Just did a GOG survey that focused on the idea of a paid membership option on GOG. Seems they’re determining what people would be willing to pay extra for. Some of the options were
a tool for backing up offline installers
ability to install previous versions of a game
extra insight into the preservation work they’re doing.
voting rights on games to bring into the preservation program.
I got the same survey. The ones that they definitely do not want to do, if they value their reputation, are things like “increased cloud save storage (that’s still probably less than what Steam offers)” and things that they took away, like 1.0 installers. But some of the other options look to be more squarely aimed at the enthusiasts of the preservation program that this subscription is designed to financially support, as well as one or two actually good features like legal account sharing. Hopefully they go down that route instead.
It’s on par with Steam, I think. You get like 200 megs per product. I know because my Witcher 3 install is above that and it’s annoying. That wouldn’t be a dealbreaker as a subscription benefit, I don’t think.
With the rest I do agree.
I can tell they’re struggling and have been for a while. It isn’t easy to compete with Steam, and the thing that would have done it (having DRM’d new games in the service) was voted down in a similar survey some time ago.
I would not be against some Patreon-like crowdsourced solution for behind the scenes stuff and prioritization rights. GOG, or something like it MUST exist. Steam is bad enough with their current dominant position, it can’t be the sole remaining option in this market.
I would much prefer to be able to give them more money in exchange for more games, though. I am constantly frustrated by how often some indie game is only available on Steam, and I’ve started buying things full price on GOG but waiting for sales on Steam as a matter of policy.
Is that where it is now? I haven’t looked at the documentation in an age. I think most stay lower because ultimately cloud storage is a cross-platform concern and different first parties have different requirements. Plus you want to keep it under control anyway. At any rate it’s not a huge concern and other services like PSN or Nintendo Online already charge for it, so… not a dealbreaker as long as the base implementation stays free.
They need to fix their launchers on all systems before the do anything else. I’m happy to support them in their mission of game preservation, but they really don’t do a good job at providing a high quality service.
Also, I’ve purchased things from them that were never provided, and they refused a refund (warcraft 2 battle net key). I know it was likely Blizzard’s fault, but they could have at least responded to my emails with more than “no refunds, we are working on it”.
I’d consider a small fee to support the preservation program if I then received said games for free. It doesn’t have to be a monthly thing but whenever they are added.
I can’t think of anything else that would be worthwhile.
The previous versions of a game thing is something they took away, IIRC. They only keep the latest version and a patch to get up to it available for download, and you can only roll back to previous versions that you had already installed over time, or something like that. This is them seeing if you want to pay money to get a feature back that they used to offer, which is kinda lousy.
I’m not sure, but years ago, at least. Likely to save on server hosting fees. If you go to download the installer now, you only see the latest version, but you used to see every version.
I have supported GoG for quite some years. I don’t understand why they keep pivoting different things to do.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I would support paying for the initial game as well as every major patch when a new OS came out. Say, they do something to make a game work on Win 11. One year later we have Win 12 so I don’t mind paying a little for the patch. Then one year later we have Win 13 and I’m willing to pay again if I still play the game.
I would also support paying for online servers for games that have multiplayer components. That takes money to maintain.
As others mentioned, GoG should stop wasting time on a launcher. Hell, even the installer. Just ZIP the whole thing for me to download.
I would also support paying for online servers for games that have multiplayer components. That takes money to maintain.
If the developers were interested in allowing people to keep the servers running, they’d just give us the server code like they used to. If I was in charge of a GOG that was a little more flush with capital, I might fund an easy drop-in replacement library for Steam’s multiplayer APIs so that developers can easily port their games to GOG and be playable, in multiplayer, offline.
Honestly, I would totally move to GOG, however my entire games collection is on Steam, so it would be very very difficult and it’s rather tedious to have and use 2 platforms like that.
Oh well, I do hope they can get more people onto their platform. it’s a better Epic store for sure.
I honestly felt the same. Then I thought, eh, let’s just try. Turns out I don’t care about my library being split. I just add desktop icons for the games I’m playing and launch them from there without thinking about what platform it’s on.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
I like what GOG do, but gating features, even niche ones, behind a subscription sounds like the first step towards enshittification.
Also, I’m sure as hell not giving them extra money until they fix their platform on Linux/Steam Deck.
Just put out AVP2
F
Voting rights and extra insight are fine, but I feel a “Humble Bundle”-esque membership would work well. For $x a month you get a few games to keep.
I got the same survey. The ones that they definitely do not want to do, if they value their reputation, are things like “increased cloud save storage (that’s still probably less than what Steam offers)” and things that they took away, like 1.0 installers. But some of the other options look to be more squarely aimed at the enthusiasts of the preservation program that this subscription is designed to financially support, as well as one or two actually good features like legal account sharing. Hopefully they go down that route instead.
