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.
You must log in or register to comment.
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
Notice to everyone about GOG Galaxy not in Linux: there is MiniGalaxy. It’s not official but it works.
Just put out AVP2
GOG maybe give us an option to turn off cookies inside your app before asking us money!
Making porting gog to linux a priority which has by far the smallest market share for computer gaming is the dumbest thing anyone in this thread is saying, where is that financially a viable option to cater to the tiniest percentage of gamers for gog? I know ill get downvoted but im tired of the fanatical linux posts on lemmy at this point. Get with reality they are going to work on the client where the money is most predominantly flowing from and its not linux or mac. Haters gonna hate the truth but its the truth from a business standpoint.
Lmao you have people seizing it’s hilarious
Or, you know, they could make the client portable, like so many software…
A Linux or Mac client doesn’t need to be a different thing than a Windows client.
Making porting gog to linux a priority which has by far the smallest market share for computer gaming is the dumbest thing anyone in this thread is saying
Building a bridge across the river is totally stupid, because no one crosses that river to get to where they are going.
Building a house on that hill is dumb, because no one lives there.
Creating that new type of device is a waste of time, because no one has ever bought one like that.
…
You see the point, right? Not that I’m trying to give business advice. I’m just saying that these things aren’t necessarily as stupid as you seem to think.
and its not linux or mac
Except there’s already a Mac version of GOG Galaxy.
What if most of the people that want to pay a GOG membership are Linux gamers that would be willing to pay for official Linux support?
This is a future proofing measure. With the enshittification of Windows there is a reasonably sizable share that is looking to migrate. Making an API/front end functional on the platform is just good business. I for one will be switching 95% to Linux the instant Microsoft acts on their patant for putting a mandatory advertising ticket on the screen. Literally the only thing I will use it for is programming things for work.
While I agree, it’s also a chicken and egg problem. How can more money flow if they don’t make it easy? Even just endorsing Heroic and providing them some APIs would work
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.
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.
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 9 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.
Steam’s investment in UI and store features are part of the onus of hardware platform growth. Steam isn’t just a storefront anymore. GOG has no such interest.
I do think indicators are good for the future of Linux gaming, but it’s just not good business right now to go chasing it.
At this point they should just hire the Heroic devs, I doubt anything they could build themselves would compare in terms of quality.
I’d be happy if they did and adopted Heroic as an official launcher. However, if that happens, I’d still want proper controller support to be added so that browsing the GOG store in Heroic doesn’t require mouse and keyboard bindings on something like a Steam Deck.
I really hate most subscriptions, because the prices are often too high, they rely on locking stuff behind paywalls, instead of providing a good service.
Here is the difference, I am ok paying monthly for storage space, servers, and hosted/managed open source web services, because there is competition and standard interfaces there. They do not hold you (or your data) hostage to their service, what they provide is good on its own.
For example, if GOG invests money into writing open source libraries, apps and APIs to efficiently and easily share save games between devices. Let people self host the open source backend, but offer up a subscription for a managed instance, with maybe some voting rights for new features or support for games/platforms to be integrated into the open source front & backend, then I would be willing to support this.
And other stuff like this.
Use subscriptions to offer good services, which also allow you to improve the whole ecosystem, while also not putting yourself as the gatekeeper, and locking people into their service.
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.
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
If that’s the case, I may be interested. I’d still like Galaxy on Linux before I give them additional money.
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.
Select a game from a catered library to be granted lifetime ownership? Like rent to own perhaps?
But they specifically don’t appear to be talking about that
- a tool for backing up offline installers
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.
- ability to install previous versions of a game
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
- extra insight into the preservation work they’re doing.
Sure, neat.
- voting rights on games to bring into the preservation program.
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 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.
How about GOG Galaxy on Linux?
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”.
Bad move GOG, you’re as of right now still inferior to steam & you want to enshitify your platform ?
- Port your GOG-Galaxy launcher to Linux (it has to be native)
- fund Wine
- Accomodate for more local payment systems
- Have more currencies
- Would be nice if you made your launchers (or at least the core-functionalities OpenSource)
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.
How about instead of this subscription talk, GOG could:
-Remake GOG Galaxy. The client is slow with tons of bloat. Focus on your store, and make a native Linux client.
-Help fund Wine. I find it weird that the main non-DRM store is so againat Linux. I know people that would leave Steam If GOG came to Linux.
-Different version and a tool to backup games should be part of the new launcher and not part of a subscription. You guys talk about game preservations and then try to put parts of it behind a paywall…
-A more realistic Dreamlist. Who had the idea of letting people submit any game they want? Dreamlist would work better if GOG choose a list of games and the community voted for what game for GOG to focus on. People really think that games that were console exclusive or old FIFA/NBA/Gran Turismo games will come to GOG.
-There are some games on GOG that don’t work, FIX THEM! (Looking at you Kane and Lynch)With regards to the Dreamlist, this is so that they have ammunition to bring to rights holders. They just started bringing previously console exclusive games to GOG as well, so that barrier has been broken down. If there’s money in it, any game could be done.
What console exclusive came to GOG?
I don’t belive GOG or EA would buy the license of old FIFA players just so they can publish old FIFA games.
It’s better to have a smaller curated list where players can vote and GOG choose a game to focus on. Right now the fact we can vote for dead live service games to come to a non-DRM store is just weird.You know, I just checked the ones I was confident on, and it turns out they each had an obscure Windows port back in the day that I never heard of. Still, the other popular trend going on right now for porting old console games like Tomba and Mega Man is to run them through tools that emulate the game and then output native code, and I wouldn’t consider it a waste of time to show where the demand is. For old sports games, it may be difficult or impossible to acquire the old rights, but if it’s at all possible, and these are customers that aren’t making them money on the modern iterations, that’s still worth it too.
I’m not saying that it’s a waste of effort. I’m just saying that it’s a way to disapoint people that don’t understand what the dreamlist is for.
Internet can be a bitch when people don’t get what they want.
I just did a quick search and saw Pokémon games there and some romhacks… No way in hell Nintendo would sell their games on PC in a non-DRM store.There is, if the money is there. Nintendo’s also under new management these days, and if the old strategies don’t work, they could pivot, just like Microsoft and Sony have.
Nintendo would most likely sell PC games from their website first, and then after some time sell them on Steam. But the odds of Nintendo porting Switch games for PC is extremely low.
I agree, but it’ll be the only way they get my money. Everyone can see that PC line going up and that console line going down, so we’ll see how long they hold their ground; probably one generation longer than Sony does.
Does God of War count?
I know it came to pc as a whole but it’s available on GoG as well
God of War came to Steam first, it wasn’t because of GOG efforts. The games that GOG manage to bring back (RE games and Dino Crisis for exemple) had japanese PC clients.
Pretty sure it released on both platforms at the same time, as far as I’m concerned any games that show up on GoG with no DRM take a bit of effort from GoG to actually verify and host the installers, more so when the contracts expire and they have to delist them and try to get them back
Yes GOG takes a bit more time to verify the installer, but I’m sure when Sony put the games on PC the reason was the massive Steam (and maybe Epic) userbase, GOG was an afterthought.
