It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionHow would you feel about DRM if ...(89 posts)(89 posts)
(89 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 08, 2023
I wouldn't want GOG to be associated with that. If CDP wants to create a separate sister site that allows single-player DRM with the notice that the game's DRM will be removed after like 6 months and the game added to GOG, I'd be somewhat okay with that but I understand many here wouldn't like that.

I'd be interested to know what games would actually come to GOG if DRM was allowed, because to me the main issue remains GOG doesn't make enough money to interest AAA publishers, so I'm not sure what would change.

As it is, DRM-free is niche and like I said GOG doesn't make a lot of money comparatively which I think people who complain about the site, Galaxy, support, etc. issues should keep in mind. But I'm not sure allowing DRM would change much. They may be boiling the frog if they really have reason to believe they'd make a lot more money allowing DRM, and if that's true I hope they at least have good evidence/data to suggest so (because I recognize GOG is a business and not a non-profit). Years back, iirc they said they had reason to believe only like 5% of users downloaded the installers from the website, but I can't see removing those not being a PR nightmare at least for the foreseeable future.

Personally I'm okay with single-player-only "sloppy seconds", but it's possible I and others are part of the vocal minority. I like the idea of GOG using their profit to secure highly-desired releases already on Steam, again even if multiplayer and online features aren't ported to Galaxy, but maybe GOG wants to use their money for future releases to secure a Galaxy port while the game is still being developed. shrug
Posted January 08, 2023
Bad idea. It's the thin end of the wedge and would take up a tonne of support time to manage. There would be inevitable scope-creep and things like "Oh, it's actually proving really hard to remove the DRM, so you'll have to wait another 12 months" or "Oh, we've removed the DRM, but you have to set up your controls and video options each time you play" or "There's no DRM, but the game only supports cloud, not local saves".

If I wanted to rent a DRM'd game, I would go buy from Epic or the Microsoft Store.
Posted January 08, 2023
avatar
mechmouse: The point is in those 6 months people are buying elsewhere, starving GoG of sales and Market share.

Divinity 2: Original Sin sold 8% on PC sales on GoG.
Not Tonight, sold about 1%

The difference between the marketing of these games. The first was open and clear and very up front "THIS IS COMING TO GOG!", the second did a Stealth Day 1 release just a few hours after its Steam release and the publisher never marketed a GoG release.

Most GoG users, if they think there is no other option will use Steam even if they prefer GOG.

Its about getting the sales via GoG, increasing its market influence and allowing more games to come here.
avatar
clarry: Well, they don't need a DRM-ful release on GOG to achieve that visibility. Just announce the release and have it show up in upcoming games, with a release date. I don't think GOG users have any trouble waiting, the only trouble is when we literally have no idea whether a given game is ever going to show up.. this can be solved without DRM.
Which is what I suggest a few posts up
Posted January 08, 2023
Hell no. We saw how that went with flat pricing, and we're already seeing DRM starting to creep in as it is.
If some publishers won't sell their game DRM-free from the beginning but would be willing to remove DRM after a while, putting that in binding contracts with no escape, it should be announced on or preferably even before release, and GOG should make a big statement out of it, so those who want the game DRM-free here will know when they'll be able to get it. Besides, some of the worse bugs may be ironed out by then anyway.
Posted January 08, 2023
avatar
tfishell: Personally I'm okay with single-player-only "sloppy seconds", but it's possible I and others are part of the vocal minority.
I'm fine with what GOG offers too and I don't even see much of it as "sloppy seconds". We've had a lot more AAA titles here (Dishonoreds, Skyrim, Alien Isolation, Prey, Talos Principle, Tomb Raiders, Wolfensteins, etc) than I thought we'd get vs the mid 2015 'drought' we had. If people are demanding every AAA on Steam be here then blaming DRM when they aren't, then they're being wildly unrealistic as the reason why Elden Ring isn't also on Origin, uPlay or Microsoft Store certainly isn't DRM-Free holding those stores back. There's just a limit as to how many hyper-fragmented PC stores some publishers want to support in addition to supporting 1-2x XBox / PS generations, Switch, and possibly Android & Apple too, and that limit is often just 1-2 (ie, Steam and / or Epic or Microsoft) instead of "every single one".