It’s on par with Steam, I think. You get like 200 megs per product. I know because my Witcher 3 install is above that and it’s annoying. That wouldn’t be a dealbreaker as a subscription benefit, I don’t think.
With the rest I do agree.
I can tell they’re struggling and have been for a while. It isn’t easy to compete with Steam, and the thing that would have done it (having DRM’d new games in the service) was voted down in a similar survey some time ago.
I would not be against some Patreon-like crowdsourced solution for behind the scenes stuff and prioritization rights. GOG, or something like it MUST exist. Steam is bad enough with their current dominant position, it can’t be the sole remaining option in this market.
I would much prefer to be able to give them more money in exchange for more games, though. I am constantly frustrated by how often some indie game is only available on Steam, and I’ve started buying things full price on GOG but waiting for sales on Steam as a matter of policy.
IIRC Steam lets developers code how much storage to use, with a 5GB cap per game
Is that where it is now? I haven’t looked at the documentation in an age. I think most stay lower because ultimately cloud storage is a cross-platform concern and different first parties have different requirements. Plus you want to keep it under control anyway. At any rate it’s not a huge concern and other services like PSN or Nintendo Online already charge for it, so… not a dealbreaker as long as the base implementation stays free.
Support Linux and give me Dark Colony (which tons of people have asked for already for years) and I’ll consider subscribing.
This is how enshitification begins, don’t enable this shit.
yup, shit that we already have will start being gated behind the fee of the subscription
Is GOG a popular store among gamers?
It’s my #1 shop for games. DRM free (my games, not just a licence) and I support preservation of retro games.
It’s my second store, but it’s still a distant second to steam.
Among a subset of gamers who care about owning the things that they buy, yes
They need to fix their launchers on all systems before the do anything else. I’m happy to support them in their mission of game preservation, but they really don’t do a good job at providing a high quality service.
Also, I’ve purchased things from them that were never provided, and they refused a refund (warcraft 2 battle net key). I know it was likely Blizzard’s fault, but they could have at least responded to my emails with more than “no refunds, we are working on it”.
I’d consider a small fee to support the preservation program if I then received said games for free. It doesn’t have to be a monthly thing but whenever they are added.
I can’t think of anything else that would be worthwhile.
Notice to everyone about GOG Galaxy not in Linux: there is MiniGalaxy. It’s not official but it works.
This really should be something they offer for free, and there are already some FOSS options that do this, although they aren’t as good as I’d like.
This is a feature they already have for free and there would (or at least should) be backlash if they were to lock that behind a subscription
Sure, neat.
Sure but said votes better have an actual impact.
The previous versions of a game thing is something they took away, IIRC. They only keep the latest version and a patch to get up to it available for download, and you can only roll back to previous versions that you had already installed over time, or something like that. This is them seeing if you want to pay money to get a feature back that they used to offer, which is kinda lousy.
When did they take it away?
I’m not sure, but years ago, at least. Likely to save on server hosting fees. If you go to download the installer now, you only see the latest version, but you used to see every version.
Oh, I thought you could still download older versions under download offline installer
I have supported GoG for quite some years. I don’t understand why they keep pivoting different things to do.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I would support paying for the initial game as well as every major patch when a new OS came out. Say, they do something to make a game work on Win 11. One year later we have Win 12 so I don’t mind paying a little for the patch. Then one year later we have Win 13 and I’m willing to pay again if I still play the game.
I would also support paying for online servers for games that have multiplayer components. That takes money to maintain.
As others mentioned, GoG should stop wasting time on a launcher. Hell, even the installer. Just ZIP the whole thing for me to download.
If the developers were interested in allowing people to keep the servers running, they’d just give us the server code like they used to. If I was in charge of a GOG that was a little more flush with capital, I might fund an easy drop-in replacement library for Steam’s multiplayer APIs so that developers can easily port their games to GOG and be playable, in multiplayer, offline.
Wait so they’re taking away features and going to paywall them? We can already downgrade
Shit must be dire at CDPR after that earnings report was below last year
I was quoting them from memory. Could be that I misread that specific question.
You did good there. The survey looked like they got some new marketing idiot.
Honestly, I would totally move to GOG, however my entire games collection is on Steam, so it would be very very difficult and it’s rather tedious to have and use 2 platforms like that.
Oh well, I do hope they can get more people onto their platform. it’s a better Epic store for sure.
I honestly felt the same. Then I thought, eh, let’s just try. Turns out I don’t care about my library being split. I just add desktop icons for the games I’m playing and launch them from there without thinking about what platform it’s on.