Their tagline is literally ‘you buy it, you own it’. But does it really grants ownership?
No it doesn’t. It’s just a digital use license like in any other store. Here’s the relevant part from their User agreemet
We give you and other GOG users the personal right (known legally as a ‘license’) to use GOG services and to download, access and/or stream (depending on the content) and use GOG content
That is legally the same as any other store out there.
So why does GoG make a big fuss about that? Well, it’s mostly a PR stunt, but there is some truth to it. Games sold on GoG are, majorly, DRM-free (although not 100% of them, but close to it), this means that you can backup your game installer and install it and play it in the distant future even if GoG is no more. The reason why this is mostly a PR stunt is that you can do the same with most games from other stores as well, except you backup the game folder instead of the installer, because (and this is the part I think people always miss) if a game is on Gog and any other store it’s almost assuredly DRM free in ALL stores.
Don’t get me wrong, GoG is great and their policy on DRM is something that I think other companies should really imitate. But it’s not the be all and end all that some people make it out to be, and to me personally when I have to decide where to invest my money my choices are between a company that has a relatively decent DRM policy but doesn’t care for me as a customer, and a company that has literally spent millions making my gaming experience as a Linux user better, it’s a no contest. If I was on Windows I might consider buying more stuff from GoG because of their DRM policy, but being able to easily play games on Linux is more important for me than DRM.
They also do restoration on old games, to make them run fine on todays OS and hardware.
Recent example of me: Outcast A new beginning.guess i remembered wrong.What? How is a game from 2024 old? Also how is GoG involved in that at all?
Edit: I’ve been reading on the story of that game, and I think I know what you meant.
While Outcast: a new beginning is a new game, you probably meant the OG outcast game, which is from 1999. There was a 4 year window where the original game was only available on GoG because they patched a community mod into it. But in 2014 1.1 version was released for Steam with some more improvements, and in 2017 the game was remade. GoG doesn’t seem to have been involved in either of those, only on the original 2010 re-release including the community mod as a built-in.
Edit: It’s amazing, GoG PR is so good that they get credit for removing DRMs from games they didn’t (and are DRM free elsewhere), being anti-DRM (while allowing DRM content and even producing some by some standards), and now they take credit for remakes and rebuilds they were not even involved in. I like GoG, but people give them way too much credit and it gets annoying.
I meant Second Contact, mixed them up.
Second contact is the 2017 remake of the game I mentioned, GoG was not involved in that.
Hey, great comment. You touched on everything, and did it with nuance.
Since the beginning of app stores and the release of Windows 8, Valve have seen the writing on the wall (see Apple v. Epic later) and realized they needed their own platform. It’s all about Steam OS.
The interests of Linux users and Valve merely coincide.
As for me, with a 99% single player games library, the most important thing is no mandatory launcher and no updates. Click, boom, I’m in the game.
So using GOG when possible.The interests of Linux users and Valve merely coincide.
I’m not naive, I don’t think that Valve is doing anything out of the goodness of their heart. But they’re investing on something I care about, so me giving them money is an indirect way to invest in that.
As for me, with a 99% single player games library, the most important thing is no mandatory launcher and no updates. Click, boom, I’m in the game.
So using GOG when possible.Mostly agree (except I don’t mind updates, you can always play without updating if you want to), and the fact that that’s my experience with Steam is a big part of why I buy from them. I can go from not owning a game to play it with just a few controller buttons, whereas with GoG I would have to:
- Plug a mouse and keyboard to my gaming rig
- Install a browser on that machine
- Navigate to the website and download the installer
- Figure out a good wine version to use and create a new profile for the game
- Install any needed wine tricks to that profile
- Manually create a shortcut for that game using that wine profile
- Add the shortcut to some third party UI to be able to navigate to it with a controller
So yeah, the whole “click, I’m in the game” only works on Windows, which is why I said I can understand Windows users preferring GoG.
I should have been clearer, I don’t mind the initial configuration, it’s the subsequent launches I want to be instant. That’s the feature I find most excellent on the Steam Deck: instant resume. You pick up your console because you have 15mn to kill and actually game 15mn.
