Slashdot Mirror


GOG.com Not Really Gone

gspr writes "On Sunday, Slashdot and many others reported that DRM-free games site GOG.com was shutting down. Now the site is back, revealing that it was all a hoax. According to the site: 'Now it's time we put an end to all the speculations once and for all. It's true that we decided that we couldn't keep GOG.com the way it was so we won't. As you probably know by now, GOG.com is entering its new era with an end of the two-years beta stage and we're launching a brand new GOG.com with new, huge releases.' So it was all an advertising stunt."

276 comments

  1. The important part by Abstrackt · · Score: 4, Informative

    They still won't have DRM and they still won't have a download client.

    Love it or hate it, this is one of the more successful marketing stunts of late.

    --
    They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    1. Re:The important part by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I don't think they'll lose very many customers over this. The people who buy from them tend to do so based upon price and the DRM free games. Compared to the dickishness of EA and Ubisoft for instance, this is really not that big of a deal.

      To be fair to them, the language of the shutdown announcement was peppered with hints that there's be a change, but ultimately that it was a transition of sorts.

    2. Re:The important part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Love it or hate it, this is one of the more successful marketing stunts of late.

      I have to agree with this, I'm probably going to check out the site now. I had browsed it previously but not thought much of it. Maybe if they have the Discworld games I'll throw them some of my hard-earned cash.

      I have the original box for Discworld II - Missing, Presumed...? but the discs are, sadly, long gone.

    3. Re:The important part by c0d3g33k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they still won't have a download client.

      The only download client needed is a web browser. That is as it should be.

    4. Re:The important part by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 1

      Love it or hate it, this is one of the more successful marketing stunts of late.

      Yes, lying can be very effective marketing. Just like the important announcements about my Verizon service I get all the time (actually FiOS ads), the Clear ads I get in envelopes saying "This is not junk mail" on the outside, the letters to my business that look like they are from government entities (but aren't, as the fine print admits), and the Siemens pop-up ads on scientificamerican.com that have an extra "close" button that takes you to the Siemens website. As long as consumers fail to get sufficiently outraged about such crap, it will only get worse.

    5. Re:The important part by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      No, you should have a proprietary client that uses a special protocol. It should be tied in to your globally-unique key, which upon first use adds your globally-unique MAC and CPU IDs to ensure that you are not selling the game to another user.

      It should also be able to install other systems on your machine that track usage and report piracy.

      Nah, it should be an FTP client.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    6. Re:The important part by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      Not that I disagree with anything you've said, but my comment was based a lesson I picked up from a former prof: "the only bad marketing is when people don't learn what your product is". Shutting down out of the blue was a dick move but their brand awareness is now through the roof.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    7. Re:The important part by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Bleh. This is the first I'd heard of them, and now I'm mostly annoyed by the publicity stunt. They may have a good product, but their advertising has turned me off. I don't feel inclined to rush over there and try their stuff.

    8. Re:The important part by Seumas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, a successful stunt suggests that you pulled it off. Everyone knew it was a hoax from the beginning and said so, therefore, they failed.

      Secondly, they would have had plenty of game press coverage if they just announced the changes without pulling this stupid stunting gimmick. Hell, RPS and Joystiq (among others) not only cover them regularly, but write about their weekend sales on a regular (almost weekly) basis.

      This didn't get them more attention than it otherwise would have. The only thing this accomplished was to accumulate a lot of ill-will from their existing customers who don't take well to poor decisions like this, where they feel patronized. For me, it's not so much that they were pulling a stunt -- it's that it was so offensively stupid and poorly done. As if they really think that little of their consumers.

      It's like people who pull "practical jokes" on April Fools day. Only, they're not so much jokes when their whole shtick is "hey, why are you at work today -- it's saturday! Hah! Just kidding, it's really Friday! GUFFAW GUFFAW GUFFAW HYUCK!".

      I was a big fan of these guys, but I don't want to encourage or support douche-baggery. Best of luck to them in the future, and here's to hoping they figure out how to NOT suck at public relations.

    9. Re:The important part by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have the original box for Discworld II - Missing, Presumed...? but the discs are, sadly, long gone.

      I can't be the only one who noticed the irony.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    10. Re:The important part by syousef · · Score: 1

      Love it or hate it, this is one of the more successful marketing stunts of late.

      Successful? I didn't realise that the goal of marketing was to make your customers and potential customers believe you're incompetent losers. I have much less respect for GOG after they've pulled this and am less likely to buy. I can't believe I'm the only one.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    11. Re:The important part by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Which is all I care about. You can rip the games out and play then on dosbox or wine.

    12. Re:The important part by kurokame · · Score: 1

      If it was so successful, shouldn't I know or care what their product is by now?

    13. Re:The important part by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      All marketing is lying.

    14. Re:The important part by Sancho · · Score: 1

      What about people who went to the site, didn't realize it was a joke, and won't be back?

    15. Re:The important part by doti · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they did not lie.

      they just said they couldn't keep the site the way it was.

      it was the news (including /.) that said that they were closing.

      --
      factor 966971: 966971
    16. Re:The important part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the original box for Discworld II - Missing, Presumed...? but the discs are, sadly, long gone.

      I can't be the only one who noticed the irony.

      and it would be considerably less ironic if the North American name (Mortality Bites) was used.

    17. Re:The important part by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "We're closing down the service and putting this era behind us as new challenges await."
      When was the last time you heard a company say something like that when announcing that their service was coming out of beta? Sure, if you parse it really carefully you can claim that it technically isn't a lie, but how did they expect it to be interpreted? If the news (like slashdot) misunderstood their intent, why didn't they put out an announcement contradicting it immediately?

    18. Re:The important part by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually they DO have a client, you simply don't have to use it if you don't want to. During the last sale I used it, which is an Adobe AIR based downloader app, and it is really quite nice. I was able to queue all my purchases, including manuals and extras, and have it download everything and put it where I wanted it while I worked on a customer's PC. It was averaging about 1.2Mb per second, which on my 2Mbit cable connection is damned good, and it didn't try to set itself to run at startup or any other crap.

      As for TFA and their "stunt"...are the games still x64 compatible? Are they still cheap? Are they still DRM free? if so I really don't care, as next week when I get paid from these clients whose machines I'm staring at I'll be having me a little purchase fest from GoG just in case they DO go OOB in the future. so I guess at least in my case it worked, as those titles I've been sitting on a fence about WILL be on my portadrive by this time next week. Go GoG!

      Oh, and for those just tuning in who have never bought from GoG? NO DRM, NO problems with any of their games and x64, even the old ones like Redneck Rampage, NO limits on downloads, or number of machines you own which you can install on, and NO game over $10. trust the feet, which has a nice and quickly filling virtual gameshelf there, their support, service, and most importantly games, are all great and cheap. Oh and from talking to others they run sweet in Wine and DOSBox on Linux, so what could be better? You other guys can keep your Steam, with its always wanting online crud, I'll be stopping by GoG baby, yeah!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    19. Re:The important part by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      It's only ironic if you forget that the box will follow you wherever you go and do unpleasant things to people/creatures/things that threaten you. ;)

    20. Re:The important part by GravityStar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, a download client that supports resume, hash checking and block based re-download of corrupted blocks _would_ be nice though. Especially because we are likely talking about multi-gig downloads.

      It could still use plain http, and allow people to download the games using the web-browser. The extra download client would just add a bit of robustness.

    21. Re:The important part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, you're blaming GOG for the media and even (gasp) /. saying they're shutting down even though GOG never said they were shutting down? Just making changes? C'mon now, if you want to be seen and treated as an educated consumer at least act like one.

    22. Re:The important part by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      No, you should have a proprietary client that uses a special protocol.

      Which should really just be a slightly-obfuscated Bittorrent so you don't have to pay for as much bandwidth. When someone calls you on this, you call them hackers because they reverse-engineered your secure protocol technology.

    23. Re:The important part by longhairedgnome · · Score: 1

      Their loss

      --
      GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
    24. Re:The important part by GravityStar · · Score: 1

      Not cool, not funny, not a good marketing stunt.

    25. Re:The important part by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      They've been running for two years and this was the first you'd heard of them, in spite of the fact that they are mentioned in pretty much every Slashdot story that mentions DRM or Steam. What have they lost? Someone who had never heard of them has not heard of them. Of course, you say you're not going to buy anything from them, but at least you've heard of them so you might change your mind. Before, you definitely weren't going to buy anything from them, because you weren't even aware of their existence. Oh, and from their site, the first paragraph reads:

      First of all we would like to apologize everyone who felt deceived or harmed in any way by us closing down GOG.com without any warning and without giving access to your games. We apologize for that from the bottom of our hearts!

      Sounds like they realise that they upset some people. When was the last time you got an apology like that from a company that made a mistake that didn't actually harm anyone?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re:The important part by flitty · · Score: 1

      This didn't get them more attention than it otherwise would have.

      Well, it did get them 2 important posts on the most important globally influental website out there - Slashdot.

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    27. Re:The important part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their loss

      Who's loss? GOG's or the users?

    28. Re:The important part by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes!

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    29. Re:The important part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they haven't really lost a customer.

    30. Re:The important part by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Isn't Dosbox how most of the games already work under new OSes?

    31. Re:The important part by somersault · · Score: 1

      I was going to complain that you're re-buying it instead of just downloading it, but it's a DiscWorld game, and I'd like to see more of those..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    32. Re:The important part by Quirkz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What have they lost?

      The chance to make a good impression the next time I hear about them?

      Sounds like they realise that they upset some people. When was the last time you got an apology like that from a company that made a mistake that didn't actually harm anyone?

      Sure, apologies are always nice, but I wouldn't call them that unusual. Hell, Verizon apologized to me just yesterday, because I got spam text messages on my phone. Verizon! And gave me a $5 credit, which is enough to counteract a lot of future spam, too.

    33. Re:The important part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the possibility of a future conversion that has been denied. Or the chance that really aggravated non-customers have the potential ability to sway other people away from them.

    34. Re:The important part by dziban303 · · Score: 1

      I suspect this stunt was pretty successful. Well, I don't really know that--all I know is that I hadn't heard of gog.com until it "shut down"--but I bet there are a lot of others out there who hadn't heard about it until its greatly exaggerated demise slashvertisement. So in that respect, it was a success: informing people of its existence.

      I still haven't visited the site, nor do I plan to, so it failed in the big picture.

      Why am I still at work right now? Fuck this noise. Later.

    35. Re:The important part by aneroid · · Score: 1

      They do have a download client. The GOG.com Downloader.

      You mean they won't have a GOG.com games-client like Steam? I'm okay with that. Would be nice but not necessary.

      On a side-note, the link above to the Downloader currently works. But the client can't login so games don't download. Guess I'll have to wait 13 hours to download the game I bought during their last weekend sale.

    36. Re:The important part by teh+moges · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I had never heard of the site until this hoax. Now I at least know about it. I would say it would be a positive outcome (more people coming than going).

    37. Re:The important part by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      I never heard about them until the publicity stunt either. And you know something? The stunt makes me disinclined to trust anything they say. Maybe they got some last-minute cash from an investor on condition that they claim it was just a publicity stunt so they can prep it for a sale? Who knows?

    38. Re:The important part by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      You aren't. What's worse is the goofy video they posted by way of explanation.

      Hey, GOG.com, for those of us who don't want to wade through a 4-minute video with a low signal-to-noise ratio (or maybe non-existent, I didn't watch after a few seconds), why not simply describe what you have to say?

