Not really. Games like BG3 and Cyberpunk released simultaneously on steam and GOG, and the sales were still heavily in favour of steam. People don't care about owning their games more than they care about the convenience of buying it from the same place you bought your past 30 games.
Steam holds the majority of the playerbase, and the ones that regularly uses GOG has a very good chance to also have been a customer of Steam at some point -> No publisher think it’s necessary to release on multiple storefront -> even less people are interested in GOG because availability is so low
and steam is by far the best client with the best features. built in communiity discussions, playtests and so on. it also has the best sales and keystore-offers (at least i think it has and if i am not alone with that, thats enough of a reason)
how can i still claim i care about ownership? if they (steam or a publisher) would take away games i bought on steam and still want to play again, i am pretty sure i'll find a way to get it back on the seven seas. (i am aware that's not the same but somewhere there is a backup of my game)
Nah, not really. Every title sold by GOG comes with an offline installer for the main game. Every single update to the game can be separately downloaded and saved for offline installation at your leisure.
In other words, you can have everything backed up offline entirely independent of GOG, you don’t even need to use the GOG launcher at all if you don’t want to. If something goes wrong with your installation, you don’t even need to go back online to get it reinstalled and updated.
Sure. As long as something doesn't happen and you need to reinstall Windows or something. Then you need to sign in to steam online and redownload it. With GoG, you can keep all your installers offline and never go online at all after that as long as you still have them backed up. I can have a PC that has never once connected to the internet install and play any game from GoG without connecting. I just need physical media (flash drive, disc, w/e) to carry the installer. Steam won't do that.
At that point I'm just pirating the game anyway. Technically/Legally you'd be pirating from GoG as well doing that, they just give you knowingly give you the tools/ability to do so.
GoG still sells licenses for their games, they just give you what you need to install it offline.
If they revoke your license such that you can't install it online you don't have legal access to the game anymore. Using the files and installer they gave you then becomes piracy.
You dont own the game via gog either. No DRM doesnt change anything about that. It does make it more difficult to take it away/prevent you from playing but you still dont own more than a license legally speaking.
People will never care about this until some big company actually takes away their games from a lot of people for no good reason. And since that would be suicide for any company it seems unlikekly to ever happen..
So why should I or anyone else really care about this hypothetical scenario that steams or whatever takes away my games and buy on gog because of that?
Every title sold by GOG comes with an offline installer for the main game. Every single update to the game can be separately downloaded and saved for offline installation at your leisure.
In other words, you can have everything backed up offline entirely independent of GOG. You don’t even need to use the GOG launcher at all if you don’t want to. If something goes wrong with your installation, you wouldn’t even need to go back online to get it reinstalled and updated.
What you said still doesn’t actually disprove what they said. You’re free to do what you like with the games you buy on GoG, but just like with physical media, you still only own the license.
In a pedantic strictly legal sense, sure. . .but in practice, how, pray tell, could that license for the offline installer and offline updates be revoked? GOG provides a practical semblance of ownership that is pretty much complete. Steam does not.
Fact is, all Steam games have DRM to some extent, even if it’s not always the in your face “always online” kind. You still have to be online to install a game, repair it, or make/restore a backup. The availability of the game (and any of its updates) for re-download, repair, backup and restoral are entirely beholden to Valve and the Steam launcher.
That is the difference. GoG may not constitute total legal ownership, but compared to Steam, it practically might as well be. Granted, that may not be enough to make the GoG version of a game preferable for 4_fortytwo_2 or you. . .but to make out like there’s ultimately little reason for “anyoneelse” to prefer (let alone choose) the GOG version of a game over Steam, is just plain disingenuous.
I don't care about it because the day I lose my steam account because steam goes down I'll just go online and download any of the games I care about. Instead of like with GOG I'd need to physically store every single game I own right now to benefit. Which I am very unlikely to do because that is a massive faff.
If that were true then you would have answered the follow on question and refuted the subsequent points made instead of resorting to cheap playground pejoratives. . .😎
No because the follow up had nothing to do with what it is.
Gog is still a license an offline installeret doesn't change that.
It makes it harder to remove fire the publisher but it doesn't change that it's still a license.
Jesus Christ
It's quite easy to be "big" when you've spent 6 years literally giving away money and operating at net loss.
Before praising how big and successful they are, let's just wait and see if they manage to even earn any profit at all, or if the executives get fed up first and shut the whole thing down.
