Well GOG should drop the dark pattern to get you to download Galaxy. Besides that they’re alright
Galaxy is a necessary convenience for them to compete with Steam tbh
trying not to cry
cry a lot
give those people some cookies !
bursts in tears
The missing context here (I think) is that California passed a law saying that digital storefronts (like steam and gog) can’t say things like “buy game” because you aren’t actually gaining ownership of the game, but instead just buying a license to access it. Some people were questioning if this law should apply to gog since their games are drm free and can be freely installed on any compatible devices once you download the installer.
Some of their games are drm-free/have offline installers
Isn’t the law only about always online games?
That was my understanding as well.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a law, AB 2426, to address concerns over “disappearing” purchases of digital media, including games, movies, music, and ebooks.
It should because their use agreement makes it clear that you don’t own the games but are licensing them. That’s pretty much why they had to clarify what they said I’d imagine. IMO, proving the point of the law, really.
This is equally true for almost any game ever sold, including physical ones. You only ever own a license that specifies what you can and cannot do with the game. The difference is in what this license is tied to, for example either a physical copy of a given game or an account that can be remotely deactivated taking away all your games. In GOG’s case once you grab the installer, the game license cannot be easily forcibly revoked, just as with the physical copy.
The difference with physical is that you own the physical medium the license is stored on and are permitted to sell the physical medium with the license. With digital downloads you are not allowed to sell a drive with the files. Since you are technically making a copy.
The worth of a gog game secondhand is 0 though. Theres nothing to be made there.
People do sell accounts though.
Isn’t there a clause in baldur’s gate 3 terms that lets you transfer the game license once to a friend or something along those lines?
Not sure how that works but it’d be cool if we can have that apply for all of them (digitally) maybe like 3 times over the lifetime of the licensed game.
Thanks for saying this.
With recent campaigns and rants against digital media, people often claim that “you own the game if you buy a physical copy”. That always makes me sigh, because it’s false.
Not saying there are some advantages for some use cases, but I dislike hyperbole and untruths.
That’s just semantics.
When you buy a CD, you don’t own the songs.
But you do have some item that belongs to you.
With Steam, you have a ticket that will let you into Steam to download the game for as long as your account is in good standing and as long as Steam exists.
With GOG, you have a file you can use to install the game on any machine INDEFINITELY. GOG can’t revoke your access for any reason, and if GOG shuts down, you can still install the games.
It doesn’t really matter because it doesn’t change the point that people think they own digital goods when they don’t. GOG may have a more consumer friendly system in place but it doesn’t change what has happened with people’s music, movies, shows, games and music in games at these digital storefronts, where people have clicked “Buy X” and later on, it’s no longer in their libraries anymore. This has happened even when the business still exists and is still providing digital goods.
With GOG, you can buy any game, and you’ll have files to keep. Once you have the installer, you can keep that forever.
Even if your GOG account is hacked, banned, and GOG goes out of business, you can forever install your game onto any compatible machine, even offline, and play the game.
That’s what GOG does differently.
It’s like buying a physical game, except there’s no disc. They can’t revoke your access or deactivate your ability to play the game.
I know that. That still misses the point. The point of the law is to clarify that on digital storefronts that you make purchases for licensed digital goods, that you can’t imply to the consumer that they actually own those goods. It doesn’t matter if there is an offline installer. It doesn’t matter if you can ‘keep your installers forever’.
This article seems to say that it covers only digital items that have an always online requirement.
https://www.gamefile.news/p/california-ab2426-crew-call-of-duty
So i think offline games don’t need the warning, but online games, steaming movies, etc do need the warning.
Edit:
I looked a bit further and found the bill text:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2426#99INT
(4) This section does not apply to any of the following:
[…]
© Any digital good that is advertised or offered to a person that the seller cannot revoke access to after the transaction, which includes making the digital good available at the time of purchase for permanent offline download to an external storage source to be used without a connection to the internet.
This exception clearly allows for user downloadable installer for a game with offline functionality. But consoles, steam, etc where you don’t get a standalone installer, they look like they will need the warning on all titles.
How does an offline installer from GOG differ from the offline installer provided on a CD/DVD?
The license for the DVD version is with the actual disk, the license for the offline installer is with the GOG account.
