some degree on hardware that's 10+ years old, but yes, hardware is usually something they've scrounged and saved for. And do tell, what is the practical price of pirating a game you couldn't afford anyway? Risk of a virus? Some abstract cost to society itself? Nobody cares.

If they scrounged and saved for the hardware why can't they do that for the software too?

Because if they already struggle to afford a PC then anything on top of that will be even harder.

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

#566

Post by account42 »

chii wrote: post #310
eviks wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way you sell your disks: find a buyer, send them the game files, they send you the money

> find a buyer this buyer would rather buy off GOG than you, unless you give a significant discount (and even then, the trust is hard to establish). Therefore, even if you might have a legal right to re-sell (which you really don't unfortunately), the actual sale won't happen.

Same for disks. That the second hand market is cheaper is expected and a feature and a major reason why game publishers do everything they can so it doesn't exist.

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

#567

Post by account42 »

daedrdev wrote: post #84
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…

Im pretty sure I read in the past GoG still sells you a license to a game in perpetuity, rather than ownership Of corse, practically there is little difference since they provide offline installers, so its much better to use GoG if you care about this. The reason they also do this is because of copyright, the license allows games to forbid you from redistribution more copies If Im wrong about this please let me know,…

That's how all sales of digital products work with copyright, whether on a physical medium or not, and the only way they can work. The question is if that perpetual license is also transferable or not.

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

#568

Post by account42 »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #456
wilg wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely don't understand what people think "own" means here. Downloading from Steam you "own" it in exactly the same way as if you install it from a CD: you have a license to the game. There's nothing to own in any case, unless you literally own the copyright to the game which of course you don't. Also Steam doesn't apply any DRM unless developers add it, so backing up your Steam library folder to an external dri…

That's true, the CD is a license in the same way steam is. But practically it's different, because in many cases there's no mechanical way to revoke the license from that CD; it'll keep working after music rights expire or the game producer gets cancelled on Twitter or whatever. The game won't just evaporate like it can on steam

The main difference is that the license you get when you buy a CD is transferable, that is you can sell it to someone else when you are done with it, while Steam explicitly disallows this.

Transferable licenses create a second hand market which keeps prices in check, which of course publishers don't like at all.

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

#569

Post by account42 »

fernie wrote: post #144
benoau wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of this is based on the assumption that the way it was done is the way it will be done. Who will own and run Steam 30 years from now? Gabe Newell will be long-gone, his nepobaby next-CEO will be closing in on retirement if they don't check-out early to enjoy their vast wealth like Gabe has done. What does Steam look like 60 years from now? Adults using it today are mostly dead and all of their licenses revoked fo…

I can assure you that offline installer you got today from GOG will not work on Windows 20 or whatever OS will be the dominant for PC in 30 or 60 years time.

It will continue to work on the same platforms it does now. Steam on the other hand already dropped support for Windows versions when they were still used by many players.

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

#570

Post by account42 »

SXX wrote: post #128
satvikpendem wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You never know, Gaben is getting older. Who knows what the next CEO of Valve will do?

At least with Valve we can hope its gonna be okay for 4 reasons: 1. Even though Gabe is formally CEO he from his own words was barelly controllibg company for years. He spend more time on his other projects. 2. Flat structure and and a small team. I know few people who has worked at Valve and while there are some downsides company of ~400 employees with a lot of internal power play is just more resilient than normal…

> Even though Gabe is formally CEO he from his own words was barelly controllibg company for years. He spend more time on his other projects.

The time he spends on Valve day to day is irrelevant to the question of what would happen if those actually running the company decided to do something stupid like taking games away from people vs. what would happen in the same scenario without Gabe around.

> Many of people on the team are just rich enough already and they dont need to go and cash out.

Rich people are largely the kind that can never have enough money.

> From what is publicly known Valve is family owned basically since Gabe own major part of company.

And there is no reason to believe his heirs will want to keep the company rather than cash out for the right offer just because Gabe wouldn't have.

> It would be just hard to sell Valve and remove control from the team without destroying both company and gaming community goodwill.

That has never been an a showstopper for vulture capitalists.

Post reply on HN