      If someone wants to watch, that's fine, but don't force people to slog through it if all they want to know is what you're doing. I had to use Google to find out what you should have spelled out on your web page. This news story explained that the site's been rewritten but the service will remain basically the same.

      So, I've really liked GOG over the past year or so, buying over a dozen games from them, and will probably continue to do business with them, but this stupid stunt is horrible marketing that has alienated and annoyed the very people they are trying to target... paying customers.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    39. Re:The important part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it was a publicity stunt and keeping people shouting how they can't do it because they were such a great service and they were buying more games on gog in a year than they ever did in the last ten etc. blah blah blah is so much better than news at 11 with an update at 12 that it was all misinterpretation. They WANTED it to be misinterpreted in that way which is why they made sure that it was only technically not a lie if you read it very carefully and apply an extra dose of pedantry in the interpretation.

    40. Re:The important part by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, are you that dense? Their INTENT was to craft the announcement in such a way that people would assume they were shutting down. That's the thing that was supposed to give them the media coverage (as it indeed did). The fact that they technically didn't lie is a fact that should have only be noticeable in hindsight, which appears to have been how it worked.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    41. Re:The important part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is? I'd never heard of them before, heard of them via this stunt, and still don't care about em after.

      I'm sure there's a lot more like me, than there are of you (and their customers), thus, making them just as meaningless now.

    42. Re:The important part by grimdawg · · Score: 1

      A lot of the people who buy from them do so out of a feeling they are protesting against DRM and big corporations, that they are helping out a `little guy'.

      A very corporation-esque stunt like this MIGHT serve to turn off some of their fanbase.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary, and nine other kinds of people.
    43. Re:The important part by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 1

      Um, are you that dense?

      No, I fully understand what they did, and I find it sleazy. Are your standards really so low that you aren't bothered by companies misleading the public just so they can make more money?

      Their INTENT was to craft the announcement in such a way that people would assume they were shutting down.

      One of the definitions of lie from dictionary.com: something intended or serving to convey a false impression

      That's the thing that was supposed to give them the media coverage (as it indeed did).

      Media coverage that they would not have received if they were honest and forthright. In other words, coverage that they did not deserve.

      The fact that they technically didn't lie is a fact that should have only be noticeable in hindsight, which appears to have been how it worked.

      Well, according to the definition above, they technically did lie. Putting that aside, we're not talking about whether or not they would be found guilty in a court of law, we're talking about whether or not it was ethical. Technicalities don't matter here. What matters is intent, fairness, etc. Their intent was to deceive the public in order to get publicity they didn't deserve in order to increase their profits.

      If you want to play with technicalities, you can say absolutely anything you want. Examples:

      "I didn't see the red light (because when the light turned yellow I looked away and stomped on the gas)."

      "I did not have sex with that woman (it was oral sex)."

      "I saw the president dancing around in a pink tutu while stomping on puppies (in a dream I had last night)."

      "I saw an alien with my own two eyes (it was on the Twilight Zone)."

      If you're OK with companies misleading you to pick more money out of your pockets, that's your business. I'm not OK with it. "Technically it's not a lie" is the sort of excuse I expect to hear from a 5-year-old, not a company that wants my business.

    44. Re:The important part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It is often easier to gain forgiveness than permission"

      This is exactly what they were thinking when they pulled this stunt.

    45. Re:The important part by BlitzTech · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you browse the games they offer, you'll quickly change your assumption of "multi-gig" downloads to "multi-meg" downloads, which are a lot more reasonable to download across a connection with none of the error correcting you mentioned. These games aren't the cutting-edge, multi-DVD games; a lot of what they offer came on multiple floppy disks back in the day, and ranges up to (gasp!) games from CDs. Granted, this doesn't apply to EVERY game they offer, but a significant majority for sure.

      Now, in the future, when a store like GoG offers 'retro' games like Borderlands, Dragon Age, etc., and Comcast/AT&T/Time Warner/etc. have their way and never upgrade from current speeds... yeah, those error correcting features will be VERY handy.

    46. Re:The important part by fotbr · · Score: 1

      What have they lost?
      First impressions and all that.

      I'd seen them mentioned in /. threads, but had not gotten around to looking at the site. Now they've pissed away the good references with a stupid PR stunt.

    47. Re:The important part by ppanon · · Score: 1

      Yah. The two games I would really like to see are Dungeon Keeper II (EA) and Alpha Centauri (Firaxis). I also would like to see Sid Meier's Pirates (Y2K). I own them all but can't seem to get DK II to run on my AMD64 and would like to play the others under Wine without DRM issues. I'll probably pick up a copy of MOOII, even though I own it and can play it under WinXP, just to future proof my playing ability by getting rid of the DRM.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    48. Re:The important part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny, really. Steam is down now and I can't play any of the online games that I "bought".

    49. Re:The important part by dadioflex · · Score: 1

      On paper/screen the apology looks fine. When delivered by a couple of idiots dressed as monks in fake cant on a Youtube video it doesn't really look so sincere.

    50. Re:The important part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GOG wanted to give the impression they are shutting down and succeeded. The actual text does not matter here -- this is not a contract dispute in court. Us "wanting to be seen as educated customers" (WTH?) is irrelevant as well: the point is that GOG was dishonest.

    51. Re:The important part by Spliffster · · Score: 1

      You can use gog.com's AIR based download client. But you don't have to. And in the end, all you get is an installer (raw files). this is what is nice about gog.com.

    52. Re:The important part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile I know some people who were very avid customers of the site before were seriously erked by this shit and are adamant to avoid purchasing from them for quite a while if ever again.

      Hopefully GOG gained more customers than they lost over it.

      For myself, after seeing this unfold, I put GOG back down to the bottom of my priority list for things to check out - and it was getting close to the top too. :p

    53. Re:The important part by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call it very corporation-esque. I don't really see many major corporations pulling a stunt like this.

      Most corporation would tell you faking your own bankrupcty would be incredibly stupid and irresponsible. I'm inclined to agree.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    54. Re:The important part by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Oh I'd looove to have BOTH DK games, man they were a blast. Have you tried requesting those games? They have a game request section on their forums and from what I understand they really try their best to fulfill those that are requested most. Oh you might want to try "evil genius" for a game with a similar flavor. Oh and if you want to future proof your games you might want to look at the newer titles as well.

      I had bought King's Bounty: The Legend when it first came out (had the original Sega game and loved it) and while I loved the new game when I made the switch from Windows XP32 to Windows 7 x64 I never could get it to run (my guess...shitty DRM) but the GoG version, which I bought just in the hope it might work? Beautiful, worked right OOTB with NO hassles AT ALL. I originally was turned onto GoG by someone here at /. when I mentioned what a PITA I was having with Redneck Rampage, they pointed me to the GoG version which works just wonderful on Win 7 x64. Since then I've been a HUGE fan, with my picking up at least 1 or two every sale and GoG quickly becoming THE place I go to get a new game. Since finding GoG I quit dealing with Steam or buying from Amazon, it is just too easy and nice dealing with GoG.

      So please, spread the word to friends and family as well as on the net about GoG. Those of us who care about PC gaming and hate seeing DRM turning it into a nasty mess need to put our money where our mouth is and support DRM free gaming, which means GoG. And by doing so you actually help yourself (and me and all your fellow GoGers) because as their sales climb more and more companies will start putting their older titles (like the ones you mentioned) on there, and as they see profits from those will be more tempted to place newer games. When I first started going there the newest titles were Win9x era, now we are seeing Far Cry and games up to 2005, soon we could be seeing games go to GoG as soon as they leave retail shelves. And finally by supporting GoG you show publishers you care about DRM free, and show them that DRM free can still make money. GO GOG!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    55. Re:The important part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And like most boycotts, this too will end the day GOG brings in a game they want.

    56. Re:The important part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hash checking is implemented in the installer.
      You download a executable file which contains the compressed disk image/game files and an installer which also has a check of the disk image/game files.

      Only had one corrupted download from them so far, anyway...

    57. Re:The important part by simoncpu+was+here · · Score: 2, Funny

      All generalizations are wrong.

    58. Re:The important part by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Not doing business with them is certainly your prerogative, but realistically ALL advertising is twisting the truth to some extent or another. That's the very reason there exists such a critter as fine print. I really don't see any issue with what they did, and actually find it to be an interesting strategy. They'll still get my business.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    59. Re:The important part by slaad · · Score: 1

      they still won't have a download client.

      The only download client needed is a web browser. That is as it should be.

      Bah. The only download client I need is wget. ;)

      --


      ~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
    60. Re:The important part by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      They lied. They gave the impression that they would be shutting down because of some serious problem.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  2. To paraphrase Futurama by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

    Love it or hate it... Hate it! ...this is one of the more successful marketing stunts of late.

  3. Annoying stunt, but still glad they're here. by Shadmere · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hate it when people and companies pull stuff like this. But for once I'm glad it was just a stunt, because I'd hate them to disappear. Maybe if it was a good enough stunt, they'll even get increased traffic. More importantly, maybe it'll help remind people how sad it would be if the site WAS gone.

    1. Re:Annoying stunt, but still glad they're here. by bl8n8r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not a stunt, it's lying. "This doesn't mean the idea behind GOG.com is gone forever. We're closing down the service and putting this era behind us as new challenges await." What friggin part of "closing down" implies they will be back?

      --
      boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    2. Re:Annoying stunt, but still glad they're here. by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They meant closing down the beta service, they left that out for excitement or whatever some marketing moron thought.

    3. Re:Annoying stunt, but still glad they're here. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Well, strictly speaking, they did close down the service, end the era and step into new challenges. The site was closed while they performed the upgrades, the beta era is now over and they're getting ready for the new challenges of running a supposedly non-beta service.

      Yeah, it's not entirely honest, but this is not really that much different than when obi wan kenobi said that Vader betrayed and murdered Luke's father.

    4. Re:Annoying stunt, but still glad they're here. by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's not entirely honest, but this is not really that much different than when obi wan kenobi said that Vader betrayed and murdered Luke's father.

      That's an awesome argument. With that, I've partly forgiven GOG ^.^

      --
      It is what it is.
    5. Re:Annoying stunt, but still glad they're here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. h4rr4r, I just thought I'd let you know that I'm going to come over to your house and kill you and your family.

      (note: I'm going to kill you with laughter, not actually murder you. Hilarious!)

  4. Unintended consequences by lgftsa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The stunt worked, they got two front page /. articles about them. Of course, the downside is that they're now on my blacklist.

    1. Re:Unintended consequences by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Why? I mean compared with the problems people have with their competitors, this is really not that big of a deal. I've had DRM problems which resulted in a similar level of trouble from competitors, at least in this case it's somewhat understandable.

    2. Re:Unintended consequences by spun · · Score: 1

      Whatever you care to say about DRM, it is at least honest. Amazingly enough, some people prefer to do business with honest assholes than with dishonest nice guys.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Unintended consequences by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Honest? Depending upon the particular type of DRM, they might not let you even install the software if some random application is also installed on the system. Frequently they don't tell you what the restrictions are prior to purchase and they don't provide a refund if the DRM prevents you from using the software that you've paid for.

      Admittedly, that's more towards the scummier end of things, but DRM often seems to lack honesty. I'm not sure the last time I saw a CD which stated that it had DRM, the only strategy I found was looking for the official CD logo on it, as Phillips refused to authorize its use on any noncompliant disc.