This has not been my experience with Steam on desktop however. I don’t game everyday, and not all my games were on Steam (when I was still using it semi regularly), and I would invariably wait for Steam to update, followed by the various utilities and the games. And if it was a new machine, having to remember where to disable the damn ad popup …
With a fast Internet and playing often I’m sure it’s way less of an issue.
Oh and when I had network problems and it would take a long time before going in offline mode every time.you can always play without updating if you want to
Can you? I never saw a straightforward way to do this.
I still have a partition running Windows for modded Skyrim, and the cardinal rule is never ever run it from Steam in case there’s been an update, which would mess up the modlist.My other issue is ideological: I don’t think they do anything unethical but I don’t like having this private company’s always online closed source software running in the background on my computer.
Clearly people are happy with Steam, and as far as companies go it’s an okay one. I won’t argue with the AIO buying, installing, and the myriad of features.
However installing on Linux really isn’t that hard anymore.- Install the GoG (or Epic for the free stuff) game from Heroic Launcher
- Play.*
Heroic is a better experience for installing, but I prefer Lutris, paired with lutris-gamepad-ui when not using keyboard and mouse. I made a little script to launch it when I turn on my controller, and turn off the controller when I quit. I’m in a game in a few seconds, even if I didn’t play in a month - when bluetooth doesn’t for some reason take 10s to connect
Even if some tinkering was needed, for a game I play often I would have spend less time waiting compared to using Steam.
*conditions may apply
I get your point, but here’s the thing, GoG has never given a cent to Lutris, Wine or Heroic, I know about those and the many others that came before such as PlayOnLinux. But those are not useful thanks to GoG, they’re useful despite it. If I have to use an open source tool to “emulate” a game, and another one to organize and manage my library, I’ll give those guys money and pirate the games and get the same experience a lot cheaper. Because, like Gabe Newell said, piracy is a service problem.
you can always play without updating if you want to
Can you? I never saw a straightforward way to do this.
I seem to remember a pop-up asking you whether you want to play without updating. Also I remember being able to stop a specific game from being updated by selecting the version to use in the settings, of course not all games use this, but the ones that accept mods usually do. I remember I had my CK2 pinned for a while because of mods.
I don’t think they do anything unethical but I don’t like having this private company’s always online closed source software running in the background on my computer.
I get that, but I only open Steam when I’m going to play something, so it’s not always online running in the background, and the vast majority of games I play are closed source so that’s a moot point
one major note about GoG’s drm freeness, most games on GoG are DRM free on Steam as well, sometimes with some small caveats though, such as the need to patch some of them, because the Steam builds of the games expect Steam to be there stuff like the achivements API and won’t handle gracefully a failure to use the API, but thats pretty easy to do most of the time and AFAIK is not an intentional anti piracy tactic
They allow you to make as many offline backup copies of the games’ installers as you want and you don’t need to use any of their services after purchase (except downloading from their site), it’s as close as it gets to “digital ownership”
They allow you
No, this is a lie. Copyright law itself allows you to make copies for backup. GOG merely follows the law without trying to gaslight you otherwise, like other online game sellers do.
You keep attacking other people who are on the same side as you. What specific law are you referring to?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.In the comment you replied to, I was talking about (2). In a bunch of other comments (the ones disputing the validity of EULAs), I was talking about (1).
Also, I’m not necessarily intending to attack people on the same side as me; I’m just sick and tired of all the corporate-serving misconceptions being bandied about in this thread (and in every other discussion of this topic, for that matter). It’s fucking exasperating how many people have drunk the corporatist and copyright cartel flavor-aid. Corporations don’t get to decide what people are “allowed” to do!
It gives you the ability to download an installer you can use as needed. I don’t know if that technically counts as ownership but it’s better in that sense than say, steam is, which requires you to download/install through their client.
There are DRM free games on steam. Take, for example, Ballistic.NG, one of if not the best AG Racer of all time.
You get the installer? Or you can copy the game directory elsewhere and just run it? Not trying to argue with you just wondering how it works because I wasn’t aware of that.
You usually have to copy the game folder, but it varies a bit between games. FYI pretty much any game that’s aviable on GOG is DRM free on steam too.
