![]() ![]() Last edited by denyasis on 1 July 2022 at 10:01 pm UTC Now they've certainly made many other mistakes asking the way, I absolutely agree with you completely with that, but limiting your business model to something that most gamers don't really see as a purchase altering priority, I would argue, does hurt then a bit.Įdit- sorry I totally butchered your name when typing. I agree that their principles are nice and I agree with and you that they probably helped get them off the ground, but I do think their existence made it more difficult to adjust to a competitor with some superior offerings and no self imposed constraints. They had to change away from that core business model to keep up. As pointed out, the main thing was a DRM free back catalogue of nostalgia that no one else had. I think It made it hard to move away from them, creating issues that didn't exist on Steam. ![]() I don't think the principles involved hurt them. Quoting: Purple Library GuyI think you're making an unwarranted assumption. Sometimes you have a small but profitable business, you decide to expand, you spend a bunch of money to expand, and it turns out the additional revenue isn't enough to make up for all the new expenses. It may be that GoG tried to grow too big. The Linux crowd is perhaps unusual there, but I think GoG's problem is that while their no-DRM idea was good and by and large helped them, it wasn't enough to beat a competitor which was superior in some other ways and had big network effects. Certainly not around here, where everyone basically says "I like their principles, if only they didn't suck in other ways". Perhaps the bigger problem is that they had principles in the first place.I think you're making an unwarranted assumption. How do you retake market space without alienating uses that bought in on those founding principles? I'm the end, turns out people are really more ok with DRM and a nice, albeit mandatory, client than they bet on. ![]() Which is a problem when your business model is to be the anti-Steam and in the process, Steam becomes a near Monopoly. Quoting: denyasisI'm a little sad GOG is struggling, but their business model failed and they seem to be struggling with what to do next. But without Galaxy, some games end up missing features for Linux or just skipping a Linux build entirely on GOG. The main idea that you can just log in and download a full offline installer is great and their repeated revivals of old games is wonderful too. It is a shame for those that want the Galaxy client, as I actually love what GOG do. Plus, if you're going to be using a Steam Deck, buying from Steam just makes a lot more sense when it's far easier to access so I imagine that's eventually going to cost GOG a few more sales too and they're not exactly doing well. Still, it would be nice if GOG at some point put some more resources into improving their Linux support. We are the driving force behind 'add Linux support for GOG Galaxy' though" in reply to GOG post about showing 2077 gameplay.Įvery time I've spoken to the GOG team over the last few years, they just repeatedly told me it wasn't planned, despite the wishlist entry still listing it as "in progress" and their original announcement mentioning it would come to Linux too and that it was "being done with PC, Mac and Linux in mind" (so much for that huh?).Īt least there's applications like the Heroic Games Launcher and Lutris that can help you manage your GOG games on Linux. GOG and CD Projekt never really took it seriously though, with even the official Cyberpunk 2077 Twitter account trolling "We can assure you: it‘s not us. Something that was a bit overdue, since they clearly have no plans to actually bring GOG Galaxy to Linux despite it being the most voted-for feature request for many years. It seems at some point over the last month or two, GOG finally removed the "in progress" notice for GOG Galaxy coming to Linux. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |