GOG - Galaxy 2.0: Unite all Game Launchers

Already have several times; i'm sorry if you are too busy trolling to actually read the answers…. I don't see a reason to repeat again; you obviously don't care.

Translation = "As usual, I have no valid argument or anything of substance to add, so I'm just going to accuse the other person of trolling or some such nonsense."
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,130
Location
Florida, US
Yeah, I've bought a few games two times due to forgetting I already have it somewhere else. I use playnite now and always check if I got the game somewhere before I buy a game during a sale.

Yes, same here, bought games on steam I already had in GOG.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Messages
437
Location
UK
Whatever. When you are too lazy to dig a bit you sling insults as usual..... Maybe if you got off the couch once in a while....

Translation = "As usual, I have no valid argument or anything of substance to add, so I'm just going to accuse the other person of trolling or some such nonsense."
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
I'll be very interested in seeing how this plays out. This should help people keep from buying games 2+ times but what I'm curious about is what will happen to that money next. Will the gamers keep that money in their pockets or will they just use it to buy yet another game that they probably won't ever play?

I wouldn't worry about it launching other launchers. A few hundred megabytes ain't nothin' these days. The only game I can think of off hand that even has the option of pushing main memory limits in Gal Civ 3 and I don't play galaxies that big. (Video memory is another matter.)
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,238
Location
Kansas City
It seems all just a huge logistical nightmare to me, I've no idea if they can actually pull it off. Then again, nothing ventured nothing gained.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
18,788
Location
Holly Hill, FL.
I mean, that *sounds* really nice, but also both highly unlikely and a logistical/programming nightmare. Also, the client would probably be an even bigger pile of garbage than Steam's interface. (I like Steam fine, but their client is total crap)

I don't think it would be all that much of a technical challenge. In many industries there are shared databases for mutual benefit. All you really need to do is form a consortium, agree some DRM standards (rather like Encrypted Media Extensions) and provide members with some sort of secure API access for their client software. They can all try to create clients and stores with better features, but they could all present a unified library without having to scrape each other locally.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
My biggest issue with some of these non-steam clients is longevity. Steam isn't going anywhere. I don't know if I can say the same for Origin/uPlay/etc.

What if at some point EA or Ubisoft say "we're not getting enough people to use our client - we're shutting down"? With GOG at least - they're DRM free (I actually download the DRM free copy and make a backup even if I run/install via GOG Galaxy most of the time). Steam is the 800 pound gorilla - I can't see it going away. These others? Who knows.

I only have the games in Origin that I couldn't get elsewhere (mostly Dragon Age/Mass Effect). Uplay only has Heroes 6 & Might and Magic X for me. I don't have anything on Epic since their exclusives are timed (and I always have enough of a backlog that I wait for sales anyway before buying).

I think this is right on point. Unless these other platforms change direction, none of them, other than Steam and GOG, will stand the test of time...or be of any significance in the marketplace outside of their own boardrooms.

The reason is none of the others offer anything to the consumer, outside of the arm twisting that is the exclusivity business model. Personally, I don't like anyone twisting my arm. Steam offers a lot of consumer-focused features, and GOG has the big one of DRM free. The other platforms are just bitching about their share of the pie. At the end of the day, why should the consumer care much about that if you're offering him nothing in return except arm twisting and additional headaches?
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
Is accidentally buying the same game more than once really that much of an issue? Seriously how ADD could you be...

I'm a little surprised at how much outrage this is producing on here (referring to the issue at large).

I like Steam, as most seem to agree, and I have a couple others installed for this game or that game, but I'm not a fan of the rest of them running in the background. I've definitely had many obnoxious issues dealing with UPlay trying to get some games activated, reactivated, having my account changed etc.

I like it simple, clean, and Steam does this, and 98% of the PC games I play. So it's a monopoly or has been, that I like.