    4. Re:Unintended consequences by Daetrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is the second time GOG has treated me in a somewhat crappy manner, though at least this time i've got a lot of company. (Yay?) However i'm not willing to boycott them permanently because of this stunt since they're the only ones trying to do the no DRM thing, even if they are sometimes asses about the way in which they do business.

      However i do think i shall compare their catalog to Impulse's, find several games i want that both sites have, purchase those games from Impulse, ("Age of Wonders" seems like a good place to start) and then be sure to inform GOG about what i did and why i did it. Being DRM free can only make up for a certain amount of bad behaviour in other areas.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    5. Re:Unintended consequences by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Dishonest nice guys. That's quite the description... hehe.

    6. Re:Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Forced compliance is not honesty.

    7. Re:Unintended consequences by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really? What boxed games say on the outside "warning includes securerom and may screw your machine"?

    8. Re:Unintended consequences by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Is impulse DRM free? Does it require some bullshit client?

    9. Re:Unintended consequences by spun · · Score: 1

      What I mean is that, with DRM, you know what you are getting, or you should. No one is claiming that DRM is anything but what it is. These guys claimed they were shut down when they weren't. That makes them liars.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:Unintended consequences by spun · · Score: 1

      Well, GOG.com seem like nice guys, doing the right thing, happy customers, etc., except then they went and lied like this. Bad form.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    11. Re:Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't have used GOG anyway, so it's of no loss to them.

    12. Re:Unintended consequences by spun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's not what I was refering to. You know when you are buying a DRMd game. You know what DRM is for, and who it serves. You know you are dealing with assholes. With GOG.com, I don't know, can I trust them? They are liars. As I said, I'd rather deal with the asshole that I know is an asshole than the supposed "nice guy" who fakes his own death as a publicity stunt.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    13. Re:Unintended consequences by spun · · Score: 1

      Does it need to say that? I just assume, if it is commercial, it has DRM, and if it has extra nasty DRM, I will have heard about it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    14. Re:Unintended consequences by PincushionMan · · Score: 1

      Impulse has a (perhaps) IE based client which requires .NET 2.0 and doesn't work at all on Wine - to the best of my knowledge. Their DRM ranges from none to GOO (Internet activation required on first play) to Impulse::Reactor (I guess you can download it from the web and activate with GOO). Their DRM seems comparable to STEAM, but I don't believe it'll block you from playing if there is an Impulse update. As for transparency, FrogBoy is a head honcho (CEO?) and can be seen frequently pontificating on the Stardock forums. So if you want to know what direction their headed, you can get a feel from his comments.

    15. Re:Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you log in to the service? No - then they were shut down, if only temporarily

    16. Re:Unintended consequences by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      <Homer Simpson's voice>GOG, you just lost yourself a customer!!!</Homer Simpson's voice>

    17. Re:Unintended consequences by Nugoo · · Score: 1

      Well, if it doesn't say it on the box, you're buying from dishonest assholes.

      --
      I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
    18. Re:Unintended consequences by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      I don't recall the technical details (i'm sure someone else will come along at some point and fill in the details) but Impulse has "light" DRM. I believe there's some kind of registration check at install, but nothing after that. You don't have to keep checking into some internet server to keep playing your game after it's installed. So worse than GOG but better than Steam in that regard.

      My usual buying pattern when looking for games was to check first GOG, then Impulse, and finally Steam, and buy it from the first place i found it. However as i said, a lack of DRM doesn't mean i'm willing to put up with an infinite amount of bad treatment in other areas. I want to let GOG know that i'm unhappy, but i want to encourage them to improve their behaviour. "You're on my blacklist now and i'm gonna boycott you forever!" sounds kind of childish and doesn't provide much incentive for change. Either you're overrating and will eventually recant on your own, or you're serious and nothing they do will make a difference anyways. I intend to present them with a complaint about specific actions on their part, and evidence of a specific but finite amount of financial harm they have incurred because of it. Maybe they'll care, maybe they won't, but i think it's more productive than threatening some kind of boycott.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    19. Re:Unintended consequences by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Fair enough they put warnings on games that you will need an internet connection.

      What they don't tell you is the other side of things, a purchase with an online activation requirement is essentially a rental of unspecified duration, sooner or later those activation servers will almost certainly be taken offline (especially in an industry as volatile as gaming, sure steam is big now but who knows if it will stay that way). Nor do they tell you about the problems that ever more agressive CD protections schems can cause.

      Afaict GOG didn't actually lie, they just posted things in a slightly misleading way. They said the site was down, they said it wasn't the end, they just didn't give any details as to what would be happening causing people to speculate the worst.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    20. Re:Unintended consequences by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Should you? how? DRM covers so many different things to different people, it can mean anything from basic CD protection at one end to ubisofts shit at the other. Noone (not even the companies running them) really knows how long the activation servers will remain online and i've never seen a company be upfront about the problems caused by the anti-hacking steps they take as part of thier DRM efforts.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    21. Re:Unintended consequences by spun · · Score: 1

      Are you claiming you don't know what I mean? Go ahead and say that you really do not understand what I am getting at here and I will explain it for you. I have real sympathy for the retarded and will go out of my way to help, if that is what is required.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    22. Re:Unintended consequences by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They lied? What did they say that was a lie? They shut down the site prior to the relaunch and said that it would not continue in its present form. It was pretty obvious last week that this meant they were exiting beta; everyone except a few sensationalist pundits seemed to agree on that, and the company spokesman said that they would be back.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    23. Re:Unintended consequences by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh you forgot some of the "best parts" of DRM! How about not asking your permission before installing Ring 0 crap that may/may not make your machine unstable and a risk for later hacking, not providing a simple tool with the software for removing said ring 0 crap, oh and how about possibly destroying your hardware? That's right, as a PC repairman I've had to shitcan more than a few DVD/CD burners because DRM threw them into PIO mode and fried them. you see, the reason starforce could say "it wasn't us!" was because it wasn't, it was when you had "starforce+ SecuROM or safedisc or TAGES" as they would conflict with each other and BAM! PIO mode and dead drives.

      Say what you want about their little stunt but no GoG game has EVER installed crap without my permission, screwed up my OS (try an x86 game with one of the nastier Starforce or SecuROM version on XP X64 and see what happens, errors out the butt and the uninstaller will NOT WORK!), called home, or risked my security or my hardware. All my GoG games sit happily on a 200Gb portadrive, ready to be installed anytime I WANT on any OS I WANT, from XP32- Windows 7 X64, completely hassle free. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, that I've seen offers an even similar service. Steam just changes online for offline DRM and sometimes even has both (yuck!) and D2D is rarely up to speed on patches and doesn't allow you to use patches from other sites.

      So I'd say if you actually care about "free as in freedom" which BTW most of their games work just great in Linux with Wine or DOSBox thanks to the lack of ring 0 DRM junk, then you really need to be shopping at GoG. With cheap prices, fast downloads, and no DRM, they really are the only game in town for those of us that want our games DRM free.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    24. Re:Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree.

      GOG, you just lost yourself a customer!!!

      Of course, Homer soon went back to Moe's...

    25. Re:Unintended consequences by spun · · Score: 0, Troll

      Ah, so you're one of those who make the distinction between "lied" and "mislead" and do not seem to feel that misleading is a bad thing. I'll be sure to remember that I have to parse all your posts very carefully for potentially hidden meanings. Actually, that sounds like a lot of work, I think I'll just skip reading what you have to say so I don't get confused.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    26. Re:Unintended consequences by Elshar · · Score: 1

      It's actually abit better than steam in that you can have two computers sitting next to each other, BOTH logged into Impulse and play games off your Impulse account. They both have their pros and cons, but I tend to lean more towards Impulse because of it's tendency to just leave me alone.

      Also, with Impulse it often just installs the game with the client. You just run the game like normal to actually play it. I'm sure with steam you could do the same thing, but you'd have to dig around for the actual app within your steam install.

      Or put another way: I've never, under any circumstance NOT been able to play games I got from Impulse. (Offline, on a second computer, while my son is logged in with my account on my other comp, etc). Unlike steam which wants me to always log on (Or incredibly frequently anyways), and if, god forbid, my steam client on my other computer logs me in automagically, I get kicked off on the other one.

    27. Re:Unintended consequences by spun · · Score: 1

      If they explained everything ahead of time, why all the confusion and need to set things straight? This was a dishonest publicity stunt.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    28. Re:Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      My mind is often boggled by how people get really upset by marketing stunts yet are fine with problems that actually matter. People love Steam yet it has regular phone-home style DRM (oh your internet went down, you can't play your games for awhile then), and people still buy games with limited installs. Yet a company with a decent service has their marketing department drop the ball and suddenly people are shouting "Boycott".

    29. Re:Unintended consequences by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      So you would rather buy from the guy you've known is an asshole who provides shitty service rather than the guy you just found out is an asshole who provides good service? How long do you have to know they're an asshole before you get over it and do business with them? Or do you have to wait for their service to suck first?

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    30. Re:Unintended consequences by nobodyknowsimageek · · Score: 1

      ..and all that shows is that you are an insufferable demagogue that would have eventually been driven away by some minor annoyance anyway. They just saved all the customer service time they would have wasted on you, at essentially no cost to them at all.

    31. Re:Unintended consequences by spun · · Score: 1

      No, I'd rather buy from an established business with one asshole practice, than an unknown liar.

      A newly opened business that attempts to mislead its customers into thinking it is closing, I don't know what else they might lie about.

      Basically, I hate publicity stunts. PR and advertising are legalized mindfuckery. If they did not effectively control at least some people's minds, they would not be a viable business.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    32. Re:Unintended consequences by Jeslijar · · Score: 1

      what boxed game DOESN'T have a clause in their EULA about "If this software damages your computer it isn't our responsibility"?

      I think the whole idea is garbage but feel it still should be mentioned.

    33. Re:Unintended consequences by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      PIO mode kills drives?

    34. Re:Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nothing they posted was a lie. It was spun in articles that picked the story up to be a shutdown or possible trouble with publishers.

      They were vague about what was happening (the site upgrade), but they definitely didn't lie.

    35. Re:Unintended consequences by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Impulse does not force DRM, while Steam does. The DRM's up to the publisher. Stardock's games, for instance, can be downloaded through Impulse and then played with Impulse off. Actually, Impulse itself cannot run in the background, they have a separate launcher app for that.

      The downside is that Impulse rarely has better prices than Steam.

    36. Re:Unintended consequences by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      Well, I had never heard of them before. And now I have. Funny how that works. Maybe I'll look into it.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    37. Re:Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care what their competitors do, that does not give them a free pass to do whatever they want. Fuck 'em, they've lost a customer here too.

    38. Re:Unintended consequences by dadioflex · · Score: 1

      Whatever you care to say about DRM, it is at least honest. Amazingly enough, some people prefer to do business with honest assholes than with dishonest nice guys.

      Which I why I shop a lot at Brad Wardell's Stardock.

    39. Re:Unintended consequences by koiransuklaa · · Score: 1

      "We're closing down the service" was the main message. It's awesome if you and others familiar with GOG knew the whole deal, but the intention was clearly to deceive the media and the public. Take a look at the last /. discussion: a lot of people fell for it.

      It's not like this is a big deal but it was clearly dishonest.

    40. Re:Unintended consequences by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      I really don't get this.

      Are people really getting that hot and bothered about a little joke on a game vendor's website?