GOG has essentially created a way to bypass their own licenses, as a feature. And it looks like they won’t be affected by this law because of it.
licensing issues
I understand that the buyer doesn’t lose the de facto ability to install the game from a local copy of the installer, but is it possible to lose the de jure right to install the game in that way due to licensing issues on GOG’s end? I’m not saying it is, I’m just curious.
is it possible to lose the de jure right to install the game in that way due to licensing issues on GOG’s end
Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that no, you can’t. When you buy the game, you’ve obtained a perpetual license to install and play that game, similar to what you’d have if you bought the game on a disk. You can lose your ability to download the game, that isn’t guaranteed to be unlimited or perpetual, but installing it via the installer you downloaded, and playing it once you do, are forever. (This is in contrast to something like Steam, where you rely on their servers granting you permission to install the game, and that permission can be revoked.)
Right, if you download the offline installers, then they can’t stop you from doing whatever you’re going to do with it but you don’t own them. Legally, you can’t sell them, transfer them to someone else, etc.
There are other sections that make the lack of ownership by you clear and that you still have to abide by the publisher’s/developer’s licensing agreements but Section 10 states the situation outright:
Section 10 of the GOG user agreement says:
GOG content is owned by its developers/publishers and licensed by us.
Did people think they meant something else? Or was it more that they didn’t really elaborate and folks didn’t know quite what they meant?
I think they are clarifying due to what has happened with Ubisoft. They’re also using it as an opportunity to spread the word farther that they won’t do the same thing.
It’s too clarify that in their case the games you buy on their platform don’t require anything in particular to install (just the install file that you can download from their website directly and back up for later use), contrary to all other major stores.
Okay gog sucks but this actually makes me wonder if I should dry them again anyway.
What aspect of GoG did you find sucked?
Their software. I don’t want to go to a site and download a game to find an actual functional launcher (and file management, etc) somewhere else. GOG galaxy is terrible on windows and doesn’t support Linux, despite the overlap between their philosophy and Linux users.
Steam isn’t just a store. It manages my large library with no work on my part, including reasonably high quality tags to make it easier to find games for whatever mood I’m in. It completely seamlessly handles Linux support on almost all of my games, while giving me all the freedom I need to make changes in the rare cases their out of the box setup has issues. It has an exceptionally high quality input mapping tool that is done per game and has a large catalogue of user generated control schemes. It handles simple modding for a lot of games that don’t need anything too crazy. It handles cloud saves so invisibly between devices that I almost never have to think about it.
I will (and have) pay for a game on Steam when I have it on GOG for free, if I actually want to play it. I’ll eventually be self hosting almost all of my other media, and have taken steps in that direction, but I definitely will not be doing so for games. Steam is just too much better than any third party options.
So what’s the problem about using third party clients like heroic game launcher ? Or did I understand the first line of your post wrong ?
Heroic is just as terrible. None of the alternative ways to manage game libraries support any of the large list of features that Steam does that I rely upon to make PC gaming a comfortable experience, and that list was far from comprehensive.
Until there’s an open game library management tool in any way comparable to Steam, DRM free has no value to me. I’m willing to (and want to, for the things I haven’t yet) self host movies, ebooks, audiobooks, TV shows, etc, because you can get a functional experience with them. I am not willing to do so with games because you cannot.
Steam makes millions of dollars for Valve. They can afford to put a lot of work into making it impossible for anyone to ever catch up to them. If you will never use anything else until it has feature parity with steam as well as having other upsides compared to it, you are never going to benefit from the other upsides.
What upsides?
A. Many games that are DRM free on GOG are also DRM free on Steam.
B. Most of the games that are only DRM free on GOG are old, out of date builds that don’t get bug fixes and updates.
C. Even if both of those weren’t true, DRM free isn’t worth a terrible UX and no features. If GOG had feature parity for everything Steam does except big picture mode, big picture mode alone would outweigh the outrageously small chance that Steam somehow removes access to my games.
But they’re not just not at feature parity. They’re like 2 out of 10 software. Better than Epic’s 0 of 10, but still really bad.
GOG is pretty good because of this. I check in there if I’m considering buying something on Steam. There might still be compelling reasons to buy on Steam, like I bought Parkitect on Steam because a review on GOG specifically called out how the mods really only work well on Steam, but I’m at least checking first and maybe Wishlisting the game on GOG. I have fairly reasonable trust in Valve while Gabe is running it, but I feel like I can have longer trust in keeping copies of installers myself.
