Does purchasing a game on GOG.com really grants ownership of the game and not a license to use it?
2mon 16d ago by fedia.io/u/ryujin470 in asklemmy
Their tagline is literally 'you buy it, you own it'. But does it really grants ownership?
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"
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.
It's just that NFTs are a needlessly complicated way to implement that.
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.
What it grants you is the ability to download and install the game as you see fit with no DRM software getting in the way. You don't even have to use their launcher if you don't want.
Steam allows the exact same thing FYI, they just don’t see the need to needlessly promote it to get sales.
Edit I guess people can’t realize this is specifically about drm-free games….
Of course games with drm can’t be downloaded, gog just doesn’t offer these games, so it’s not an issue there. Yet. If the game is drm free on GoG, it’s also available on Steam, and can be run offline with no checks. IE, Steam offers the exact same thing.
Steam allows DRM and even offers its own. You also can't download anything without the launcher, even if the game is DRM-free.
GOG also allows DRM, it's just not as common
Can you please elaborate on and define what DRM is "allowed" on GOG? From my most recent understanding, you can still play offline and don't need to use the GOG launcher or some other launcher that requires an Internet connection.
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/drm_on_gog_list_of_singleplayer_games_with_drm/page1The list is still maintained
I get and respect that people have different places where they draw lines. But to me, it doesn't seem like they are abandoning the concept of DRM free in any real way. The majority of these have small bits of extra content, often cosmetic, like twitch drops that need the software to be online to redeem/verify.
For the few games on that list that are actually unplayable or crippled in some way, I am disappointed. For additional free or giveaway content from the developer that is part of the original package distributed through GOG, I'm much more understanding of GOG if the developer failed to accommodate offline verification/unlocking of that content.
Agreed, but an important thing to note is that list of games is smaller than a couple years ago, and I believe many of the ones that were removed because the DRM was removed are listed at the end. A couple of those were just mistaken releases, but several were allowed on GOG by CDPR with DRM fully intact, most notably Hitman 1 with an always-online requirement, and several others had DRM fully intact and were removed only when enough people complained. My point isn't and never was "GOG is bad too, actually"; GOG remains the first place I look when I'm looking for a game, and I install it with the offline installer, which gets archived on the NAS once I've established it works and I reinstall the game with Galaxy because cloud saves and auto updates are convenient. My point was that, while ABSOLUTELY a rarer occurence than on Steam, GOG officially DOES allow DRM for single player games, and it's only vigilant complaints that keep that list small
You can download and then copy games with steam, that is the choice of the developer.
I know that those exist. So enlighten me, how do I download them without the launcher?
The developer has a link sometimes, or otherwise any other mirror or torrent can work as well.
I little leg work isn’t gonna kill you ;)
Steam's primary function since day 1 is literally DRM, you have no clue what you are talking about. Steam offers features like offline play but there's console-like caveats there forcing periodic logins and launcher usage.
yes there are drm-free games on steam. this does not disprove their point. steam's first role was as drm for half life 2. steam stops working if you don't log in periodically.
And if you download a drm free game it doesn’t need to sync to Steam. You’re providing false information. The link specifies this.
Why are you claiming it does? Where did you get this information?
???? ??? ??????
If you’re buying a game on GoG, it’s because it’s drm free. Which means it’s also drm free on Steam. So anyone looking at those games, would understand the context that we’re talking about the same type of games.
FIFA isn’t available of GoG, so of course we wouldn’t be talking about the same thing on Steam. You’re making massive assumptions dude. The talk has always been about drm free games, no one changed the topic.
untrue. some people may have assumed the talk has always been about drm free games, but the thread's contents do not support that. besides, some games have drm on steam but not on gog. factorio is a prime example.
The threads content…? The ones that are ONLY about drm free games? Except yours alone?
You fucked up and are directing it, most other people get it, but now you double down, that won’t make it worse lol. Your provided false information, lied, provide no proof of your claims. I’m done now, you aren’t even discussing in good faith, and I’ve been patient and provided my sources to back my claims up. You can’t even be arsed to do the same.
oh? how?
The exact same way as gog, download the files to your pc.
huh? that's not even what gog sells itself on. gog offers offline installers. steam takes care of installation itself. you can't download a game from steam, put it on a usb drive, give it to someone else, and have confidence that they will be able to run it.
That’s not true at all…
Where are you getting your information from?
Why do you need an installer when the files are its own folder?
steam. note that i said "a game", not "a drm-free game".
And we’re talking about drm free games, which GoG only provides, which means it’s also drm free on Steam…. Steam provides OTHER games that of course have drm.
Of course Steam has its own drm, I never said they didn’t. The picture also talks about this as well… did you not read it?