      This didn't harm anyone. It was, at most, a mild inconvenience to users (of which I am one), but it was made clear from the beginning that people would be able to access their games again today. Even if you couldn't, if you have a local copy you can simply install it again. I imagine eventually people would start sharing the installers with others who didn't have them saved locally. Compare that to Steam or Impulse or any of the other DRM-laden game download services where that simply couldn't happen due to DRM.

      I don't have any problem with this marketing stunt. As they said in the video, the whole industry has a stick up its ass these days.. perhaps some gamers need to relax a bit.

    41. Re:Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the implication is that any software you install "may screw your machine". Do Linux download pages say "warning includes software and may screw your machine"?

    42. Re:Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GamersGate game pages do.

    43. Re:Unintended consequences by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Most software does not do that intentionally, securerom does.

    44. Re:Unintended consequences by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      If the can lie about this, they can lie about anything.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    45. Re:Unintended consequences by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      So you have evidence that the very same people who are fine with Steam are complaining about GOG's lies?

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  5. Let's be honest here by Pojut · · Score: 3, Insightful

    GOG has been gaining popularity and consumer visibility, ESPECIALLY in the past few months. Unless they were hit with a huge lawsuit or financial disaster, there would be no reason for them to close permanently.

    Sincerely,

    A not surprised (yet very relieved!) gamer

    1. Re:Let's be honest here by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      GOG has been gaining popularity and consumer visibility, ESPECIALLY in the past few months. Unless they were hit with a huge lawsuit or financial disaster, there would be no reason for them to close permanently.

      Sincerely,

      A not surprised (yet very relieved!) gamer

      And since they only distribute games for which they have agreements with the appropriate agencies, I see no reason for this to happen.

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
  6. I hate this shit by killmenow · · Score: 0

    You know, the day they went down, I had just been introduced to DXX Rebirth and was going to buy the original Descent 1 and 2 from GOG.com to get the game content. Then they pulled this stunt. I am less likely to purchase anything from them now. Because I hate stupid bullshit stunts like this. But then, they probably will make up for any lost sales by the simple fact that now a whole lot more people have heard of GOG.com than before...so I doubt they care.

    1. Re:I hate this shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your personal convenience was interrupted for a few measly hours because a place-holder was up while they drew thousands more eyeballs to their site in an intriguing PR stunt now they feel ready to make a push for more sales outside of the miniature niche they've carved for themselves during beta so far and you're now less likely to buy from them?

      Get over yourself. Seriously.

      Best of luck to them, I'll be browsing as soon as pay day rolls around to see if they're carrying the extremely excellent original Discworld games. If so they can gladly take my money for them.

    2. Re:I hate this shit by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Your personal convenience was interrupted for a few measly hours

      GOG was down Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and is still down today. At midnight PDT tonight, that will be 144 hours.

      How is that "few" or "measly?"

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    3. Re:I hate this shit by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      GOG was down Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and is still down today. At midnight PDT tonight, that will be 144 hours.

      Sorry, midnight EDT. Since they reopen at 8am tomorrow, that's 150 hours even.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    4. Re:I hate this shit by kalirion · · Score: 1

      the extremely excellent original Discworld games

      Excellent as long as you play with the mouse in one hand, and the walkthrough in the other. Or at least have the Universal Hint System open on another second monitor.

    5. Re:I hate this shit by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Really? It sounds like to me where a company I had a business relationship with has this odd idea that randomly shutting down, and locking me out of things I've bought, is a company I will no longer do business with. And it also sounds like good old word of mouth, will make sure that my friends know that this company enjoys randomly shutting down and locking them out of their purchases for PR stunts.

      Yep, works well.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    6. Re:I hate this shit by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Oh no! You're without the ability to purchase new cheap entertainment for 150 hours! The world is ending.

      Good thing that they're DRM-free, so all of the games you previously bought from them still work and would continue to do so even if they had gone completely belly-up, so you had something to do with those hours.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:I hate this shit by wjousts · · Score: 1

      Bare in mind that in all likelihood they would have taken the site down anyway during the transition to their new site, so you would have been inconvenienced anyway. The only shitty part is the unannounced part (and the pretending like they'd gone for good).

      Well, that and the fact that in this era of virtualization it should really be necessary to take the entire site down to upgrade it, but they are small and maybe don't have the staff.

      I had noticed the last couple of downloads I got from them I had to try several times before I could successfully download them, so I suspect their hardware was struggling as it was.

    8. Re:I hate this shit by wjousts · · Score: 1

      But the nice part is that they didn't lock you out of anything, unless you had purchased something previously, didn't have it installed, didn't download the installer and wanted to install it over the last couple of days. If it had been Steam you would have been permanently out of luck.

    9. Re:I hate this shit by Molt · · Score: 1

      If it had been Steam I doubt they'd have pulled this childish trick.

      --
      404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
    10. Re:I hate this shit by wjousts · · Score: 1

      No, Steam will just go out of business and that will be that.

    11. Re:I hate this shit by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      But the nice part is that they didn't lock you out of anything

      Yes they did. They locked you out of downloads you had paid for.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    12. Re:I hate this shit by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Bare in mind that in all likelihood they would have taken the site down anyway during the transition to their new site, so you would have been inconvenienced anyway.

      But they took the site down and left people in uncertainty instead of telling the truth, and putting people's minds at ease.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    13. Re:I hate this shit by wjousts · · Score: 1

      If you don't backup your downloads, then you are an idiot and you are missing the point of the service being DRM free. GOG.com won't exist for ever so it's up to you to backup the executables that you download and keep them somewhere safe. When GOG.com goes away you will still be able to install the software you paid for using those executables as many times as you want on as many computers as you want. This is in contrast to Steam where you'd be shit out of luck.

    14. Re:I hate this shit by hkmwbz · · Score: 1
      I never said anything about the reason you hadn't downloaded. I just pointed out that they locked you out of downloads you had paid for (for whatever reason you hadn't downloaded them yet).

      How is Steam relevant? I don't give a crap about Steam. I'm talking about how GOG lied, and treated their customers like dirt.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    15. Re:I hate this shit by wjousts · · Score: 1

      I never said anything about the reason you hadn't downloaded. I just pointed out that they locked you out of downloads you had paid for (for whatever reason you hadn't downloaded them yet).

      And they will again, for real, and for good, when they eventually go out of business. You should know this and make sure you download the things you buy promptly and back them up. You know this, so if you're too lazy to do it, then how is that anybody else's fault?

    16. Re:I hate this shit by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      And they will again, for real, and for good, when they eventually go out of business.

      They gave the impression that something like this was happening. They lied. There was no reason for them to lie about the reason people's purchases became unavailable.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    17. Re:I hate this shit by wjousts · · Score: 1

      I'm not going to disagree that it was a stupid stunt, but it doesn't change the fact that one day they will disappear, for real, and you should be ready for that. As long as you download the installers and put them somewhere safe, you won't lose anything.

    18. Re:I hate this shit by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      When they do go out of business, it won't just be a stupid marketing stunt.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  7. DRM demonstration by MDHowle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It was all a demonstration of what inevitable happens to DRM media.

    1. Re:DRM demonstration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It was all a demonstration of what inevitable happens to DRM media.

      And targeted at consumers of non-DRM media: The message was "We operate on a shoestring, so buy it from us while we're still around to sell it." (Not a bad message, come to think of it. You'll buy that game now, not six months from now, since you don't know if the seller will be around six months from now. And if you do buy it now, because it's DRM-free, you'll at least have it six months - or six years - from now when you finally get around to playing it.)

    2. Re:DRM demonstration by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      And if you do buy it now, because it's DRM-free, you'll at least have it six months - or six years - from now when you finally get around to playing it.

      Bought Half-Life 11 years ago. Registered it with Steam 7 years ago. Lost the disc sometime since then. Finally beat (the Steam DRMed versions of) Half-Life, Opposing Force, and Blue Shift 6 months ago.

      You were saying?

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    3. Re:DRM demonstration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @AnonymousCoward IAGWTP. I will buy #fallout (1 + 2) when there back online 4 that reason

    4. Re:DRM demonstration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GOG doesn't use DRM...

    5. Re:DRM demonstration by lastrogue · · Score: 0
      @Anonymous Coward

      GOG doesn't use DRM...

      You're right. I think there might be some confused minds here. GOG was focusing on NON-DRM applications so that users would be able to use the application, virtually however they wanted to, without the restrictions of DRMS.

  8. Unprofessional by joshuaf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I only have 2 games from them, but this kind of weird drama does make me less likely to purchase anymore in the future. It just seemed super unprofessional compared to steam and impulse.

    1. Re:Unprofessional by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why should a company that sells games act professionally? The sillier the better I say.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Unprofessional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why should a company that sells games act professionally? The sillier the better I say.

      There's this fine line between "silly" and "explicitly deceitful". One makes you laugh, the other is horribly sleazy.

    3. Re:Unprofessional by Quirkz · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Silly, yes. Great. Jokes. Weird promotions. That's all good.

      Pretend you're going out of business when you're not? That's not silly, that's frustrating or unsettling.

    4. Re:Unprofessional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would you not purchase from them in the future? You pick a game, you buy it, and download it, and it's yours. DRM free. For life. You're not buying stock in the company. Or are your principles so rigid that you have to take a stance against every "wrong".

    5. Re:Unprofessional by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps it's because I used to be in security, but that was probably the most transparent act of deceit I can recall. The page they put up implied very, very strongly that they'd be back to something analogous if not the same in short order.

    6. Re:Unprofessional by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why would you not purchase from them in the future?

      Because the money you are giving to people who are willing to lie to you if it will put more cash in their own pockets could otherwise be spent on products from companies that have an ounce of respect for their customers. If you don't punish companies that cheat, the only companies that will survive are those that do.

    7. Re:Unprofessional by joshuaf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except I hadn't actually downloaded them yet. I mostly bought them as a show of support for a DRM free company that was bringing back old games. It was MOO 1 and 2. I just liked knowing I had them out there when I wanted them. I've also since bought the same games on steam, when they later came there. Guess where I can download them from RIGHT NOW if I wanted. This is what makes me less likely to buy from them in the future.

    8. Re:Unprofessional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How was this cheating? They didn't threaten to leave if people didn't pay them money. They even said they'd be back in some form or another.

    9. Re:Unprofessional by rm999 · · Score: 1

      I bought a game from them last week, and was concerned that it would no longer be supported. This is especially scary when they don't sell you physical media.

      Yeah... that was my last purchase from them.

    10. Re:Unprofessional by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So using DRM is respect for their customers? Because that is what other game sellers do.

      If you could not see through their little "deceit" you need your head examined.

    11. Re:Unprofessional by idontgno · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah... that was my last purchase from them.

      ^^

      I don't buy appliances from the crazy neighborhood appliance store that's had a perpetual "going out of business sale" for the last three years, either.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    12. Re:Unprofessional by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 1

      Cheating: to practice fraud or deceit

      They deceived the public in order to benefit themselves with free publicity (media attention).

      If GOG had a competitor that refused to lie to the public for publicity, that competitor would have to spend a ton of money on advertising just to keep up, which would put it at a significant disadvantage. If there isn't sufficient consumer backlash to dissuade companies from doing such things, how can an honest company possibly compete?

    13. Re:Unprofessional by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or perhaps they were proving to the public that you didn't lose anything if they went away. You still had everything you purchased from them. That's huge, what with various DRM servers shutting down and removing content people thought they purchased.

