june gloom on 21/7/2008 at 06:20
They don't want your grubby money with peanut butter stains all over it anyway.
Chimpy Chompy on 21/7/2008 at 08:53
Count me in as excited - the online distribution of old favourites is exactly what I like to see (anyone else shell out for the iD bumper pack on Steam?). Looks like there could be a lot of ten-ish-year old goodness i missed first time around, like Fallout and Giants.
Matthew on 21/7/2008 at 09:00
Koki, do you actually, actively believe that the original publishers don't charge or receive any monies for re-releases?
june gloom on 21/7/2008 at 09:19
C'mon dude. Look who you're asking.
Koki on 21/7/2008 at 10:19
Quote Posted by Matthew
Koki, do you actually, actively believe that the original publishers don't charge or receive any monies for re-releases?
Of course they do. License is worth something. But once they sell the license,
that's it. They are not getting a dime.
Shadowcat on 21/7/2008 at 11:17
Quote Posted by Koki
But is this service even worth supporting?
We are talking about the possibility of a successful venture based around
removing DRM* from games, and selling them for very low prices. Frankly, that concept is some kind of gamer fantasy.
If GOG fails, I suspect the chances of publishers supporting any similar endeavour in the future probably goes way down. This would be a bad thing.
If GOG succeeds, their catalog can only increase in size, and a great many fine games will be freed from the bane of copy protection, and all the annoyances and problems that it causes paying customers.
And if it succeeds, it sends a message to the industry. I'm not pretending that it will have a significant effect (if any) on current retail practices, but it can't be discounted either. If it positively influences any developer or publisher, it's a good thing.
And if GOG
really succeeds as a long-term business, then games of the present and future will eventually become available through their site, DRM-free. Like I said, all good games are eventually old.
Stardock's Impulse is a huge improvement on something like Steam (which talks to its servers too damn much IMO), but GOG is a step better, guaranteeing that even future re-installations will not depend upon any online system.
For anyone who keeps a large library of games, it should sound a bit like gaming retail nirvana.
So yes, I think this service is worth supporting, both for what it will be to begin with, and also in the hope that it will lead to truly great things. The potential long-term benefits simply can't be ignored.
(*) More precisely, I think they are getting the versions of the games that the developers gave to the publisher, prior to the copy protection being added. So it's not so much removing the DRM, as just not adding it.
mothra on 21/7/2008 at 12:34
I'm interested into how much time they'll spend for their installer and/or patches made for the games. will they make all my SS2 problems go away on XP ? will they include fan-patches as an option as well ? multiplayer map packs ?
The_Raven on 21/7/2008 at 14:07
I know that they've said in the various interviews that they did following the announcement that they have every intention of supporting fan-made enhancements and mods as much as they can, especially considering they have access to the source for some of the games.
Honestly, Koki, I'm pretty sure that the publishers are going to get their money's worth. While I'm not entire sure what kind of arrangement is usually made in this case, it does seem like it may be done via licensing. Gametap has a similar setup, and I've heard about licensing in terms of their library in the past, but there have also been cases where games have been pulled off the service because the publishers weren't happy or wanted to renegotiate. While there are some mild concerns about the service, talk is cheap, I think this is pretty far down the list. Actually, your objections are reminding me of some of the comments at shacknews about this where there has been people who have said they would have greatly preferred that the classic games were placed on Steam instead. :confused:
As many have already said, this is the first gaming news in a while that actually got me excited. It is the first time there has been a decent push to move the industry away from DRM and online activation in any form since their widespread adoption. I'd say that's something worth supporting, plus old games are better anyway. :cool:
Matthew on 21/7/2008 at 14:24
Quote Posted by Koki
Of course they do. License is worth something. But once they sell the license,
that's it. They are not getting a dime.
Your two points don't really make sense - how are they not getting money if they grant a licence? And how do you know that the licence fee does not include a sales-volume component?
ignatios on 21/7/2008 at 23:33
I think he's talking about selling the rights to grant a license, or whatever the equivalent legalese is.
Anyway Koki, my answer to your question is basically the same as Shadowcat's:
Quote Posted by Shadowcat
So yes, I think this service is worth supporting, both for what it will be to begin with, and also in the hope that it will lead to truly great things. The potential long-term benefits simply can't be ignored.