Oh man I feel for you, you are really patient. These guys will never engage with your argument because apparently “there are multiple types of games on Steam” is too much nuance to process…
we are not. you are. the starter of this comment chain noted that gog guarantees, as part of their offer, that the games you download are drm-free. steam does not. your reply to that said nothing about drm, leading us all to the conclusion that you were saying "you can download files for games on steam just like you can on gog", rather than what you were apparently saying, which was that "for the games on steam that do not have drm you can download files just like you can with all games on gog".
The point is that you get games on GoG without DRM when buying the same game on steam may have DRM. Just because some games on steam don’t have it doesn’t change this behavior.
Actually, if it’s drm free on gog, it is on steam too, its developer choice.
Installers deal with more than just unpacking files into a folder. There are often prerequisite shared libraries that are included in the installer that AREN'T in the game directory, which may or may not need to be installed along with the game depending on if your system already has it.
So just double-clicking the .exe after copying the folder to a new computer is not reliable in the same way GOG's installers are.
Years ago the was an option called something like download offline backup, I haven't used steam in a long time so maybe it still possible. I didn't like it back then because I still needed steam to install it, that means that I still need to log in at least once to be allowed to install the game.
yeah those files were encrypted in some way that required the steam client to unlock, if i recall.
You can only download steam games from the steam app. You can download gog games from the site, without using their galaxy app
That is a fair distinction, but once it’s downloaded and installed they are effectively identical.
Some steam games might still have the steampi and steamworks dll's, so that's still 2 bits that need to be deleted before they're effectively identical.
Having the installers can be important, not every game may work out of the box if you only copy the installed folder to a different machine, some important configurations that are set up in different folders, like in %appdata%, might be missing. Steam checks if DirectX and the proper MSVC versions are installed, I suppose the GOG installers do that as well.
According to the websites, you’re able to move it, and it provides those instructions on how to deal with those minor issues.
So in the end, following dev instructions, they will be the same in the end.
Edit Like so
GOG lets you download installers for all your games that you can back up somewhere so that you can install and run their DRM free games without GOG or even an internet connection. It’s like back when games came on cd/dvd.
Steam is DRM so in most cases you can’t launch any of your games without the Steam client. Steam does sell some games that are DRM free on Steam, but you still need the Steam client to install them.
So the difference here is that you can use GOG to build your own library of DRM free games that don’t need GOG at all. if GOG ceased to exist, you can still install and play all your games on any device you want.
If Steam ceased to exist, you’d have no way to install your games on any device so you’d only be able to play the games you currently have installed, and only if they’re DRM Free.
Sure. Where is the game installer you can download or the installed game you can download, disconnect from the internet, close steam, and run/install the game?
You could just go down the thread to see the links….
DRM free games are movable, that fits your rant yeah?
The installed files are not an installer. What you're referencing is moving the preexisting program files of a game
Which is the entirety of the game, they also had that on their many itemmed rant. So why would you need an installer, when you have the entire game anyways?
”or the installed game”
Steam states in their EULA that your purchase a license to play the game but not own it
So does GOG dude…
where
their eula does not state that you do not own the games.
Section 2.1:
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. This license is for your personal use. We can stop or suspend this license in some situations, which are explained later on. You have the personal right to use GOG content and services. This right can be suspended or stopped by us in some situations.
"GOG services" and "GOG content" are things like the GOG website itself, not the copies of the games you buy from it.
GOG suspending your right to use their service is analogous to a brick-and-mortar store trespassing and blacklisting you: in the same way that getting trespassed from GameStop doesn't entitle them to break into your house and confiscate everything you've previously purchased from them, getting kicked off GOG does not and legally cannot invalidate your ownership -- not "licensing," ownership -- of the games you've previously purchased from them.
1.3 Also, when we're talking about games, in-game content, virtual items or currency or GOG videos or other content or services which you can purchase or access via GOG services, we’ll just call them “GOG games” or “GOG videos” respectively and when we talk about them all together they are “GOG content”.
Okay then, I guess GoG is lying the same way Steam is after all. I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, but concede that I was wrong.
"Licensed not sold" is still bunk, though. They do not have the right to confiscate games you've previously purchased, no matter what their fucking User Agreement claims.
Their user agreement doesn't claim they can remove files from your computer. If your account gets suspended you no longer have access to the game you paid for unless you have previously downloaded and stored it.
I bought Witcher 3 on GOG, but I don't currently have it saved anywhere. If GOG suspends my account, I can no longer access the content I paid for
Their user agreement doesn’t claim they can remove files from your computer.
Then GOG must be restricting access only to the service itself, not to your property, despite what the text says.