    14. Re:Unprofessional by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 1

      So using DRM is respect for their customers? Because that is what other game sellers do.

      I didn't say anything of the sort.

      If you could not see through their little "deceit" you need your head examined.

      So, it's OK to lie if the lie is obvious enough? Should I point out that the Slashdot editors apparently bought it, since they carried the story (and it's not April 1st).

    15. Re:Unprofessional by GravityStar · · Score: 1

      That page implied they expected to be back. Probably. Hopefully.

      Not certainly. Not in a couple of days.

    16. Re:Unprofessional by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They did not lie. They withheld some facts (unless you actually bothered to ask them - they were actually quite forthcoming with the journalists who did, rather than jumping straight to the conclusion that they were going bust, rather than coming out of beta), but nothing on their announcement was an outright lie. And they made a very good point about DRM in doing so.

      If they had been selling DRM'd games and had actually gone bust, all of their customers would have been screwed. As it is, the only 'problem' that people had was that they were unable to give GOG any more money for 150 hours. And yet you still whinge.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:Unprofessional by GravityStar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They lied. I don't know about you, but people and businesses that lie to me get bumped all the way to the end of the 'my money & time' queue.

    18. Re:Unprofessional by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As opposed to the companies that DRM the hell out of their products, refuse to give refunds if the aforementioned DRM prevents you from using it and fails to disclose the degree to which the DRM impacts the security of your computer?

      Perhaps I'm missing something, but is this PR stunt really worse behavior than the competition or are you talking about not buying games from anybody?

    19. Re:Unprofessional by grahamtriggs · · Score: 1

      Whether they implied they would be back or not, is hardly the point.

      People made purchase from them, and then they simply blocked access to the downloads without any client communication. However you look at it, that is extremely bad customer service.

      It's reasonable enough for them to do a publicity stunt, but they have a duty to at least email the people that have made purchases and inform them what will be / is happening, or provide a way for them to access their account / downloads.

    20. Re:Unprofessional by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Why would you not purchase from them in the future?

      Because he's a Slashdotter. Taking illogically extreme positions as kneejerk responses to relatively minor tech-related annoyances is what we do.

    21. Re:Unprofessional by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As opposed to the companies that DRM the hell out of their products, refuse to give refunds if the aforementioned DRM prevents you from using it and fails to disclose the degree to which the DRM impacts the security of your computer?

      Disgusting behavior is disgusting, even if the competition is worse.

      Perhaps I'm missing something, but is this PR stunt really worse behavior than the competition or are you talking about not buying games from anybody?

      They're selling games, not water; you can live without it. If you can't find any good options in the entire gaming industry, spend your entertainment dollars elsewhere. If you aren't willing to walk away when a company/industry treats you like crap, they'll just keep doing it.

    22. Re:Unprofessional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically another problem is that during said 150 hours, people were unable to also download games they had previously given GOG money for.

      I had recently wiped my drive, and not bothered backing up my games from GOG, thinking I could just re-download them. I forgot to do so, and was rather distraught when I heard (via the media) that they were closing down. Entirely my fault, and it's encouraged me to back up my DRM-free downloads.

      At least with non-DRM'd software, backups (assuming they're made, and they work!) can be potentially helpful instead of useless.

  9. is "marketing" a real profession? by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Wow! What a concept. Promote your site by doing something that may cause the majority of people who might be interested in it to delete their bookmarks and never come back.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  10. So... by rakuen · · Score: 1

    If this is an advertising stunt, does that make the old GOG.com a stunt double?

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MAGOG.com, surely?

  11. Lovely. by RyanFenton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Essentially, they call their customers suckers after taking away access to the games they chose to pay GOG money for, then call them too sensitive for feeling pissed off by that ("We're sorry you were offended"), then say that taking money for games is no longer good enough, so everyone's just going to have to take, oh, let's say whatever we decide is good enough for you.

    This certainly matches with the usual playbook of corporate non-apologies - smarmy, fake ingratiation, blame shifting their own words, all while asking for more control and resources.

    Say what you want about Steam's DRM model - they don't have this level of open contempt for their customers (yet). I'd seriously reconsider any titles I had associated with these jokers if I were ever looking to publish.

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Lovely. by zorg50 · · Score: 1

      You'll have to watch the video currently embedded on their homepage for it, but they did apologize (in a kind of idiotic fashion):

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATNd4qbNTf8

    2. Re:Lovely. by KillaGouge · · Score: 3, Informative

      As long as you kept the files you downloaded, you can ways play the games. I think you might need to take a little time and think next time. Unlike Steam's DRM model GOG has no DRM and doesn't have to every phone home to a server.

      Why are you so angry?

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    3. Re:Lovely. by RyanFenton · · Score: 1

      Yeah - that was the fake ingratiation part.

      Ryan Fenton

    4. Re:Lovely. by hedwards · · Score: 3, Informative

      The big issue there was that some people had just purchased and as a result hadn't had the chance to download and secondly, they'd promised the customers that they'd always be able to download the games. I'm not sure anybody really believed always, but I do think that most of us assumed that when or if they shut down that there'd be arrangements in place or some sort of warning to download your stuff.

      I mean even 3d Realms when they went out of business made arrangements to handle recent orders.

    5. Re:Lovely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think they were making fun of you, specifically, RyanFenton. I suggest you stick with the people who don't single you out and make fun of you.
      BTW. that wasn't you doing the heavy mouth-breathing that starts about halfway into the video, was it?

    6. Re:Lovely. by KillaGouge · · Score: 1

      I do believe there was a post on either their Twitter or their site that in a few days something would be put in place to let people download the games.

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    7. Re:Lovely. by maugle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Taking away access?"
      You buy and download the game. It's yours. Forever. No matter what happens to GOG that game will still play on your PC

      If Valve ever goes under, though, you're SOL. All your games will no longer work*.

      *Yes, I know Valve could release DRM-removing updates on all their games if they start going under. Really think that'll be high on their list of priorities, though?

    8. Re:Lovely. by rotide · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Still, it was a publicity stunt that basically took away access to the product they just sold to people. If I sell you something and then take it away before you can access it during a publicity stunt, what are you going to say? Are you going to be happy? They just took your money and said they are shutting down. You're out of a game you just purchased. A few days later, "HAHAHA we're joking!, you can access it when we feel like bringing the servers back up!" Really shady.. Really, really, shady. So shady in fact, that I will make it a point to not purchase from them in the future. This was the first I heard of them (well, a few days ago when they started the stunt anyways) and from what I've seen, they will take your money and shut down for a few days if it suits them.

    9. Re:Lovely. by KillaGouge · · Score: 1

      This is just a question I had. Was it really there 1 second then gone the next? I find it hard to believe that that it was there long enough to enter your payment information, then suddenly vanish as soon as you hit submit.

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    10. Re:Lovely. by rotide · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure on the technical specifics as I haven't, and won't purchase from them. But when I buy anything, I don't just immediately run and make use of it. Sometimes I let it sit for a day or two until I have time to download, install, and play it. Can't fault people for not immediately downloading something due to an unknown impending publicity stunt that is going to basically tell you "too bad" for a few days.

    11. Re:Lovely. by KillaGouge · · Score: 1

      I see no reason to purchase something that is available for digital download, and not download it. Especially since these games are small.

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    12. Re:Lovely. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I mean even 3d Realms when they went out of business
      3D realms haven't actually gone out of business, they got rid of the internal dev team and most of the other staff but the company is still arround, still running a website and still selling games (though now as download only). They have even got someone to finish off DNF for them.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    13. Re:Lovely. by GravityStar · · Score: 1

      Oh come on. With a high enough volume of transactions, and even half an hour of delay between people purchasing the game and __completing__ their download, gog was guaranteed to piss off a couple hundred of customers at least.

    14. Re:Lovely. by VoltageX · · Score: 1

      they don't have this level of open contempt for their customers (yet)

      Ever tried asking for a refund from Steam?

      --
      "Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times
    15. Re:Lovely. by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      This certainly matches with the usual playbook of corporate non-apologies

      Really? I haven't seen many other "non-apologies" that begin with the words "First of all we would like to apologize".

      Maybe they edited the site since you posted.

    16. Re:Lovely. by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

      Say what you want about Steam's DRM model

      As per your request. It's a bloated* DRM platform which strictly speaking is worse than something like TAGES (ugh) which at least only calls home during installation.

      *(love it or hate it, you can't deny that it's not a clean client)

      they don't have this level of open contempt for their customers

      A valid point I guess. The implication that you're a pirate via a persistent call home (less periodic if you use offline mode, yes, but still never non-existent) is clearly a much more subtle contempt than a link to a completely DRM free executable that installs a game that simply runs from it's own executable as opposed to being wrapped in a Steam-requiring header.

      Steam goes down, and no-one in offline mode can play anything. GOG "shuts down" for a lame marketing stunt and it's only the people who hadn't already downloaded their games that didn't have access to them, everyone else can play regardless. It goes without saying that when Steam goes down people that hadn't downloaded their games don't have access to them either.

      It sucked, yes, but it was a joke, and however pathetic a joke it was, it's over, so the time for internet drama has officially passed.

    17. Re:Lovely. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Essentially, they call their customers suckers after taking away access to the games they chose to pay GOG money for

      None of my GOG games stopped working, neither did the installers I'd downloaded previously. If GOG had of gone under, I'd still have all the games I purchased from them.

      This certainly matches with the usual playbook of corporate non-apologies

      Actually it's a quite good analogy to DRM, with a flick of a switch we can deny you access to what it yours. At least with GOG, I can download the installer and never worry about GOG.com again.

      Say what you want about Steam's DRM model

      Ahhh, you show your true colours. I'm not an enemy of steam, I've reluctantly accepted it as the nicest form of DRM but that really makes it the equivalent of the nicest form of AIDS. DRM is still DRM no matter how much useful functionality you wrap around it.

      they don't have this level of open contempt for their customers (yet)

      "yet" being the operative word here. With a single keystroke Valve can revoke access to all my Steam and Steamworks games, for me that's about 6 as Steam is my last choice for buying games (GOG, Impulse, Store). All we have is Valve's promise that they wont, Valve may be one of the least evil media companies but a promise is worth the paper it's written on.

      I'd seriously reconsider any titles I had associated with these jokers if I were ever looking to publish.

      I wouldn't. If GOG go out of business, I'm free to negotiate a new publishing deal.

      As a customer, I'm glad I dont need to install yet another downloader on my PC, have to go through activation or be online when I play games. I just download the .exe file and viola, I have that game for life.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    18. Re:Lovely. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they explicitly made it clear that you would be able to return to downloading your games later in the week. That wasn't deceptive.

    19. Re:Lovely. by Molt · · Score: 1

      I often browse this kind of place at work, buying what catches my eye so that I don't forget it. It doesn't actually get downloaded though until I'm at home and decide to play a game, and this can be a considerable time after purchase.

      --
      404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
    20. Re:Lovely. by Molt · · Score: 1

      Yes, "Puzzle Agent" was incompatible with the GeForce 460 graphics card despite having it listed under the supported hardware. It was a known issue but I don't search the internet looking for that kind of potential issue before buying a game. Complained to Steam, got an apology and a refund.

      --
      404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
    21. Re:Lovely. by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      In this case apparently a fair few people bought games and then didn't get to download them before the website shut down.
      It's not DRM, but you'd still be pissed off.

  12. Bad Show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, this does not come across as a professional way to present yourself.