Unless these other platforms change direction, none of them, other than Steam and GOG, will stand the test of time

This.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
510
Location
This particular universe
I think this is right on point. Unless these other platforms change direction, none of them, other than Steam and GOG, will stand the test of time…or be of any significance in the marketplace outside of their own boardrooms.
The guy you were replying to only made the longevity claim for Steam, not GOG. For GOG he pointed out that you can download the games DRM-free, so if GOG goes away, you still have the game. Anyway, for Steam I can buy the argument, it's the most likely platform to still be around, say, 30 years from now. But for GOG I'm not sure why you would think that. It's been in the news for supposed "financial troubles" just recently, and it's based in a country that does not have a particularly long history of political/financial stability. I actually see Epic having a more promising future than GOG, after all it's backed by a company with 10X the revenue and who also make the most popular game engine out there. And the aggressive tactics they're using right now show you that they're in it for the very long haul.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
3,444
Is accidentally buying the same game more than once really that much of an issue? Seriously how ADD could you be...

I'm a little surprised at how much outrage this is producing on here (referring to the issue at large).

I like Steam, as most seem to agree, and I have a couple others installed for this game or that game, but I'm not a fan of the rest of them running in the background. I've definitely had many obnoxious issues dealing with UPlay trying to get some games activated, reactivated, having my account changed etc.

I like it simple, clean, and Steam does this, and 98% of the PC games I play. So it's a monopoly or has been, that I like.



This.
Nah, it's not a very big deal buying games twice. It is more of a annoyance. I've got several hundred games (400 maybe?) on maybe 10 different platforms and it is a bit of a chore to go through them to find where I bought this or that game.

But there are solutions already, and I will use the new galaxy when I get the chance.
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
1,957
Location
Sweden
The guy you were replying to only made the longevity claim for Steam, not GOG. For GOG he pointed out that you can download the games DRM-free, so if GOG goes away, you still have the game. Anyway, for Steam I can buy the argument, it's the most likely platform to still be around, say, 30 years from now. But for GOG I'm not sure why you would think that. It's been in the news for supposed "financial troubles" just recently, and it's based in a country that does not have a particularly long history of political/financial stability. I actually see Epic having a more promising future than GOG, after all it's backed by a company with 10X the revenue and who also make the most popular game engine out there. And the aggressive tactics they're using right now show you that they're in it for the very long haul.

You raise two good points. I did cherry pick a bit for my own argument, and I was speaking purely from an attractiveness-of-product-to-consumer standpoint, while you raise real-world factors that are no less important.
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
4,813
I actually see Epic having a more promising future than GOG, after all it's backed by a company with 10X the revenue and who also make the most popular game engine out there.
I just googled and learned that they made $3 Billion profit (not revenue!) in 2018. Dude, that's insane. No wonder nearly everybody wants to establish micro transactions.
 
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
4,968
Location
Germany
Wow then I guess the 10X I threw out there is way off. :lol: Epic Games is a private company so we don't necessarily know, but CD Projekt is public and their revenue is roughly $95M/year. If Epic is now making $3B a year in profits alone, then their total revenue compared to CDPR's is probably closer to 100X than it is to 10X...
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
3,444
What I'm amazed is how people are fine with buying games on a platform created by some people who lucked out and made $3B mostly out of microtransactions in a shooter they didn't even come up with and was mostly a ripoff from similar games. It's clear to see they've no idea of the business and they're here just to milk money off the players since they can afford it with the unexpected funding they got. If allowed, EA will be a joke compared to them. For now they are already data mining your private info, poking at your dll's and exposing your computer to malware when you install their client, as it's been proven.

To each their own, but that cancer is not touching my computer. I couldn't care less about any exclusives they could have, I'm not excited about any of them anyway, and as I said in a previous post, there are too many thousands of hours of good Steam/DRM free games waiting to be played that I probably will never have time for.
 