Likewise GOG could embrace 20x layers of DRM and the newest Assassins Creed, Far Cry, FIFA 23, Battlefield, etc, games still wouldn't be here all the time they make 100x more money from Ubisoft+ ($14.99pm = $1,799 per decade) / EA Play Pro ($99pa = $990 per decade) / MS GamePass ($9.99pm = $1,200 per decade) 'cash cow' subscriptions. That's the real "gorging at the trough" target market the largest AAA studios want today.
Post edited January 08, 2023 by AB2012
Posted January 08, 2023
avatar
RedRabbitRun: How would you feel about some games being released on GOG with DRM *if* the publisher and store page CLEARLY STATED that all DRM would be removed, and the game FULLY playable offline, by a specific date (say, 6 months after launch)?
I'd rather have a 'Coming soon' and it not sell the game until DRM is removed.

Until then 'I have a bowl of skittles, have some. by the way, 20 of them will kill you....'
Posted January 08, 2023
avatar
RedRabbitRun: How would you feel about some games being released on GOG with DRM *if* the publisher and store page CLEARLY STATED that all DRM would be removed, and the game FULLY playable offline, by a specific date (say, 6 months after launch)?
I won't go as far as saying crazy, though it likely is. Clearly you are hoping for something better, an improvement, and fair enough, though I cannot agree with any reasons that suggest it would be a good idea, as they don't really make sense to me, certainly not at GOG.

In essence, I could see some sense in games being provided with DRM for the first 6 months maybe, and then the DRM being removed, but not as a GOG exclusive, but rather in the game industry as a whole ... in so far as I can tolerate DRM that is, which I wouldn't. I could however easily wait that 6 months before making a DRM-Free only purchase.

The reality is, that DRM is the standard, and for many it is the simplest approach, involving less fear and worry.

You have to ask and consider, how many gamers in all reality care enough about DRM-Free?

How many of those who provide games to GOG, actually care about DRM-Free or just care about making more sales?

DRM-Free is unlikely to be high on anyone's agenda, except GOGs and a sizable portion of GOG's customer base, and possibly a number of game providers that have some kind of altruistic belief.

I don't doubt that many who provide DRM-Free versions to GOG, would be just as happy if GOG did not exist. It would be hard to quantify how many that now buy a game at GOG, would buy it at Steam etc if GOG did not exist. Some surely wouldn't, sticking to their personal belief in DRM-Free only, but a sizable portion, perhaps the majority, would likely tolerate DRM, if only in the case of some favorite game(s).

You would have to ponder what most of us gamers would be doing, if GOG never existed in the first place, and they have basically spear-headed the DRM-Free movement for games, which would mostly be dead in the water without them, not even getting a run at the starting gate in the race I suspect.

GOG starting up, was quite an unusual and extreme thing to do. Many thought they wouldn't last, and especially not this long.

That's not to say that many game providers weren't already providing the odd game DRM-Free or wouldn't continue to do so on their own site etc, just that until GOG came along, DRM-Free wasn't really a selling point, certainly not a main one widely practiced.
Post edited January 08, 2023 by Timboli
Posted January 08, 2023
avatar
RedRabbitRun: How would you feel about some games being released on GOG with DRM *if* the publisher and store page CLEARLY STATED that all DRM would be removed, and the game FULLY playable offline, by a specific date (say, 6 months after launch)?
As I already said in another thread: I don't see GOG survive in the long run, if they don't open up for DRMed games.

The number of DRM-free games on the market and the group of buyers interested in DRM-free games only, is simply too small to sustain the business for "eternity".

However: I also don't see the benefits of your proposal. Neither for me (a buyer interested in DRM-free games), nor for the devs/publishers.

While I would love to have an exact date offered, on which I can expect game X or game Y being released DRM-free here on GOG, I would still wait for that day to come...and not buy the DRMed version, on the "promise" alone, of a DRM-free version "soon to come".

Not to mention the fact, that I don't see many (any ?) devs/publishers swayed by that proposal, to release their games here.

In the end, what you propose, would change nothing of what keeps many of them from releasing here on GOG in the first place: GOG's (unique on the market!) demand for a DRM-free version.

Sp, you want to offer them a window to sell their games DRMed, but only if, after that window closes, they'll give us their games DRM-free?
Well, that's very generous of you - for you (me/us)...but what exactly do the devs/publishers have from that?

Remember, many of these guys see a DRM-free release as a release that saves the software pirates the work.

And we had (and still have) people here who openly advocate for the piracy of GOG games.
So, you can't simply wipe aside these concerns as unfounded.

So - no. I don't think, what you propose will happen (I could be wrong, ofc, but I wouldn't bet against me - not at these odds).

Now, as to the question: " will GOG at some point in the future offer DRMed games?" I'm pretty sure of it.

Of course, they will have to mark those games, to keep "the wrong (aka: "DRM-free only")" customers from accidentally buying.
But their new customers won't mind the DRM, and simply buy here and thus keep GOG alive with their money.

And only if - IF - somewhere down the line, a game that got released here in its DRMed form, gets the DRM-free treatment...will the "original" GOG customers buy that game, too.