    Could you imagine if you get a message from your doctor stating that it was vital you call them back immediately, your absolutely must discuss the next step of your therapy or risk severe illness or even death, and when you call them in a panic, you're told that your results were fine, you should get a little extra exersise, and they just wanted to make sure they got your attention?

    That's a way to lose customers.

  13. Marketing... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    Everything I know about marketing I've learned from Mad Men.

    Don Draper, Roger Sterling and Bert Cooper don't like stunt advertising gimmicks, so neither do I.

    Seriously though, this kind of a stunt pisses me off, it's cheap, weak and I won't buy from them again.

    1. Re:Marketing... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Heinz did a similar thing a few years back, IIRC. They said they were going to drop Salad Cream in the UK, claiming that it was losing ground to more exotic dressings. It got a ton of news coverage before the company decided to "change their minds" and keep on selling it. Thankfully. It's delicious!

      I actually fell for it too, I started buying it more frequently after that episode. It's one of those things you don't think of because it's been around for so long, and the thought of "what would life be like without it" is sometimes a great way to stoke any lapsed interest. Kinda like suggesting to your GF that you split up, it's a great way to put a spark back into the bedroom and make sure you get a full service.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:Marketing... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You guys never fail to point out just how bad your food is. We call this stuff (acidified fake mayo) Miracle whip, as far as I can tell the miracle is that somebody actually will eat it.

    3. Re:Marketing... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Miracle whip tastes nothing like salad cream. I'm not surprised nobody eats it.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    4. Re:Marketing... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I was going only on description, what is it like then?

    5. Re:Marketing... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Hard to describe. You just gotta try it. It's a lot more flavourful than Miracle Whip. In fact even Mayo is tasteless by comparison to Salad Cream.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
  14. Confused by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    Wait a second --- you mean that someone hacked into their computers and brought everything back on line against their will?

    1. Re:Confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not particularly amazed that you are confused about this.

      Why don't you go get me a sandwhich please?

  15. Annoying, but I can live with it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Long happy sigh of relief. As a long time and VERY loyal customer, I'm going over there and buying a couple of the games I've had my eyes on.

  16. As a loyal customer by thetagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... this stunt was horrible and silly and an annoyance. I recently reinstalled my computer, and when I went to Gog.com to redownload Gabriel Knight I got that stupid "zomg we're closing down" message. It feels like something straight out the 1990s, when nobody expected any degree of seriousness from Internet companies - thanks for reminding us how WE SHOUDLN'T TRUST YOU in the future, that's great marketing.

    1. Re:As a loyal customer by DominicFalcon · · Score: 1

      At least you don't have to trust them to remain in business - you can back up your games from them and not have to worry if they'll be playable if GOG should really go under. For better or worse, they're better than Steam in that regard.

    2. Re:As a loyal customer by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      While this is true, it was a bit pants to shut the site, there does seem to be a slightly worrying assumption from lots of people that you will always be able to download the game from them at any point that you want to. It's entirely possibly that GOG will fail at some point in the future like all companies can, if you buy a game then you should damn well keep your own copy. You're buying a game with no DRM, but then negating that advantage by relying on the retailer to resupply it when you want it! The whole *point* of no DRM is that you don't have to rely on a (possibly flakey) retailer / manufacturer once you have purchased the goods.

    3. Re:As a loyal customer by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      when I went to Gog.com to redownload Gabriel Knight I got that stupid "zomg we're closing down" message. It feels like something straight out the 1990s,

      It kinda seems appropriate since they are selling games from 1990s like Gabriel Knight

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:As a loyal customer by devent · · Score: 1

      I lot of people trust Steam and other DRM stuff. The most people are back in the 1990s, as you call it. Just take it as what could happen with the other DRM'd stuff out there and how good GOG is for not having any DRM.

      At least with GOG you could have backup your purchased stuff and use it long after GOG is gone, which with the most software you buy you cannot (as long as you don't want to be a horrible pirat and or hacker, be raided by the FBI and go to prison for 15 years).

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    5. Re:As a loyal customer by GF678 · · Score: 1

      Here's the problem I have with your situation - one of the key selling points of GOG not having DRM on their games means that you are not tied to the service if and when it goes down (as you would be with Steam). So, by choosing to go with no DRM but not taking the time to BACK UP the installers means that you aren't taking advantage of the benefits that come with a lack of DRM, so there's no benefit to having gone with GOG in the first place.

      Of course, if the no-DRM angle wasn't your primary interest in GOG, then there's no operational difference I suppose. But if you're given a chance to purchase something that has no DRM, then backup the files, cos there's no guarantee the service to download them again will remain available.

    6. Re:As a loyal customer by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Part of why I love GOG is that I don't need to trust them. There is no DRM. I'm free to make my own backups and never visit their site again after purchasing a game. It doesn't matter if they go crazy and pull stupid stunts like this. It doesn't matter if they get bought out. It doesn't matter if the game's copyright holder gets into a snit and pulls the title. I still have my backup. This is as it should be.

      Yes, it was a stupid stunt. But a rational consumer has to assume that eventually every business is going to try and screw you. Take defensive measures. Prefer businesses that don't need your trust beyond a single transaction. I remain satisified with my purchases from GOG, and I hope they pick up more classic games I'd love to play.

  17. Chargebacks by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 0

    I sincerely hope that they didn't get hit too hard with credit card chargebacks when they dropped the site. That may have proven to be an expensive stunt.

    Man, I'm glad that they are returning, and I like the countdown on the site; the sense of anticipation reminds me of back when they were starting the closed beta back in 2008. Can't wait to see what my favourite website will look like when it reopens tomorrow :)

  18. Fire your PR firm by syousef · · Score: 1

    Whoever organised this stunt needs to be shown the door. They've managed to do permanent damage. What's more it was so badly executed you wonder if it was the incompetent work of a 3rd grader.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Fire your PR firm by hedwards · · Score: 1

      To be honest, it's going to be interesting to see whether this was more harmful, helpful or makes little difference. I suspect that it's not going to do them a whole lot of harm, as they've got a really loyal customer base and most of the competition is worse behaved.

      Personally, I'll be recommending them in the future, it's just really hard to pass up on cheap, DRM free games that are simply fun to play. There aren't a whole lot of options for that out there.

    2. Re:Fire your PR firm by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, but if any 'harm' comes to the company from this, I suspect it'll be less from people being angry at them, and more from people who either saw the reports of GOG's demise, or saw the 'placeholder' page, left, and don't come back because they missed the news that the site is back.

      That is, people who heard GOG was dead, and believed it, and just never look again.

    3. Re:Fire your PR firm by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because that person would also never go to /., Joystiq, Wired, PC Gamer, Escapist, Blues News... again either.

    4. Re:Fire your PR firm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's some real harm:

      I used to buy multiple titles at one time (during their sales), and then download individually later whenever I felt like playing one. Now that I can no longer trust them to stay up, I will buy only what I can immediately download. This means I will buy only one title instead of several; no more multi-title shopping sprees from me.

    5. Re:Fire your PR firm by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      I don't go to any of those sites you insensitive clod. It seems plausible to assume that some people will not realize the site is back again.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    6. Re:Fire your PR firm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly has this stunt changed anything? It was only buying that was implied to be disappearing, they outright stated that you would have the ability to download your games returned once they had sorted some things out. So you're either worried about them dying completely, which was something that could have happened beforehand anyway, or you're worried about them not being accessible for a couple of days at some point and inconveniencing you. Great.

    7. Re:Fire your PR firm by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      So, you've never been away from your computer for a few days and missed some news? Even people who read any of those sites, might've missed the *particular article* announcing that GOG.com is alive and well.

    8. Re:Fire your PR firm by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      Anyone who left is also likely on their mailing list, so the next e-mail would've disabused them of that notion.

  19. Good God, it's Magog Brothers!!! (OT) by wagadog · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    "Yes my brother Gog was right. How were we to know the comet would land right in the middle of our giant warehouse. It's a cataclymic sale down here. We're up to our poor necks..You're crazy we got'em. Your nap will rise again and that's my story...Good god its Magog brothers, Atlantis Carpet Reclaimers, serving Hooker, Heater, Hellmouth, and the low desert area."

    -- Firesign Theatre from "Everything You Know Is Wrong (and dogs fly spaceships!)"

    1. Re:Good God, it's Magog Brothers!!! (OT) by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Ahh, it's just filled with moss. Easiest money I made in my life.

  20. Was it really a "hoax"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know, this smacks less of "hoax" than it does of "we thought we were through but we managed to pull off some kind of Hail Mary Pass and now we're downplaying how close a shave it was". Is there any evidence that this was their plan all along?

  21. Not a hoax, and not really a stunt... by seebs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So far as I can tell, nothing they said was untrue, people just read more into it.

    --
    My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
    1. Re:Not a hoax, and not really a stunt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So far as I can tell, nothing they said was untrue, people just read more into it.

      "We're closing down the service and putting this era behind us as new challenges await."

      "No, mom, I didn't light the cat on fire (the match I was holding did it)."

    2. Re:Not a hoax, and not really a stunt... by kalirion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mr. Seebs,

      We regret to inform you that your position has been terminated. You will now be escorted from the building by security. Someday next week we will allow you to stop buy and get your things.

      -HR

      4 days later:

      Mr Seebs,

      Haha, you fell for it. You're actually being transferred to a different position with the same responsibility, and we needed to remodel your office. Sorry if you were offended, but nothing we said was untrue - your fault for reading too much into it.

      -HR

    3. Re:Not a hoax, and not really a stunt... by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      I don't know why this is marked troll. This is almost exactly what they did. The only difference is that there were vague promises that they weren't going away forever, and that you'd be able to collect your belongings... Eventually.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    4. Re:Not a hoax, and not really a stunt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seebs! You know you shouldn't jerk off to Goatse!

      Why you mad? I only told the truth!

      Psychological Game: Crazy Making
      subset: Insisting on adhering to a strictly literal interpretation of a prior statement when more is implied.

      Example: "But, when I asked if we could go out tonight you said yes!" "I agreed to go out. I didn't say tonight."

    5. Re:Not a hoax, and not really a stunt... by explosionhead · · Score: 1

      So far as I can tell, nothing they said was untrue, people just read more into it.

      It may not have been necessarily untrue, but it was deliberately misleading. The tone implied that they were closing.

      But even if that wasn't the case, shutting off the service for several days without notice is still a dick move. I purchased some games late Sunday in the CodeMasters sale only to find out I couldn't download my purchases come Monday morning. I figure that's a very poor way to handle planned downtime for upgrades, and all for a little marketing at the expense of existing paying customers.

      --
      ?
    6. Re:Not a hoax, and not really a stunt... by Xugumad · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, companies have a long history of taking their website down, then replacing it not too long afterwards with cryptic notices about future challenges, and being there next week, and it turning out to be just a giant joke.

      No, wait, they don't.

      Experience told me that their message amounted to "We've realised our business model isn't working, and we're currently trying to find a way of wrapping up everything neatly, and if you're really lucky you'll be able to download your games before we fold". Did they lie? No. Was it mis-representative? I'd say yes.

    7. Re:Not a hoax, and not really a stunt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just have said "Things gonna change" ... why do you assume it's in the bad way ?

  22. It sort of serves the GOG community right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For 2 months the GOG forums have been rife with posts about how their birthday event better live up to expectations, or else (else is always ominously undefined). I think many customers were getting a little annoying. Living 2-3 days thinking GOG might be gone probably grounded a lot of these folks and imo it serves them right. I've purchased a ton of stuff from GOG and will continue to do so, since they're still offering the product that I want.

