GOG seems to be considering paid membership option
-
I wouldn't mind supporting them if they could provide a Linux tool that let me download my library in bulk.
The best you'll get is Heroic Games Launcher. It's got most of the features I'd want at this point.
-
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.
And you just ignored the rest of the reasons, and to add to those: automatic updates.
-
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.
Typing
backup "Game" "/path/to/files"is pretty simple though. I wouldn't complain about cloud saves existing, but I won't rely on them and absolutely wouldn't pay for them. -
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.
Ironically, I feel the community that is most apt to fall in line with their project goals, and want to support this change, is also the community they are currently outcasting. Personally I stopped using GOG when it stopped working easily on my Debian system. I shouldn't need to use a third party program to get it to work, and I swear it feels like they intentionally made it so WINE no longer works for it.
For a project that is supposedly for open use and game preservation, they don't make it easy to actually do so.
-
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.
here's the survey if anyone wants to answer: https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/MURG4B
-
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.
A subscription seems like the exact opposite of what GoG stands for. I buy a game, I own it forever. How does a subscription improve that?
-
I'd love a gog galaxy client for Linux with proton support. I also agree though, that it probably wouldn't help them become more profitable.
You do know Heroic exists, right? It works perfectly fine.
And I prefer an open source solution integrating multiple platforms to a single closed solution per platform.
-
A subscription seems like the exact opposite of what GoG stands for. I buy a game, I own it forever. How does a subscription improve that?
Select a game from a catered library to be granted lifetime ownership? Like rent to own perhaps?
-
I think the only way they can introduce a subscription without backlash is if they make it a purely community thing with a few bonuses. Give people access to special insights into their preservation efforts, special interviews, voting rights, Q&A, occasional free game, etc. If they lock features behind this like more cloud storage, or other stuff that customers simply expect with their game purchase, the press will be all negative.
It should be like Xbox Live Gold or PlayStation Plus. Some free games and lots of extra perks that you mentioned.
-
A subscription seems like the exact opposite of what GoG stands for. I buy a game, I own it forever. How does a subscription improve that?
I got the impression they're aiming more for a "fan club" kind of thing where you get access to articles/videos/Q&A/voting rights, etc. So more a kind of Patreon like many creators have. I didn't get the impression that this would in any way change the business model of the store.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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 got the impression they're aiming more for a "fan club" kind of thing where you get access to articles/videos/Q&A/voting rights, etc. So more a kind of Patreon like many creators have. I didn't get the impression that this would in any way change the business model of the store.
I also got this survey and I had the same feeling. It felt more like a patron for their game preservation program with possible features like a members-only-community, interviews or documentation about the preserved games, their publishers/studios and the efforts to keep them running or some kind of loyalty rewards/discount coupons. Maybe even 'special builds' like 'experience the OG version 1.0 of $game'.
There was one option, that I interpreted like 'maybe we will put future compatibility updates after purchase (e.g. supporting Windows 12 or whatever) behind the membership' - but that's purely my interpretation of a single bullet point style line in that whole several page long survey
-
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.
Memberships are fine as long as they add perks and don't take anything away from what non-members have access to now.
-
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.
It's on par with Steam, I think.
IIRC Steam lets developers code how much storage to use, with a 5GB cap per game
-
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
-
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.
How about GOG Galaxy on Linux?
-
What if I told you that there are roughly 4 million steamdecks in existence. Ref
And that this is about 1\3 of the Steam Linux market. Ref and about half of the entire handheld PC market. Ref
Of course, we dont know how many MAU GOG has so maybe 4 million new customers is baby numbers, but Steam seems enamored enough of that market segment to commit huge new UI and store features (deck verification, "Runs on Deck" filters, other deck specific stuff) including the game controller mappings which do help with non-deck also but were clearly a necessary element for handhelds. Maybe deck users, it being a committed gaming platform, spend more on games?
Anyway, trying to get subscribers (always a teeny fraction of your free users) ahead of converting new non-customers into customers, seems like bad econ to me.
If GOG is so hot for game preservation why not see if they can score an emulation deal to bring lost handheld titles to PC\deck? Sega might be down, NeoGeo is owned by the Saudi's, I'm sure they'd love some free money for their back catalog. That's in line with Lutris' mission of being the one game launcher for your entire library. A few strategic investments and partnerships could open up GOG as the gateway to classic gaming across devices, but that would require some vision to carry through.
1/3 of the Steam + Linux market, that accounted for an incredible 1.45% of Steam installs in February. This means there were roughly 67 Windows gamers for every Linux gamer (using Steam) that month.
So even if Linux gamers are 10 times more likely to care (and pay for) for game preservation, you are not even approaching the number of Windows users that might. Suppose 90% of Linux gamers care, while only 9% on Windows do, you still have roughly 6 Windows users for every Linux one. And this is a very generous assumption to make.
Maybe, eventually, at some point, this makes sense financially. But if your goal is to be profitable, you grab the low hanging fruits first, not invest in maybe 10% more potential users.
-
A subscription seems like the exact opposite of what GoG stands for. I buy a game, I own it forever. How does a subscription improve that?
Yeah I'm not at all against the idea of throwing a few bucks at them per month for something, but I just don't see anything that fits in the context of why I use GOG in the first place. Voting rights doesn't seem like a bad idea. Ideas like earlier versions of games, tools that help with backup, etc should be offered for free or sold for a one-time cost IMO.