Invalid weblink, so I’ll link the store page for BallisticNG, for anyone else who wants to take a peek
Can you transfer your games legally to another person?
There is your answer.
It provides identical amounts of ownership to pirating it. Legally it’s a license same as Steam.
I have all of mine backed up on a hard drive. They have nothing preventing me from using them on the last working computer at the end of the world
Functionally, yes. Legally, no.
Can you transfer your game to someone else? If not, then its not functionally yes either.
Put the installer on a usb drive (or a cd if you’re cool) and hand it over to the person you want to “transfer” it to. Physical media, like the good old days. Except it’s better because all the drm is gone.
You can just copy the installer and send it to them, so functionally it works. What you can’t do is transfer the license which means legaly no just as the comment said.
So i cant sell it, therefore not functional
That really depends in what you think ‘ownership’ is. You can download offline installers and patches. But you can not use the assets of the game to create and sell a new game. You also cannot just create and sell other games heavily based on those games. Or use the music freely in YouTube videos with enabled commercials, and so on.
You don’t fully own it.
Ownership of an individual copy is different from being the copyright holder, but that does not mean “you don’t fully own” your individual copy.
You also dont own your individual copy, just like with any other installer you merely have the license to use it which can be revoked anytime.
Stop parroting copyright cartel lies.
Not to say you’re wrong, but in that line of thinking we don’t really own anything. I bought a physical book but can’t reproduce it even if I rewrite it slightly. I bought a car, but I can’t reproduce it even if I had the means. I believe OP is asking about DRM.
Yes. You can download the installers and patches. Put them on a hard-drive, shut down your computer, put the hard drive into another computer and install the game without ever connecting to the internet if you have wine on your system.
It’s yours.
I just shared all my GOG games with my family and they could install the games without a hitch. They could import it to Steam and Heroic and play it from there. Can’t do that with Steam.
This is what I do too. The first thing I do after buying from GoG is to download the installers, both Windows and Linux. So I don’t have to download again and again every time I install. I can carry a copy around and install it on an offline machine too. I also share my games with my family, just like sharing discs in the old time. If some of them like one of the games, they’ll buy it again themselves. If this is not owning games in practice, I don’t know what is.
Did you ever manage to get steam to let you import a gog game and install mods from steam’s modding community?
Stellaris mods are essentially only on steam, and my “buy from GOG whenever possible” rule means I have a gog copy instead of a steam one. And non-steam downloading of steam mods is a PITA.
Mods from steam modding community? I didn’t even know that existed xD I used r2modman and vortex mod manager (for nexus mods) for mods. Nexus Mods has mods for Stellaris. There’s absolutely no need for Steam in my world.
I just shared all my GOG games with my family and they could install the games without a hitch. They could import it to Steam and Heroic and play it from there. Can’t do that with Steam.
Steam tries to obstruct you from doing it, but Federal law gives you the right. Quit spreading misinformation about Steam having the power to override your property rights, because it doesn’t.
What is allowed to do and what it does differ. Stop being so blind.
And that makes it injustice that needs to be resisted!
What the fuck is wrong with you, that you just want to accept the enemy’s usurpation of your rights?
The notion that corporations get to unilaterally change the law to redefine what “buying” and “ownership” mean is some Stockholm syndrome, late-stage-capitalist, ass-backwards insanity. Snap the fuck out of it!
What Federation is being Federal to you? If it’s the USA, overriding your property rights was the whole purpose of the DMCA.
Even accepting the argument that a tyrannical law invalidates rights rather than violating them (which I don’t, BTW), the DMCA only applies to things that are DRM’d, not everything on Steam.
If we’re discussing what’s legal it’s 100% relevant. DMCA makes circumventing a digital lock a crime in the USA.
If we’re discussing what’s moral, then talk less. Nothing about the DMCA was moral.
to all the people bitching about steam. this post doesn’t even mention steam. this post is about GOG. you’re literally in the wrong thread.
also, if you don’t like it, pirate it.
thank you for your attention to this manner.
Yes. So does buying it on Steam, or anywhere else.
Anyone claiming otherwise is LYING TO YOU.