    I was depressed when I saw the notice not because I wouldn't be able to redownload some games I'd lost in a hard drive crash but more because there's no other company like them. GOG folding would be essentially saying, "Okay, Steam wins." Steam sucks in my mind, if that's online game sales, count me out. I already feel marginalized for enjoying PC games (even if I do have a 360), I'd be left with only indie titles sans DRM on my PC. I like my indie titles but I also like some of the big releases and the classics.

    I think there might have been a couple of behind the scenes reasons for doing this and all in all, it will benefit GOG in the longrun. It probably cost them some goodwill in the short term, but if the cost is low enough that's not de defacto a show stopper.

    1. Re:It sort of serves the GOG community right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care about 'the community'.
      I paid a store for a product, I want them to provide it under the agreed upon terms, not pull bogus "sorry we're closing down" stunts.

  23. You were surprised? by maugle · · Score: 1

    Honestly, when I saw their previous announcement, I instantly thought "Oh, they're just revamping their site".

  24. Re:Bad moderation by idontgno · · Score: 1

    Clearly, you are mistaken. The only rational and sensible opinion on any matter is the one identical to mine. Therefore, no sane poster here can "disagree" in good faith. So, someone who "disagrees" can be safely presumed to be acting in bad faith and modded appropriately. (I.e., "Troll", "Flamebait", or the ever-effective "Overrated".)

    Am I kidding, or am I serious? Good question.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  25. The web page did say something was happening today by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Informative

    All the people who said they had failed was either reading a bad summary or didn't check it out for themselves.

    Their temporary page had two things.

    First, was, they "could not continue operating like this". Now, that can mean they're going out of business, or it can mean something else. The literal translation is, "change is happening". That change could be "this site is dead", or it could be "please wait for the new and improved GoG 2.0".

    Secondly, they said "you will be able to download all your games on Wednesday". So something was happening today. If they were shutting down, it's a last-gasp download mania.

    Fact is, they didn't say "GoG.com is now closed for business, we thank all our customers for the past 2 years". It's also sort of unprofessional, because it screws everyone who bought a game just before they shut down, but haven't downloaded it yet (which is a dick move).

  26. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. The site was down. The general consensus was that it was a stunt, a dumb stunt, but would back up soon. Et volia!

    Nobody was *seriously* inconvenienced, and if you were, it is because you didn't save your purchased games, and you didn't get to play them for a few days, boo hoo.

    1. Re:Who cares? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nobody was *seriously* inconvenienced, and if you were, it is because you didn't save your purchased games, and you didn't get to play them for a few days, boo hoo.

      Nobody would *seriously* be inconvenienced if Netflix locks out their video streaming for 6 days. Or if Microsoft kills their Xbox Live access for 6 days. Or if their email provider/ISP locks out SMTP/POP3/IMAP/Webmail for 6 days. Or if FexEx/UPS refused to deliver anything to them for 6 days.

      Would you seriously consider using any of those in the future?

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    2. Re:Who cares? by Peeteriz · · Score: 1

      mod parent insightful.

      Deliberate denial of service to your customers is completely unacceptable in any case. I am not a lawyer, but if I would be, then my prime goal would be to figure out every little way how such stupid, inexcusable acts can be financially or even criminally punished according to the rules of the land.

  27. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a wonderful way to foster credibility

  28. Baldur's Gate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Apparently they'll be selling Baldur's Gate when they relaunch. Given that, I don't think I'd care if they had choked a puppy. I would still forgive them.

  29. Re:Bad moderation by kalirion · · Score: 1

    Hey mods! Just because you don't agree with the post, it doesn't make it a troll.

    You must be new here.

  30. Oh GOG.com by wjousts · · Score: 1

    I can't stay mad at you!

    Here's hoping for a massive sale to make up for all the hurt feelings.

  31. The funniest part... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...is the negative reactions now.

    "Huff! Puff! Well, *I* won't be buying form them again after *this* treatment! Harumph!" Seriously, people, do you have any idea how you sound? Like a curmudgeonly old fool. Oh, you are SO offended! And you know *someone* out there is thinking of suing because their fragile little selves were damaged.

    My reaction was "Oh, shoot, I was going to go and get Syberia next week." and then "Oh, cool, I can still get Syberia." Any reaction more serious that that is a complete failure of your perspective matrix.

    As for Syberia, hey, I played the updated Monkey Island and now have an urge to go play some of the point and click puzzlers I missed. Weclome back, GOG. :-)

    1. Re:The funniest part... by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      My reaction was "Oh, shoot, I was going to go and get Syberia next week." and then "Oh, cool, I can still get Syberia."

      Agreed... I just want to see what new stuff they'll have for sale.

      That said, I have all my installers on my server and backed up on a second PC, so I didn't have to worry that I'd lost the games I'd paid for. I might have felt differently otherwise!

    2. Re:The funniest part... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm not saying it was a great publicity event.

      I might have had the web page change to some sterile corporate style pretend some big unamed video gaming company had bought GOG and was and implementing DRM. Then have the GOG guys come back and say it was a joke while they transferred over to the new code base. That would focus the PR on one of their big selling points: no DRM.

  32. What's the big deal? Why the complaints? by jensend · · Score: 1

    In their original announcement they said they'd be back up with a solution for existing customers to still be able to download their previously purchased games. That should have been enough to satisfy everybody who's complaining about this as some kind of offense to their customers.

    What this did was make everybody who's considered purchasing from GOG but has been putting it off (including me) think "Oh CRAP- I wish I'd bought from them while I had the chance, before they ran out of funding." Now there's a chance to do that. I think it was a clever marketing ploy; a lot of people care about the existence of some kind of outlet for non-DRM games but haven't been doing a lot to vote with their dollars, and this gave people a nudge to go ahead and do that.

    1. Re:What's the big deal? Why the complaints? by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      In their original announcement they said they'd be back up with a solution for existing customers to still be able to download their previously purchased games. That should have been enough to satisfy everybody who's complaining about this as some kind of offense to their customers.

      They lied. Simple as that.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
  33. Still won't use it by g051051 · · Score: 1

    I stopped using GoG pretty much right away based on their deceptive advertising practices (claiming to port games to modern OSs when all the did was wrap games in DOSBox.) This marketing stunt is just more of the same sort of manipulative deceitful stuff that kept me from being a customer. Whatever their launch plans and service are, I won't ever see it.

    1. Re:Still won't use it by shovas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They do more than that. They verify the games work without problems, using dosbox, under XP/Vista/7. They code and do actual porting on other titles because they have more than just dos games. They remove DRM where it exists. And they've gotten some great exclusives. They're honest (obvious by their amateurish behaviour), they have integrity, they're open and willing to communicate. Give them another shot. Their claim about porting applies to the X% of games they sell that can't run under DosBox and even some that too to fix bugs.

      --
      Selah.ca. Pause, and calmly think on that.
    2. Re:Still won't use it by g051051 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I can't agree with your statements. After the Redneck Rampage issue, I contacted their customer support, and got zero assistance. They mainly talked about how it was a good way to get a legal licensed copy, ignoring the fact that I already had a legal copy that ran better than the one they supplied, after all the supposed testing and certification. They stopped communicationg and I eventually had to have the charge on my card reversed. Not "honest", "open", "willing to communicate", or "hav[ing] integrity" in my book.

      Can you cite another title where you can verify they did any actual coding/porting work?

    3. Re:Still won't use it by shovas · · Score: 1

      No, I can't. I don't know their internals. I have no reason to doubt them, though. I mean look at their track record. A boat load of games, some dos, some win9x, some xp, and all compatible with xp/vista/7. At the very least they're verifying compatibility and that must mean they're patching because some of these programs were brutal to run in their day.

      I sympathize with you about Redneck Rampage but, really, did GOG lie about what they did or were you over optimistic about what might be? What GOG does is produce faithful reproductions of old games on modern operating systems. They're not trying to "HDify" anything. You should see their Serious Sam package. It's just the original games patched up with some throw-ins. That's GOG, though. It's a crapshoot waiting for publishers to HD enable their games like Croteam did with Serious Sam on Steam.

      --
      Selah.ca. Pause, and calmly think on that.
    4. Re:Still won't use it by g051051 · · Score: 1

      I don't care if they upgrade a single pixel. The point is they misrepresented the product they produced, and refused to refund my money when I called them out on it.

      It seems to me that their catalog is DOS games with DOSBox, older Windows games with some compatability shim libraries (that they didn't write), and ScummVM games. Now, I would absolutely support them with their business if they acted in a reputable way. Making older games available legally would be a great business as long as they clearly spell out what's going on. In my case, I still had my own original Redneck Rampage discs. They provided zero value, less than zero since their version ran worse than mine, then blew me off as a customer since they figured they already hade my money.

      So when they make the claim: "Thanks to our handsome programming team, the classics are now Windows Vista and Windows XP compatible.", that's clearly a lie. There's no programming (a point they mentioned in one of my emails to "customer service"), just editing the DOSBox config file.

      If you don't already own a copy of a game, then by all means get it on GoG. If you already own a copy and want to be able to play it, you can save the money and just do what they do: get DOSBox, or ScummVM, or whatever open source stuff they use and just do it yourself.

      Factor in their lack of customer service with their completely botched relaunch, and it all means a company that I'll keep clear of.

  34. All marketing are lies and scams by javajeff · · Score: 1

    What they did has the entire internet talking about it, so it is brilliant. Their current clientele is very small compared to what they need, so it was likely worth the risk of losing some people. Gog.com has extremely high Professionalism since that is what marketing is all about. Using a radical approach to attract people is fine, and they said people would be able to access their games again on Thursday.

    I have no problem with what they did, because I do not trust any company. I am at the age where I just do not care or get worked up about what they do. I bought 1 game from them, downloaded it and backed it up so if they ever went out of business I would be in great shape.

    The pictures of food in menus and on boxes always look better than the actual product. Disclaimers are now placed on everything stating that the product may differ in some way...etc. We live in a deceitful marketing society where nothing is like it seems.

  35. Lighten up by shovas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If all the haters actually understood what GOG is, as individuals, as a company, and as a service, compared to Steam, say, you'd grok what they do and just learn to accept the admittedly amateurish publicity stunt and just be glad they're not gone.

    Who else is doing what GOG does? Where else are you going to get DRM-free, XP/Vista/7 compatible, inexpensive, absolutely great classic titles legitimately and with such good service?

    If you want them to be professional and compete with Steam, they're doomed. Steam has "slick" covered. But if GOG tries to find its own niche, they have a fighting chance. GOG has to be different to do what they do.

    Honestly, I don't like much like the stunt, either, but I am glad it was a stunt and not the more expected bankruptcy.

    I'll take honest amateurism over shiny, slicked down professionalism any day of the week.

    --
    Selah.ca. Pause, and calmly think on that.
    1. Re:Lighten up by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      If all the haters actually understood what GOG is, as individuals, as a company, and as a service, compared to Steam

      As someone who lived in Poland, I understand it's by the cd projekt people, that's all I need to know to make sure I don't use it. I'd say I'm more than a little aware of what GOG is as a individuals and as a company.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:Lighten up by shovas · · Score: 1

      Why do you say that? I can't find much dirt on them googling around...?

      --
      Selah.ca. Pause, and calmly think on that.
    3. Re:Lighten up by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Why do you say that?

