Slashdot Mirror
DRM-Free Classic Games Store Opens To Public
arcticstoat writes "With all the controversy surrounding DRM in games at the moment, one games store has decided to buck the trend, proudly proclaiming that all its games are DRM-free. First announced back in July, Good Old Games is now in the public beta stage, which means that anyone can now access the site's archive of classic PC games, and you can do what you want with your game when you've bought it, too. 'You won't find any intrusive copy protection in our games; we hate draconian DRM schemes just as much as you do,' says the site. 'Once you download a game, you can install it on any PC and re-download it whenever you want, as many times as you need, and you can play it without an internet connection.'"
In related news, Stardock, the company responsible for the Gamer's Bill of Rights, is apparently working on a new copy-protection solution that will be friendlier to consumers than current schemes.
No DRM? Good news for pirates!
No, good news for honest buyers.
Let's divide people into three groups: those who buy, those who make the pirated (DRM-free) version, and those who pirate.
Those who buy will now get a better product.
Those who pirate never see the DRM in the first place.
Those who make the pirated version will have an easier time; this benefits the pirates ever so slightly, but DRM is often defeated faster than you can say Yo-Ho, so the benefit is ever so slight.
The real winners, whenever DRM is removed, are the honest consumers.
Yes, but how well will the pirated versions play on XP or Vista? They might do ok on XP, but it seems with each newer iteration of Windows, compatibility mode works less and less. With GOG, you don't have to worry about downloading a few programs just to get them to work. You can pay a small fee and just have the game work. That's the intent. A cheap classic without DRM that will be guaranteed to work on Vista? Yes please!
And how would they make a profit from that price? I imagine the publisher / developer needs to get a slice of the pie too. And then there's the cost of the servers, etc... That $3 would be eaten up fast with likely little to not profit being made.
I wonder who the money goes to, though... In the case of Fallout 1 and 2, certainly not the developer, since Black Isle is long gone. So.. whoever hold distribution rights now, is that sill Interplay or did they sell everything to Bethesda? My point being, if your rationale for paying for games is supporting the devs, then buying some of these classics may not do that at all.
Could be. Supporting the devs is probably best done by buying within a year of release. But by buying you might still give a signal that there's a demand for this kind of game.
Since when did one need a rationale for paying for things that cost money?
It's pirates who have to go to extra lengths to justify their behaviour, not purchasers.
You'd rather pay $5 (plus shipping) and deal with ebay, paypal, and an unknown seller than pay $6 to download them?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.