Though: if the DRMed games sell well enough...will that small contingent of possible "I buy DRM-free only!" customers justify the DRM-free treatment, at all?

And even if: what about those GOG customers who hold a grudge against the game because of that "DRM first" release/"it took too long" to get released DRM-free/etc.,...and who therefore won't buy it here - even after it is DRM-free?
We have a lot of people around here operating on that mindset.

GOG's "biggest" problem is its customer base (or rather the most vocal part of that base here in the forum (so: ~150 to 200 users)).

Those expect the rest of the world to bend to their (DRM-free) demands, and they expect GOG to serve as a battering ram in that regard.

They are unable to acknowledge that they are a minority on the world market, and that GOG's purpose as a business, is not to fulfill their dreams of a DRM-free renaissance, but to stay relevant as an employer, and thus able to pay its employees.
Posted January 08, 2023
avatar
BreOl72: GOG's "biggest" problem is its customer base (or rather the most vocal part of that base here in the forum (so: ~150 to 200 users)). Those expect the rest of the world to bend to their (DRM-free) demands, and they expect GOG to serve as a battering ram in that regard. They are unable to acknowledge that they are a minority on the world market, and that GOG's purpose as a business, is not to fulfill their dreams of a DRM-free renaissance, but to stay relevant as an employer, and thus able to pay its employees.
When I look around the store I see many of those who are declared "vocally DRM-Free problem people" are the same ones who've been here many years and own the most games (in some cases well over +2,000 on a store that has only 4,900 games), ie, have earned GOG the most income (and that's actual games they want to buy vs many Steam users who brag about +3,000 game accounts that turns out to be mostly 'bundle filler' they didn't want). At the same time, many of the same people declared "GOG's future" in being open-minded to DRM often turn out to be 'one-game accounts' (ie, "I'm only here because I bought Witcher 3 / CB2077 or just got a free Amazon Prime giveaway code") then promptly drift back to Steam once those games are finished and aren't replacing anyone (because if you're a non-GOG user who doesn't care about DRM-Free, the question isn't 'why not use GOG' it's still 'why stop using Steam'). So perhaps 'the vocal ones' are disproportionately vocal for a good reason?...
Posted January 08, 2023
avatar
BrianSim: When I look around the store I see many of those who are declared "vocally DRM-Free problem people" are the same ones who've been here many years and own the most games, ie, have earned GOG the most income...

So perhaps 'the vocal ones' are disproportionately vocal for a good reason?...
Feel free to think whatever you want, but "the vocal ones" (as I said: maybe 150 to 200 people here in the forums) are not the ones who "earned GOG the most income".

That role would fall onto the silent majority, who simply buy their games without bothering visiting the forums (and who, in parts, also own hundreds or thousands of games here. Just because you don't see them or their accounts here in
the forum, doesn't make them nonexistent).

You - as so many others - fail to recognize, that GOG as a business would have had to close shop in the first year of its existence already, if "the vocal ones" would have been the only source of income.

It's the several (hundreds of) thousands of buyers, all over the planet, who keep GOG afloat with their daily purchases.
Posted January 08, 2023
high rated
avatar
RedRabbitRun: How would you feel about some games being released on GOG with DRM *if* the publisher and store page CLEARLY STATED that all DRM would be removed, and the game FULLY playable offline, by a specific date (say, 6 months after launch)?

I’m not even sure about this myself, but I was thinking about this and thought that there could be several reasons why this could be a good thing.

First, though, a few reasons why this might be a BAD idea;

1. It could normalize the inclusion of DRM on GOG.

Even if the publisher and GOG commit to removing DRM by a specific date, we could then see some games initially released with DRM that otherwise wouldn’t have had it at all. There might also be legitimate fears that this would be just a first-step towards some titles being released with permanent DRM.

2. It sends mixed messages; dampening GOG’s reputation for committing to DRM-free games.

Even if we all benefitted with more games and less DRM in the long-term, GOG’s reputation is a delicate one (the Hitman launch being an obvious recent example). If they introduced time-limited DRM, it would almost certainly alienate some people. It would also require us to trust that GOG would remain true to this overall objective.

On the other hand, I think there are also some interesting ways in which this could be a really GOOD policy;

1. More games might come to GOG (on day 1 of launch, or otherwise).

GOG suffers from a ‘sloppy seconds’ problem, where some publishers are reluctant to release a game on a DRM-free platform. If those games ever do make their way onto GOG after several years, there’s a high likelihood that interest in that game will have significantly waned or that people will have already purchased the game elsewhere – so potential sales on GOG are significantly reduced.