Edit: apparently, some of y’all are misunderstanding me, so I’ll connect the dots for you more explicitly:
- Anybody who claims that games are “licensed, not sold” is lying to you.
- Steam claims that games are “licensed, not sold.”
- Therefore, Steam is lying to you.
In case it somehow still isn’t clear, this is the exact fucking polar opposite of “shilling for Steam!”
The bottom line is this: nobody – not GOG, not Steam, not brick-and-mortar stores – gets to somehow ignore or override Federal laws like copyright law and the Uniform Commercial Code. And THE LAW SAYS that when you buy a copy of a copyrighted work, you own that copy!
Steam can lie to you and try to frustrate your ability to exercise your property rights, but that does not mean you don’t have them!
You are arguing from the rights consumers are supposed to have. Everyone else is arguing from the rights consumers do have. Hope this clears up the confusion for you.
Just because a right is infringed upon doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Moreover, being subjugated under tyranny doesn’t mean you should accept the rhetorical framing of the tyrant!
Removed by mod
Oh really? Explain how I’m wrong, then!
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
If you aren’t a steam shill, why are you lying that steam gives you ownership of a game? It doesn’t. GoG does.
Removed by mod
Either you’re an AI with like 1k parameters or you’re the most confused individual I’ve met today.
- OP asks if GOG gives you ownership
- you say so does steam
- I say that’s not true, you shill
- you turbo lose your shit and say you’re attacking steam
- I ask why you’re saying Steam supposedly grants you ownership, affirming that GoG does
- you accuse me of being a shill for saying Steam doesn’t grant ownership
Let’s take a step back to see if we’re on the same page
- GoG grants you ownership of your purchases
- Steam grants you a licence of your purchases
- GoG good
- Steam bad
Let’s take a step back to see if we’re on the same page
- GoG grants you ownership of your purchases ← Wrong (in a minor way). Federal law itself grants you ownership of your purchases; GoG merely follows the law.
- Steam grants you a licence of your purchases ← WRONG! Steam claims this, but Steam is lying to try to deprive you of your property rights.
- GoG good
- Steam bad ← Agreed, but not because games bought from them are “licensed, not sold.” Steam is bad for misrepresenting them as being “licensed, not sold” and using technical means to frustrate your ability to exercise your property rights.
Now quit calling me confused, because my claims have been entirely consistent throughout this entire thread.
- When you buy a copy of a copyrighted work, you own that copy of that copyrighted work. Not merely “license” it.
- Software is not an exception to this.
- Corporations do not have some kind of magic privilege to override Federal law, no matter how much they dishonestly claim otherwise.
The only way you truly get ownership over an software or game is through piracy. Any other way in theory (I think?), they can still just take away the game and/ or software from you.
You can download the installer from GOG and then use it to instal as ypu wish, without the need to use GOG from that point forward. It’s the same concept, just without the piracy.
Aight, cool. Glad that’s possible. I’m still bit wary about these kind of stuff with companies. Even with GOG.
It’s good to stay vigilant. Trust, but verify
And how would they do that? Knock on my door on a Sunday morning, enter and trash my external hard drives where I keep the backup installers?
Knock on my door on a Sunday morning, enter and trash my external hard drives where I keep the backup installers?
Yes.
Oh, I was talking about the gog installers. It’s advised by gog to keep the installers after you bought the game.
I guess you meant illegal copies, and you are right, in that case the police would definitely knock on a Sunday morning.
Sure, in the same way that stealing a physical object gives you rightful, legal ownership of that object. Which is to say, not even slightly.
In reality, the way to have ownership of a copy of a piece of software is to legally obtain it (either via purchase or by being given it for free by someone who has the right to do that, e.g. in the case of Free Software).
Some entities you buy games from might have the technical ability to remove/destroy your property and might even get away with doing so, but that doesn’t mean it somehow isn’t theft.
Technical ability != legal right, in both cases.
If you refer to Piracy, I’m not even going to debate the whole ‘‘stealing vs not stealing’’. Think however you want about it.
