GOG seems to be considering paid membership option
-
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.
And others that I can't remember.
What a nigjtmare.
-
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.
-
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.
And others that I can't remember.
Anything but properly supporting the Linux community
How have they still not learned that the largest intersection of the people that care about their core value proposition (game preservation, DRM-free, etc.) are Linux users?? It's not like they have to create the compatibility layers from scratch; Valve did it for them.
If they provided a launcher for Linux users, I'd actually buy shit from them. Yes, Heroic Launcher exists, but I'm not paying GOG for the work that the Heroic dev did. I want first-party support.
-
Anything but properly supporting the Linux community
How have they still not learned that the largest intersection of the people that care about their core value proposition (game preservation, DRM-free, etc.) are Linux users?? It's not like they have to create the compatibility layers from scratch; Valve did it for them.
If they provided a launcher for Linux users, I'd actually buy shit from them. Yes, Heroic Launcher exists, but I'm not paying GOG for the work that the Heroic dev did. I want first-party support.
Why do you want a launcher? I have a few GoG games and I don't really feel like a launcher is something I need.
What I do want is games to actually update on GoG at the same time as steam, not over a week later. X4 7.0 came out and it was over a week longer for the GoG version to update, in the end I refunded and bought it on steam instead.
-
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.
And others that I can't remember.
I wish they worked with opensource projects like Heroic to provide an easy and fast way to run their games on Linux like in Steam. And if they provided a donation option or something to fund that work.
-
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.
And others that I can't remember.
Support Linux and give me Dark Colony (which tons of people have asked for already for years) and I'll consider subscribing.
-
Why do you want a launcher? I have a few GoG games and I don't really feel like a launcher is something I need.
What I do want is games to actually update on GoG at the same time as steam, not over a week later. X4 7.0 came out and it was over a week longer for the GoG version to update, in the end I refunded and bought it on steam instead.
Cloud saves, achievements, and tracking hours is something I do like. I have over a 100 GOG games, so individually managing exe files isn't something I really want to do.
-
Anything but properly supporting the Linux community
How have they still not learned that the largest intersection of the people that care about their core value proposition (game preservation, DRM-free, etc.) are Linux users?? It's not like they have to create the compatibility layers from scratch; Valve did it for them.
If they provided a launcher for Linux users, I'd actually buy shit from them. Yes, Heroic Launcher exists, but I'm not paying GOG for the work that the Heroic dev did. I want first-party support.
What if I told you that the intersection between people who care and the 5% of their potential audience that are Linux users is very small either way?
I'm not saying Linux isn't a chance for them, but it's also an investment and very like not a profitable one for quite a while.
-
Cloud saves, achievements, and tracking hours is something I do like. I have over a 100 GOG games, so individually managing exe files isn't something I really want to do.
I backup my own saves, don't really trust someone elses computer to do as good of a job as I can myself. Wrote a script to automate it.
-
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.
And others that I can't remember.
such a strange survey. it was all about "exclusive access" and "extra perks". i just want to support game fixes so that everyone gets access, but that wasn't part of it.
-
What if I told you that the intersection between people who care and the 5% of their potential audience that are Linux users is very small either way?
I'm not saying Linux isn't a chance for them, but it's also an investment and very like not a profitable one for quite a while.
-
Why do you want a launcher? I have a few GoG games and I don't really feel like a launcher is something I need.
What I do want is games to actually update on GoG at the same time as steam, not over a week later. X4 7.0 came out and it was over a week longer for the GoG version to update, in the end I refunded and bought it on steam instead.
I'm fairly sure the update cadence is set by the game dev/publisher, not GoG.
-
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.
And others that I can't remember.
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.
-
I backup my own saves, don't really trust someone elses computer to do as good of a job as I can myself. Wrote a script to automate it.
Do you not have to update that script every time you play a new game? Cloud saves are pretty automatic, and regardless of platform, they've been pretty reliable too. It also fits that use case that you go to a friend's place and want to show them something in your save file on a whim.
-
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.
And others that I can't remember.
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.
-
such a strange survey. it was all about "exclusive access" and "extra perks". i just want to support game fixes so that everyone gets access, but that wasn't part of it.
-
Anything but properly supporting the Linux community
How have they still not learned that the largest intersection of the people that care about their core value proposition (game preservation, DRM-free, etc.) are Linux users?? It's not like they have to create the compatibility layers from scratch; Valve did it for them.
If they provided a launcher for Linux users, I'd actually buy shit from them. Yes, Heroic Launcher exists, but I'm not paying GOG for the work that the Heroic dev did. I want first-party support.
At this point they should just hire the Heroic devs, I doubt anything they could build themselves would compare in terms of quality.
-
Do you not have to update that script every time you play a new game? Cloud saves are pretty automatic, and regardless of platform, they've been pretty reliable too. It also fits that use case that you go to a friend's place and want to show them something in your save file on a whim.
Syncthing?
-
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.
And others that I can't remember.
-
Syncthing?
Yes, that's what I use when I need it for GOG saves. But typically, every game puts their save file in a different spot, so you do need to do a one-time setup for each individual game.