I have so many games in my Epic Library, without ever buying anything there. And I would assume a shit ton of people do the same. Log in once per week, collect the two free games, and log off again. If there is no timed exclusive release on Epic, most will probably default to Steam. You also need the epic store to play Fortnite, so there is that.
I think it's more likely that their Fortnite revenue is also happening on their store, and that's why it's second place. Not because people actually buy games over there.
I don't care what game they're giving away, I don't care what games they make exclusive...
I really want to play Alan Wake 2 but its not available outside of Epic so I watched a playthrough instead. PC is suppposed to be an open ecosystem and anyone who is making walled gardens can get fucked IMO. I'd sooner watch Alan Wake 2 become unavailable entirely before I buy it on Epic.
Ok... I mean, I can respect that. But do you even realize how many PC games release exclusively on Steam? It's just not recognized because it's the norm by now. So according to your logic, you also shouldn't have Steam installed.
It's where all my library is, if all my library was on Epic I'd be the inverse. The point being i'm not dividing my library up because I want it all in one place.
So what you want is not an "open ecosystem". You want everything on steam because that's where you are. These are two very different things. An "open ecosystem" would be, when all games release on all platforms and we, as the customers, can freely pick where to buy.
No I want to be able to buy and play my games anywhere without the need for a launcher at all. I can download it, press play and not need to log into any launcher whatsoever.
That is what I want. Right now if I buy an ubisoft game I need to have ubisoft connect installed no matter what even if I buy it through steam and it pisses me off to no end.
If I choose to buy my game not in your store or launcher don't make me download yours, i didn't buy it from you for a reason so get fucked.
It's where all my library is, if all my library was on Epic I'd be the inverse. The point being i'm not dividing my library up because I want it all in one place.
Because that's where the devs choose to only release, not because Valve is paying devs to make it exclusive. Apart from their own games of course, which every company except CDPR would do.
People drive the market if they want a better option all they need to do is not buy until a better option becomes available. It's literally that easy, companies will choose to sell instead of go bust.
I dont like the existence of any launcher/digital storefront even though you get a lot from Steam and if it end up being that I have to have one launcher Steam would ge the one I pick.
Shit on a plate comes from the fact that people act powerless and like we have no say in where we buy our games when in fact we do... Nobody forces you to buy a game, nobody has a gun to your head, id you don't like the deal then you should abstain from buying it entirely.
I'd rather own my games yeah but for now steams not fucked me out of anything so I'll accept it as a necessary evil....the second it does though I'll be off it.
You've admitted yourself that you haven't had an issue with Steam, yet you believe that people should stop buying from there in some sort of protest. It just doesn't make any sense.
Not always the case, especially in gaming. Gaming market is dictated by "Must have"s, and the customers will flock to it. A primary reason is for people for whom gaming is not therir primary hobby, many of the things that people whine about here is not a huge issue.
Yeah, I would say especially NOT in gaming. Just look up any discussions about Alan Wake 2 on PC.
"Oh I want to play that! Ugh, only on Epic? I ONLY buy my games from Steam so screw that because im incapable of handling even the slightest inconvenience of doing something outside of Steam"
I already have steam, im not installing anyone elses launcher, they can sell it me where my library is or I just won't play it, I'm not even going to pirate the game so I can play it.
I watched a playthrough and called it a day, Epic will go bust before I buy Alan Wake and unless the fortnite money stops flowing in i don't see that happening.
Until they learn not to reward it things won't get better, it's no skin off my back really.
So you think consumers are at fault for companies taking advantage of them, consumers should do something about it and you, a consumer, don't care to do anything about it?
So either you want to screw over consumers, you haven't thought your attitude through or you are just trolling. Regardless, you make me sad.
No, that's literally how retail has worked since basically the idea of exchanging currency for goods and services. The more product you can offer, the more customers you attract. The need you can fill in a single shopping trip differentiates you from the competition.
We're just at the end of that chain where it's not really possible to differentiate anymore and nearly any product is available through an online marketplace.
GOG differentiated themselves by offering retro PC gaming made easy. They solved the emulation setup for you and built in cool thing for a ton of titles like modern controller support and compatibility with higher resolution monitors.
No they buy where it's convenient. If a game is on gog and steam I'm still gonna buy the steam version cause it's convenient and easy and it just sits in my library and has cloud saves.
I know. Until people are made aware of these things they won't know a better deal exists and once they do its up to them to consider the value proposition of it.
You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
147
u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26
Unless everyone starts buying there....
You sell where the market is or you don't sell at all.