Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here and here.
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
And others that I can't remember.
Once they added every modern Lego game to their preservation program I knew the thing was bunk. Harry Potter Lego game = worth preserving, Lego Island = never heard of it. Total BS
I told them I'd like a GOG style humble choice. If they're not willing to give actual games, I'd be interested in a subscription to help game preservation, but probably only $5 a month max.
A humble choice like subscription service would be pretty great honestly. $10ish a month for maybe 1 AA/AAA modern game and a handful of retro and indie games would have me on board immediately. Starting to charge for things they currently or have previously offered for free is not the way to win people over.
I filled the survey as well. It's mostly focused on "games preservation". I'm not up to pay subscription for anything they're willing to offer and even made sure to tell them that I'm willing to pay a premium for whatever useful content (games) end up exclusive to subscribers
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
Has been since the 2019 mass layoff i guess. Their galaxy development was questionable at best since then. Only noticeable action was marketing. I see CDPR/GOG pretty critic with their new billionaire CEO nowadays, sadly.
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.
I wouldn't mind supporting them if they could provide a Linux tool that let me download my library in bulk.
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.
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.
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.
I mean, if you're giving them money monthly for a "Preservation Members Tier" then isn't that exactly what you'd be doing? You're just getting some perks as well.
Well I'm already giving them money threough purchasing (200+) games through their store. I don't need or want any cloud features or a "badge" for that. If their calculation does not fit giving me what they promised, tough. As an aside, I recently had to contact their support, and it was a good, competent experience. So the folks they have are good and should be supported, but not through a f* subscription, but through the regular earnings. That said, I'm completely happy with the Heroic launcher and rather donate there than to join a gog club.
if that was all then yes, but their suggested perks sounded like they were shutting people off from part of the preservation results.
Support Linux and give me Dark Colony (which tons of people have asked for already for years) and I'll consider subscribing.
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.
They do that already. They're partnered with Heroic. If you buy GOG games through Heroic, Heroic gets a cut of that sale using a referral code program like you'd see in other stores. It gives Heroic some cash, and it gives GOG a line of sight into exactly how much revenue they're missing out on by not building the Linux launcher themselves. This is what got me to start buying from GOG again.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... and Steam is more important to them than GOG
They might have to grease some wheels somehow then. Some kind of incentive structure to make sure they do it.
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.
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.
F