Companies like Denuvo often state that the initial launch window of a title is when a game is most likely to be pirated (admittedly, this claim is often made in an attempt to save face shortly after their DRM has been circumvented) – so publishers might feel more willing to release a game with time-limited DRM than without DRM at all.

2. More potential revenue for GOG.

This would benefit both the company, continued development of the platform and its long-term stability.

3. An opportunity to show publishers that offline and DRM-free is something that we value.

I would value the opportunity to demonstrate to a publisher that I was willing to buy their product if they committed to removing all DRM and retaining complete offline-play (where applicable) by a fixed and publicly-declared date.

4. Normalizes the removal of DRM.

Currently, DRM is only occasionally removed from a title (and sometimes added to it after launch). As far as I’m aware, removal of DRM is rarely planned significantly in advance and possibly never committed to in a publicly-declared roadmap.

If publicly-declared removal of DRM by a specific date became normal (and games launched with this information clearly visible), it could become a much more desirable strategy than to simply retain DRM indefinitely – and certainly better for public perception.

What do you think? Crazy-talk? Or is there a universe in which you could ever envisage something like this being worthwhile?

Are there any DRM-stricken games you would have bought (on day 1 or otherwise) if you trusted that the DRM would be permanently removed 6 months after release?
I would leave GOG and go to another DRM-free store or pirating games. DRM is DRM regardless of any worthless promises which do not affect the product right now.
Posted January 08, 2023
high rated
That would be an empty promise, not worth the letters it's written with.

If they want to remove the DRM in six months, they should release it only then on GOG. Not before. there is already too much DRM on GOG.
Posted January 08, 2023
avatar
BreOl72: That role would fall onto the silent majority, who simply buy their games without bothering visiting the forums (and who, in parts, also own hundreds or thousands of games here. Just because you don't see them or their accounts here in the forum, doesn't make them nonexistent).
Yes I get that. You often make the opposite mistake in assuming that just because someone doesn't post in the forum that they must somehow not care at all "or they'd be here talking about it". Eg, I know someone in person who buys here, has never used the forum, never mentions DRM in talking about PC games. When I asked once why he buys here he replied "I got burned first with SecuROM then Games For Windows Live, never again". He's definitely not a "vocal regular" yet it's obvious why he (one of the silent majority too) buys here.

Really it's like Windows vs Linux. Windows (Steam) is mainstream and overwhelmingly dominates and most users don't care about Windows Activation at all. Linux (GOG) is niche by its nature. Now not all Linux (GOG) users care about DRM specifically, they could use it for other reasons (eg, open source / older games), but people more likely to use Linux (GOG) in general are statistically more likely to care about it as an "average" vs the "average" Windows user or overall "average" PC user, even if they don't spend all the time talking about it. So I certainly don't buy into the fallacy that if 95% of Steam / PC users don't care about DRM-Free, then 95% of people who use GOG but don't post to the GOG forums "don't care" by false extrapolation.
Post edited January 08, 2023 by BrianSim
Posted January 08, 2023
avatar
BreOl72: That role would fall onto the silent majority, who simply buy their games without bothering visiting the forums (and who, in parts, also own hundreds or thousands of games here. Just because you don't see them or their accounts here in the forum, doesn't make them nonexistent).
avatar
BrianSim: Yes I get that. You often make the opposite mistake in assuming that just because someone doesn't post in the forum that they must somehow not care at all "or they'd be here talking about it".
Sorry? Care to elaborate?
As far as I know/remember, I never made a statement which would indicate to that conclusion.
avatar
BrianSim: Eg, I know someone in person who buys here, has never used the forum, never mentions DRM in talking about PC games. When I asked once why he buys here he replied "I got burned first with SecuROM then Games For Windows Live, never again". He's definitely not a "vocal regular" yet it's obvious why he (one of the silent majority too) buys here.
Cool. So you know a guy. I also know guys. Most of them don't even know that GOG exists.
What does any of that prove now? (genuine question)
Posted January 08, 2023
avatar
BreOl72: What does any of that prove now? (genuine question)
That you're struggling to grasp that people can care about something without necessarily being publicly vocal on it?...

It's not like we have to guess why many people originally came to GOG when GOG's own management spent years doing public interviews and basing marketing around this:-

2008 - https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2008/09/idiocy-of-games-drm/
2014 - https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/12/gogs-managing-director-gamer-resistance-to-drm-is-stronger-than-ever/

Are these interviews outside of GOG targeting only a "minority of regular vocal GOG forum users"? Of course not...
Post edited January 08, 2023 by BrianSim
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionHow would you feel about DRM if ...(89 posts)(89 posts)
(89 posts)