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.

  • Konraddo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      2 days ago

      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.