I have no problem with what you think about the boycott. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I do think however --- and I hope I have made it clear with my little attempt at humour above --- that implying that one's opinion is the only valid one is rather counterproductive and perhaps even rude.

Well said.....we need to be coming together, not nitpicking who is boycotting best or etc(which mainly helps to drive those doing so apart).

Idea: grab the games if they're offered free, then send some money to the devs directly(then they get all the money)


====

They have little power over the text/pics/etc.....and its not just a theory: I told them some info(plot/etc) was inaccurate on a game page and support told me they couldn't change it without the IP holder's permission.


====

Does the game have a texture/etc precaching setting(in the menus or config files)? I ask as I had very slow frame rates in Wolfenstein: Old Blood....then I turned those settings on and suddenly the game ran like butter.


====

And inferring/implying/outright stating that someone else's stance/degree of adoption(on things like boycotts and etc) makes them a bad person is even worse.

That said, to the above: well said

That might not be correct.

EGS pays the devs to offer their games for free for a period of time.

It's quite likely that GOG does the same also. Although I'm not positive about that.

No, not that I saw.

But that's the sales pitch for the game. The equivalent to the back of the box in a b&m store. Surely that has to be completely different from whatever disclaimer GOG decide or have to display on a page to communicate additional info.

I almost missed this post. As for my source, it's just simple logic. It makes less than zero sense for GoG to play neutral here and stay entirely silent in all public, but put this "disclaimer" that changes nothing silently. The motives behind doing these two things are mutually contradictory.

As for the rest: Does a mall get to change the front of a store by force because it owns the mall? No, that's not how a storefront works. For lack of a better choice of words, it rents the space out to publishers, and the only ones who have official rights are said publishers. I'm sure there's some positions support can just contact the IP holder quickly or get special permission when abandonwear is involved to handle the store page in the publisher's stead, but I doubt IO would give that permission here.

...yeah, having GOG routinely undercut Steam isn't going to happen. Sorry.

No that's a pretty accurate comparison. GoG might be able to slap a cheap routine sticker on the box but they can't just cover up or change the box art/advertisement itself to hide or alter information. And if they have formal contract they likely aren't even allowed to take it off the shelves without some hard backing. We the customers may argue the game is non-functional, but explaining that to a civil court judge is a gambit.

Then I wasn't clear the first time, because it seems to me we're saying the same thing here.

GOG not being able to alter the game's actual description is somewhat reasonable, I'm not arguing against that. Instead the disclaimer about online functionality would be the sticker in that analogy.

To be blunt, if GOG somehow managed to get themselves into that hypothetical situation, where they have games with online only components in their store and got rid of the right to clearly point out those components in detail (and I have no idea how that would even be possible), absolutely no one with even a shred of interest in DRM-free should ever spend a cent here again and I'm just going to assume we're all on the same page about that.

Why gamers are trying to run modern games on 8GB of RAM is beyond me; especially when you have a video card with 6GB of VRAM and that alone is very close to the system RAM number. Usually, gamers have way more regular RAM than VRAM.

I seem to at 1080p eat 10-12GB of regular RAM on a lot of modern titles. So, at least, gamers should push up to 12GB RAM; or better yet go for 16GB of RAM (or more, if you got the $).

For crying out loud, I've had 16GB of RAM in my systems for a while. I had to push X Rebirth (2013 release) up to 16GB RAM, just to get better performance - and that was not long after it launched on Steam, since it ate regular RAM for water at 1080p and trying to max it out. Plus, that was a buggy mess when it came out; thankfully I found it for like $6 or so from Best Buy, in store; talk about getting lucky, back then, w/ a deal like that. Must've been sitting on the shelf, doing nothing and not moving units, for it to hit so cheap so quick at Best Buy like that, back in the day. [shrug]

Hitman 2016 and that new Hitman Trilogy series on PC are very demanding games to max-out, so expect to lower graphic settings and/or lower resolution, if you're aiming for say 60fps - especially w/ that low amount of RAM and an older CPU like that.

Wolfenstein: TOB out-the-box doesn't run well, as it's on that "meh" RAGE 1 Engine / Id Tech 5. It runs at 60fps, sure - but that engine has issue, as it's really built for 60fps. That's like trash performance on my RTX 3070, even compared to say something like APEX Engine for RAGE 2 which runs at like 1080p maxed-out at 150-200fps or so on the regular.

Don't expect miracles on Hitman 1: GOTY for performance with only 8GB of RAM (especially single-channel here - you should push that to 12GB or 16GB RAM) and a GTX 1650 loaded with only 4GB VRAM. Back in the day (when it was out on Steam, a spell or two ago), I was getting around 30-40fps at 1080p...and that was with a FPS lock via MSI Afterburner, since it bounced b/t 30-60fps a lot with a so-called "4GB" VRAM GTX 970 and 16GB RAM, similar to Batman: AK levels of poor performance.

I would want a clear confirmation from GOG of how the freebies work, before I would snag a free game from a small developer. I want to know that the developer is still getting paid - i.e. GOG is the one paying for the free game.

Thank you, the document you mention in the other thread is so much more useful than just looking at the numbers and speculating :/. So it sounds like the loss is accounting wizardry poofing costs from one place to another, although I'm guessing they would be disappointed that it doesn't look like they were able to convince many of the CP2077 buyers to stick around and buy other stuff on GOG (yet, maybe they are still playing CP2077). I pixel counted and got almost exactly 39% of GOG sales revenue last year being CP2077 sales in the 4th quarter (about 33.5 million USD). That doesn't even count non-CP2077 CDPR products or preorders earlier in the year. I think there is some other stuff going on in the consolidation elimination numbers but I think sales of CDPR products are most likely less than 10% of GOG revenue most of the time (not counting GWENT, which is at least another 4.7% in 2019, 3.7% 2020, and 4% first half of this year - I'm not clear if this is the part GOG keeps or if this is the total revenue via galaxy).

I would guess it is similar to a Humble Bundle where the developer gets a tiny fraction of what they normally would on a per sale basis but due to the volume makes a non-trivial amount of money. It would be nice to know how it works.

Well, since GoG has not replied lately and it looks like they are basically giving us the middle finger on this topic...

I have been researching and experimenting with cracking my steam games. I've been fairly successful moving the Steam game to it's own hard drive with a fresh OS and no DRM Launchers of any kind. Once I have all my Gog Games installed and all my Steam games cracked on the new drive, I'll mostly wipe the old drive and only boot it to download any new purchased steam games to transfer to my No DRM / No Launcher OS Drive.

As for future purchases with GoG... Getting a Steam sale and crack is probably quicker than waiting for the game to arrive on GoG. I'm not outright boycotting GoG at the moment... but I'm definitly keeping my options open.