What I'm amazed is how people are fine with buying games on a platform created by some people who lucked out and made $3B mostly out of microtransactions in a shooter they didn't even come up with and was mostly a ripoff from similar games. It's clear to see they've no idea of the business and they're here just to milk money off the players since they can afford it with the unexpected funding they got.
Epic Games isn't some no-name company who lucked into one profitable game as you would have us believe. It's one of the big three early pioneers of shooters along with Valve and id Software, and it develops the most popular engine used for big-name games today. Did you have these same concerns back when a similar company, Valve, created a platform and started selling games? If so, did those concerns turn out to be warranted?

If allowed, EA will be a joke compared to them. For now they are already data mining your private info, poking at your dll's and exposing your computer to malware when you install their client, as it's been proven.
Complete and utter horseshit, nothing like that has been proven. Anyone can run Process Monitor and see stuff that any complex piece of Windows software is doing and be able to call it "nefarious looking". You yourself linked Epic's explanation of what was going on with the Epic Store app earlier in this thread, it's pretty innocent by any reasonable estimation, and there's no real reason to disbelieve them unless you've got a case of EDS (Epic Derangement Syndrome). Stop spreading garbage FUD.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
3,444
It might be a simpler approach. They might simply provide a foreground shell for the native application in the background.

I don't think it would be all that much of a technical challenge. In many industries there are shared databases for mutual benefit. All you really need to do is form a consortium, agree some DRM standards (rather like Encrypted Media Extensions) and provide members with some sort of secure API access for their client software. They can all try to create clients and stores with better features, but they could all present a unified library without having to scrape each other locally.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
I don't buy this argument at all. Just look at many very successful companies that quickly went under due to bad management. Using the internet as an example we can see inktomi and yahoo as examples of companies that in their hey-day very few thought would go under (though in all honesty inktomi was very short lived). If we look at the gaming industry we see many examples of epic that failed the longevity test.
-
As for Steam - the big concern has to be what happens when Gabe dies or gives up control. For those of us who are older it is probably not much of a concern but certainly the younger generation should have some concern.
-
As noted for gog longevity is not relevant as you can download the software and it should run indefinitely.
-
The biggest problem I have with Epic is their new tactics of inducing exclusive after the development process in the pc gaming market. Previously exclusive occurred by those who paid for the development of the game so this is a new aggressive anti-competitive tactic for this market. In addition their are indication that they will attempt to monetize their clients in other ways but time will tell as to how aggressive they will become in this initiative. Last but least their current tactics - while disruptive - are not sustainable so it is unclear how it will play out in the long run (i.e, they are willing to use other sources of revenue to bleed significant dollars to gain market traction - but long term they will likely change this model to be more profitable while at the same time damaging (i.e, gog for example) other players. Will be interesting to see if their 10K provides the raw figures in this area or if the gloss over the details.

. I actually see Epic having a more promising future than GOG, after all it's backed by a company with 10X the revenue and who also make the most popular game engine out there. And the aggressive tactics they're using right now show you that they're in it for the very long haul.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
7,758
Location
usa - no longer boston
The biggest problem I have with Epic is their new tactics of inducing exclusive after the development process in the pc gaming market. Previously exclusive occurred by those who paid for the development of the game so this is a new aggressive anti-competitive tactic for this market.
It's actually not anti-competitive, it's pro-competition. Epic is doing the exclusives to boost awareness and market share of their store - ultimately creating more competition in the future. Steps such as this are necessary to rid the PC gaming industry of the 30% Steam tax and will result in better games for everyone later down the line, when game developers aren't paying that huge tax on all their revenue. The notion that Steam deserves 30% of all PC game sales and the developers only deserve 70% is ludicrous on its face, and it's also hurting indie'ish developers most because all the biggest AAA developers have their own stores now and aren't using Steam anymore anyway. (Though if the Steam tax wasn't so high, maybe they'd come back)

Anyway, exclusives have happened before, even before the digital game purchasing age. Wizardry 8 was exclusive to Electronics Boutique (EB Games). Don't remember people bitching about that, they just went where it was being sold and bought it.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
3,444
Back
Top Bottom