      Because your reasoning made the assumption that people may dislike it for non-sense reasons.

      I can't find much dirt on them googling around...?

      Poland's mother-tongue is not English.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    4. Re:Lighten up by shovas · · Score: 1

      I mean, what makes you say "that's all I need to know to make sure I don't use it"? What's wrong with them?

      --
      Selah.ca. Pause, and calmly think on that.
  36. Real Close to Credit Fraud by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many charge backs they got from their stunt and from what I saw, it looks like they came damn close to getting hit with a Federal Charge of Credit Fraud. Hell Someone may still push charges, which is certainly going to cost them lots of money to fight. Then you have the potential that their marketing stunt costs them their merchant account, meaning they can't accept credit cards, which would put them out of business. I'm sorry but that marketing droid needs to be disassembled and recycled immediately as it's prone to high risk actions without sufficient reward. Bad Droid.

    --
    Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
  37. For crap's sake, everyone! by supersloshy · · Score: 1

    Stop acting like GOG screwed you over for no reason; they HAD to shut down the website for a little bit so they could update the interface! How is that so hard to understand? Why would you ever be upset at them going out of beta? I bought things from them before and just because they closed down the day you wanted to buy something you hate them? Just wait until they come back, no big deal!

    --
    "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    1. Re:For crap's sake, everyone! by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      If you are going to be down for a couple days to revamp a web site then place an index.html file with the log and a simple message that explains just that: Hey, we're getting ready to launch the new version of our site. It will be ready in a couple days. Please be patient as we bring you a new experience with XYZ better features.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    2. Re:For crap's sake, everyone! by ledow · · Score: 1

      It takes precisely the time for a file copy of a single index.html / index.php file to complete to upgrade a website. You MUST have your new website running, probably on the same server, probably in a protected subdirectory (by .htaccess or similar), so that you can see the performance / compatibility side of things are working okay. Then the "upgrade" is nothing more than moving those files into place, unprotecting the directories (all invisible to users so far) and then moving the new index file over the old (which you hopefully kept a backup of).

      Don't tell a site full of website hosts, managers, designers etc. how to upgrade a website. We know exactly how. That's why we say it's stupid and unreasonable and only a publicity stunt to do a "new website launch". Hell, Google, Slashdot and a million other websites do it in different sections of their users while in Beta and then just move across - zero uptime. My brother's website has gone from Geocities to its own dediserver with an complete 100% upgrade with every new HTML revision, basically, including forums and CGI/PHP upgrades and not once would a user have spotted more than a second of downtime and that's just a home-spun website run on a shoestring.

      It's a publicity stunt, NOT a technically-enforced hiatus.

  38. Annoying but gog.com is still a cool business. by benmhall · · Score: 1

    I've been a gog.com customer since their early access beta in September 2008. While I am certainly annoyed by this blatant publicity stunt, I'm far more relieved to know that gog.com is still in business.

    This stunt aside, the folks at gog.com are very cool. Not only do they release affordable and fantastic games - most of which I'd never heard of; but they are clearly doing this as a labour of love.

    I host an annual LAN Party for the Computing students where I work. I contacted gog.com before going on a shopping spree there to see if they had any objections to me using a single paid copy of each of their games for the one-day event on the entire lab full of machines. Of course, there was no technical problem with this, I just wanted to check that they had no objections with this.

    Far from objecting, they very quickly and enthusiastically gave me the OK and asked that I take pictures of the event to share with them. They were completely professional and reasonable to deal with.

    So, for about $100 I was able to legally fill a lab full of machines with great games, some of which were new to the students. What a deal.

    (I should also mention that Valve has been equally generous with Steam licenses, though they typically work for 24 hours only, which doesn't give me much prep time. Valve the company has also been much more difficult to communicate with.)

    Anyway, back to the thread at hand: Welcome back GOG.com. You got me fair and square. Now DON'T EVER DO ANYTHING LIKE THIS AGAIN.

    Now please excuse me while I rush off to buy the copies of Syberia and Another World that I'd been meaning to pick up...

  39. Of course; by toby · · Score: 1

    The ATA spec clearly says this, if you listen to a backwards recording of it narrated by James Earl Jones.

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:Of course; by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

      I'm half-hoping, half fearing that I'm going to find out this dude has spent his career replacing perfectly drives instead of removing the disk controller from Device Manager and letting it reinstall (the correct way to resolve the stuck-in-PIO-mode issue).

    2. Re:Of course; by Ailure · · Score: 1

      There is also a registry value you can change to fix a drive (CD or HD, usually CD drives) that is stuck in PIO mode. Didn't even require a restart! This is just some "override" bitmask that Windows sets after enough reading errors, which can only be changed back with regedit (idiotic).

      Loose cables or a bad disc, and Windows insists on using the slow reading/writing mode.

      Reinstalling the disk controller helps too since you're basically removing the troubling registry values and let Windows recreate them from scratch. Probably the easier way out for most people too. :)

    3. Re:Of course; by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Uhhh...dude? We are NOT talking about Windows being "stuck" in PIO mode, THAT is an easy fix. what we are talking about is the fact that modern high speed drives are not meant to go that slow (I've seen nasty DRM infections drop it to PIO Mode 1) and it burns the motors smooth out. To use a /. car analogy, imagine driving down the freeway in a sports car with the emergency brakes locked.

      So while you, me, and anybody that has more knowledge than a geek squad employee can fix PIO mode, often by the time it arrives in a shop it is too late and the motor is burnt. And of course thanks to EULAs and being able to claim "It ain't me!" (because it isn't ONE company, it is caused when two or more DRM schema conflict) the consumer is yet again screwed, and not in a nice way.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  40. I never used GOG before... by __aahurc460 · · Score: 1

    and I certainly won't start now. I'll stick with Steam, Valve doesn't have to stoop to such underhanded practices to gain popularity or even commercial viability. Never mind the fact that Steam will be around long after GOG is nothing but a footnote in gamer history.

    1. Re:I never used GOG before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and I certainly won't start now. I'll stick with Steam, Valve doesn't have to stoop to such underhanded practices to gain popularity or even commercial viability. Never mind the fact that Steam will be around long after GOG is nothing but a footnote in gamer history.

      This has got to be the most ignorant thing I've read in this thread. You do realize I'll be playing my games from GOG long after they're a "footnote in gamer history" whereas your Steam games will quit working soon after Valve goes tits-up, don't you? Playing offline will only work for so long before the Steam client demands a connection and there won't be any universal unlock forthcoming (I don't know why this myth even persists, it's ignorant in the extreme), they won't own their own assets when it happens and not a single person who could do it, supposing it's even possible, will be willing to go to prison to come through for you. GOG already came through for me, the games can be downloaded, backed up, and installed at will and only the downloading part even requires an internet connection.

      Of course Valve/Steam doesn't even have to go down and out, you can lose your account and all your games on their whim. They've been nice so far but that doesn't mean it'll last forever. They're have certainly been wrongfully banned accounts in the past and the only "oops, our bad" I've heard from them involved 1000s of accounts. What happens when 5 accounts get wrongfully banned? They won't investigate and no one will care.

      Enjoy Steam if you want, it may be a gilded cage but it's still a cage.

  41. Re:The web page did say something was happening to by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    No instead they just didn't allow people to download the games they had purchased just so they could get some publicity.

    They sell cheap older games, right? Exactly the sort of thing I would buy on impulse to play on my laptop on the 6 hour layover at an airport.

    Now I didn't buy anything from them and wasn't traveling in the last few days. But I did do exactly that on steam last month, and boy would I have been pissed if steam had decided to not let me download the game on my laptop because I foolishly waited until the day after I bought it to do so.

  42. Wait... what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they locked people out from getting games they had paid for? Isn't the whole reason to go with them over DRM to avoid such foolishness?

  43. Re:Bad moderation by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    Nah, actually I'm so long here I have tons of karma to burn while playing "cyber-dutch-boy with finger in levee".

  44. Slashdotted now by mgiuca · · Score: 1

    Well, it's time for GOG2.0 and ... Slashdotted. Damn!

    For what it's worth, I thought this was a pretty clever advertising move, and am not at all offended by it. Servers go down all the time for no reason. This one had a reason -- marketing. So what?

    The worst part, as far as I'm concerned, is how they made such a huge deal over this when, judging by the videos, it's really not a major improvement. GOG already had all the features we need, and it worked really well. Adding social networking and a Facebook "Like" button doesn't really add much value.

  45. I don't know why I bother by killmenow · · Score: 1

    ...replying to an AC. I ought to know better. Anyway, it has nothing to do with convenience. It's about business and the philosophy behind how one ought to be run.

    I own and run a small business. If I randomly lied to my customers for PR stunts, they'd think that's pretty dickish. So do I. Businesses need to build relationships with customers and the management staff have to decide what kind of relationships they want to build. Lots of companies like to build "you give us money for our products and/or services and we'll screw you every chance we get" relationships and manage to do quite well that way.

    GOG.com just announced you can't believe them. That's not the kind of company I like doing business with. When I tell my customers something, I mean it. I prefer doing business with companies that follow the same creed whether it's convenient or not.

  46. Stupid...but successful by swordgeek · · Score: 1

    Yeah, they've generated more traffic than they could have imagined a week ago. Grats boys. Live it up. Good job.

    Still an obnoxious, immature prank.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  47. Re:Unprofessional Yoruself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's wrong with you? A security guy couldn't figure out on your own what the hints really meant? And now you're out for revenge? Are you a gamer or a griefer? Cannot stand a bit of harmless fun? Not the mark of a professional. Go work for the TSA.

  48. Overreacting... by holiggan · · Score: 1

    I think people are overreacting to this...

    Come on, every single day I read stories about how the games industry is not fun any more, how EA and others are "souless corporations" that grind everyone, I read people complaining about lack of creativity, about DRM... And when we have a good old-fashioned, stunt, from a very nice and solid project, people start screaming and pointing fingers...

    Granted, GOG are not developers, but I think that what they are doing is class A stuff: providing us with DRM-FREE versions of rock-solid games from ages gone, for cheap-steal prices, and with the cooperation of publishers, that's an amazing work!

    Every single day I read a commend about how Steam is evil and it's "DRM" will "swallow our souls", but when someone actually rolls up their sleeves and puts together a very solid collection of old games, that you can download as much as you like, install as much as you like, and basically "keep forever", people only seem to notice them when they do a harmless stunt, and everyone comes bashing them.

    And yes, the stunt was harmless. Yes, the site was gone. But you are supposed to have the games on your hard drive because you downloaded them already when you bought them!! And all the games I have from GOG sitting on my hard-drive didn't stop working magically. If GOG really got out of bussiness, I would be very sad, but I would still be able to play, reinstall, enjoy all my bought games. And I know some people were mid shopping, but come on, isn't it a bit of an overreaction, screaming "zomg, we can't trust them!!!"? I bet that most of the people that said it have their nice sweet facebook pages, and are probably not as vocal about all the issues that fb have, but hey, maybe I'm just being a troll... just say'in...

    Anyways, I've been with GOG ever since I first heard about them (I believe it was a Slashdot story), and I'm a very very happy customer. I believe it's a very valid project and it was probably very hard to put together (I can imagine how many negative answers they got from publishers in the beginning). We should support companies like this, and that's what I intend to keep doing.

    Rock on, GOG! You are awesome!

    --
    "A sysadmin is a cross between a detective, a police officer, a gardener, a doctor and a fireman"