It does not, in that I have a downloaded offline installer for the delisted games.
I mean, granted, when delisted from other platforms I can typically still download them, but on GOG I know I can keep them regardless. Which is the point.
I universally hate this rhetorical garbage, where anybody trying to try something other than the late capitalist status quo is then held to a higher standard, even when they are doing better than the default alternatives.
Turns out, it’s not a problem to be a left winger with a healthy income and you’re not obligated to never lose a license for a game just because you provide them DRM free. That’s why you provide them DRM free, in fact.
And I fail to understand why we can’t want better just because the exception is already better than the average. Not to say they’re perfect by any means, but we’re constantly seeing Valve’s practices get better in how they treat their customers. If GOG is the long-term ownership platform, why can’t we hope to see progressions down that specialisation. Personally, I hate all this licence crap companies get to hide behind, and it’s only an advantage for the paying customer to be able to keep what they buy (or ban the word “buy” from such sales, either or), but one person can’t change an industry. One company likely can’t either, but they’ve got more chance than us. I’m always a “put your money where your mouth is” person, I expect the same of others as I do myself. The fact that GOG bailed on SKG has left a sour taste in my mouth and I have yet to see anything from them to start sweetening things out. Hell, instead of bringing sweetener, they’ve started shaking a donation tin in the meantime, only making their position worse, in my eyes. It’s not a crime to expect better and I can say I’m starting to hate this “ehh, it could be worse” attitude I keep seeing from people who would only benefit from demanding better from those they give money to.
You can want better. Wanting better is good, actually.
What you can’t do (and expect to be taken seriously, anyway) is to take the best you got and give them crap for stuff that’s not under their control in any way. They don’t own the games getting delisted, so they have zero control over the delisting itself and they have better mitigations for this scenario than anyone else that make the situation actually safe for buyers. They may be “out of stock” of these games going forward, but nobody who bought them has to worry about not getting to keep them, which isn’t true on most other platforms, Steam included.
For the record, I also disagree on how “we’re seeing Valve’s practices get better”. They have their own set of priorities and while I like a bunch of them I dislike a bunch of them also. I don’t need to pick sides here.
Case in point, I agree that asking for a patreon-style contribution is a bad move on GOG’s part. I don’t need to like that in order for me to like their choice to stick to DRM free content or to provide downloadable offline installers.
Their mandate is that they’re selling the games with a DRM free installer. If it’s delisted, you can still install that game DRM free on anything else as long as you have the files.
Get a USB stick with a cool design, put the installer on it, yeet it in a video game box, throw some box art on it, and you basically have the physical game.
If it feels like the physical game is something else entirely, but I think their mandate is being lived up to just fine :)
It is, in fact, because the games are only 6 years old. The publisher thinks they’re losing money by selling on gog. And, for people who have already purchased the game on gog, they can still access the downloads.
Should they continue selling licenses they don’t have the rights to?
Oh course not, but the fact this is an outcome for games that are only 6 years old rather flies in the face of their mandate.
It does not, in that I have a downloaded offline installer for the delisted games.
I mean, granted, when delisted from other platforms I can typically still download them, but on GOG I know I can keep them regardless. Which is the point.
I universally hate this rhetorical garbage, where anybody trying to try something other than the late capitalist status quo is then held to a higher standard, even when they are doing better than the default alternatives.
Turns out, it’s not a problem to be a left winger with a healthy income and you’re not obligated to never lose a license for a game just because you provide them DRM free. That’s why you provide them DRM free, in fact.
And I fail to understand why we can’t want better just because the exception is already better than the average. Not to say they’re perfect by any means, but we’re constantly seeing Valve’s practices get better in how they treat their customers. If GOG is the long-term ownership platform, why can’t we hope to see progressions down that specialisation. Personally, I hate all this licence crap companies get to hide behind, and it’s only an advantage for the paying customer to be able to keep what they buy (or ban the word “buy” from such sales, either or), but one person can’t change an industry. One company likely can’t either, but they’ve got more chance than us. I’m always a “put your money where your mouth is” person, I expect the same of others as I do myself. The fact that GOG bailed on SKG has left a sour taste in my mouth and I have yet to see anything from them to start sweetening things out. Hell, instead of bringing sweetener, they’ve started shaking a donation tin in the meantime, only making their position worse, in my eyes. It’s not a crime to expect better and I can say I’m starting to hate this “ehh, it could be worse” attitude I keep seeing from people who would only benefit from demanding better from those they give money to.
You can want better. Wanting better is good, actually.
What you can’t do (and expect to be taken seriously, anyway) is to take the best you got and give them crap for stuff that’s not under their control in any way. They don’t own the games getting delisted, so they have zero control over the delisting itself and they have better mitigations for this scenario than anyone else that make the situation actually safe for buyers. They may be “out of stock” of these games going forward, but nobody who bought them has to worry about not getting to keep them, which isn’t true on most other platforms, Steam included.
For the record, I also disagree on how “we’re seeing Valve’s practices get better”. They have their own set of priorities and while I like a bunch of them I dislike a bunch of them also. I don’t need to pick sides here.
Case in point, I agree that asking for a patreon-style contribution is a bad move on GOG’s part. I don’t need to like that in order for me to like their choice to stick to DRM free content or to provide downloadable offline installers.
Their mandate is that they’re selling the games with a DRM free installer. If it’s delisted, you can still install that game DRM free on anything else as long as you have the files.
Get a USB stick with a cool design, put the installer on it, yeet it in a video game box, throw some box art on it, and you basically have the physical game.
If it feels like the physical game is something else entirely, but I think their mandate is being lived up to just fine :)
It is, in fact, because the games are only 6 years old. The publisher thinks they’re losing money by selling on gog. And, for people who have already purchased the game on gog, they can still access the downloads.