🙄 “Copyright infringement is not theft” is usually an argument I’m the one making, but that’s not the point right now. It was meant to be an analogy, not a strict equating of the two concepts.
The point is that acquiring something by other-than-legal means, whatever they are and regardless of whether the act of transference was a crime or a civil tort, does not confer legal ownership. That’s just a fact, not an ethical judgement, and isn’t really debatable.
I understand you are trying to drag me into a debate. I’m not going to. You do you.
I understand that you’re grasping at straws to avoid addressing the essential part of my argument (which, restated again, is that you can’t receive legal ownership from somebody who doesn’t have the right to give it to you), which is tantamount to conceding the point.
Kind of depends on what definition of ownership you want to use.
Can you re-sell it? No.
Can you give it away? No.
Can you bequeath it in your will? No.
So no, I don’t think so. Personally I prefer Steam’s more recent approach of just very clearly telling you that what you are paying for is a license for use. I find Gog’s redefinition of the word “own” distasteful.
You can make as many copies as you want of the games you downloaded and they are not tied to your account. You can just give away a copy of the game. You can not sell it officially/legally but you could give someone a copy for cash. I think you could leave someone a hard-drive full of games in your will.
If you cannot do it legally then it’s not legally ownership. You are talking about de facto ownership, which is another thing entirely.
I can totally bequeath in my will a safety deposit box with notes containing all if the credentials required to access all of my accounts and devices, functionally giving away my Gog account. However, if Gog or any of the publishers involved find out that I am legally dead they can totally ban that account and pursue legal action against anyone else who accessed it, violating terns of service
You’ve never owned software in your life. Everything you’ve ever purchased is a license to use software. Even when you had physical media. Even when you own a disc or a cartridge.
Even FOSS.
If a company wanted to revoke it, it would be illegal for you to use that physical media. Enforcing it would be pretty unrealistic, but they could sue you for copyright infringement if they revoked your license and then found out you used it anyway.
That’s complete bullshit:
Software I’ve written is owned by me.
Open-source licenses (F/LOSS) mostly cannot be revoked.
Public domain exists.
The notion that software is “licensed, not sold” is a LIE perpetrated by the copyright cartel. In factual reality, you DO OWN the copy of the software you buy, regardless of what some bullshit invalid EULA purports to say!
Technically no, it still grants you a license like any other store. In practice it’s a bit closer to ownership than what you get with other stores, as GOG does not have the ability to take your games away once you have downloaded them and you can do whatever you want with the files. But you’re not legally allowed to sell your copy for example.
In the Germany you are allowed to sell it, however no platform has implemented this and nobody fought for it yet. But there are several verdicts regarding this.
I’ve been laughed at for this before, but I feel like this is exactly what NFTs could be used for. You could resell it and you’d lose the access to the game. I really feel like this would make digital game ownership a thing, without “akshully it’s a license”
It’s just that NFTs are a needlessly complicated way to implement that.
You know what, that’s the most sense I think I ever heard regarding nft. However it breaks at two points.
For one the software itself needs to be dongled with this, which brings a lot of issues and dependencies.
The other thing is the nft cryptography needs to be safe and reliable ‘forever’. Cryptography is ever evolving so it might be okay for now, but who knows, especially with quantum processing supposedly close by, for how long.
Who manages the access, who platforms, and serves the NFT content?
If it’s up to the store to do so, you don’t need NFT for that. The store can already do that.
In concept, maybe. At the end of the day though, it’s not that useful. Unless the NFT contains the full game file, who’s hosting it? That host could just have a key that’s attached to your account, which you can sell. Valve supports trading items on Steam without NFTs.
NFTs would be useful for something like a deed to a house. It contains the paperwork, and is backed up with an agreement from a bank or something. For digital items? It’s more hype than actual utility. Once you get to implementation, it just ends up being a storefront that supports trading, which doesn’t require NFTs.
My understanding, or assumption from considering classic physical goods, is that if you buy the digital product you may be able to resell it, but if you license it it’s not buying and you don’t own a product you can resell.
If GoG licenses you a product you can download and can archive, then it’s not bought and may not be resellable. (?)
As said, in Germany we’ve had the rulings that software licenses can be sold and transferred.