If GOG suspends my account, I can no longer access the content I paid for
You still own the copy of the game; it's hardly GOG's fault if you lost or destroyed it.
Expecting to have continued access to re-download indefinitely is like buying a physical book from a brick-and-mortar store, throwing it in the trash, and then expecting to be allowed to swing back by the place later to grab another copy off the shelf. Sure, it'd be nice if the store let you do that, but it would be silly to claim that not letting you do it somehow meant you never owned your copy of the book.
What part of “license” is so hard for you to comprehend?
https://programming.dev/comment/23071365
This isn’t quite right. You do not own the game, you are purchasing a non-transferable license, bound to you:
2.1 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. This license is for your personal use.
3.3 Your GOG account and GOG content are personal to you and cannot be shared with, sold, gifted or transferred to anyone else.
It’s simply a boon that they entitle you to download DRM-free binaries but technically, if that license is revoked by GOG, you are not legally entitled to use or store that binary anymore. Practically, however, is a different story.
points two and three are for different things.
No they aren't. Both mean that you don't own the game.
You're right that they aren't for different things, but neither mean that you don't own the game. Both are referring to your continued permission to access your GOG account itself.
Since when is a license owning the game?
It’s right there, unless you make up new terms or ignore the established legal terms.
They don’t offer games to buy, only licenses, so how can you ever own the game…?
Stop taking legal advice from your adversary!
I can claim that this comment is "licensed" such that, by reading it, you now owe me a million dollars. But does that make it true? If you really think so, PM me to arrange payment!
"Since when is a license owning the game" is a nonsensical question, because the entire concept of the "license" is fiction to begin with. (In the context we're talking about, of goods as opposed to services.)
Buying a copy of a copyrighted work has always meant buying a copy, from the dawn of copyright law straight through to today. It has never legitimately meant "licensing" anything.
-
You buy a paper book, you own that copy of the book.
-
You buy a music record, you own that copy of the music.
-
You buy a DVD of a movie, you own that copy of the movie.
You have always owned the individual copy (not copyright; that's a different thing) of the work you purchased. It has never been different than that.
The only reason copyright cartel shysters have weaseled their way in to pretend otherwise, is that (unlike those other forms of media), you have to copy the software to at least your RAM, if not your hard drive, in order to use it, rather than consuming it directly. Because of this, the shysters claim that you need some kind of additional permission to actually use the software you bought, instead of just admiring your shiny plastic coaster.
But guess what! That incidental copying has a specific carve-out that makes it not count for the purpose of invoking copyright law. In reality, there is nothing to license. The "EULAs" grant you no 'consideration' and thus fail to qualify as a valid contract. You own the individual copy of the software just like you always did, with your books and your music and your movies.
So you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Cool.
Prove me wrong.
And do it by citing the law or the courts, not the adverse party.
Curious why you ignored disc based games? Those you actually own and no one can take them away.
Because I didn't need to mention it separately. There is no meaningful difference between a disc-based game and a downloaded one; you have all the same ownership rights in both cases.
And none of your examples are licensed, you actually own those items.
Exactly! And neither is software, as you literally just admitted!
Why are you talking about copyright? Are you thinking that we’re talking about it owning part of the copyright or having access to it?
I am explicitly making as clear a distinction as I can between "holding the copyright" and "owning an individual copy" in order to emphasize that I am not talking about the former. I'm genuinely trying to be as precise as humanly possible, and I'm honestly baffled that you still somehow got it so backwards.
Or do you just not know what a license is? You realize that these are based on something in real life right? Like licenses to own guns, operate vehicles…. You don’t actually own those items, and they can be taken away. Just like a digital game!
You realize that just because something applies in one context doesn't mean it applies the same way in some entirely different context, right?
Also, by the way, not having a license to operate a vehicle on public roads isn't the same thing as not being allowed to own a car. Perhaps it's you who is struggling to understand WTF you're talking about.
Get lost.
You first.
There is no meaningful difference between a disc-based game
Uhh… you can resell a disc based one, doing it do a downloaded one wheter still under license or not, is all hells kind of illegal. Because one’s a license, which can usually never be sold or transferred, but each specific contract you agree to specifies this. There’s also plenty of precedence for this, so don’t even bother trying to bloviate down that alley, it’s a dead end, sorry. We know your angle and game.
You can’t even rip the disc and then try and sell that, so no, they aren’t the same thing at all, and your trying to claim they are just shows how dumb and ignorant on this matter you are.
You really have no idea why you’re talking about, you’re using terms incorrectly and are ignoring your own examples.
Uhh… you can resell a disc based one, doing it do a downloaded one wheter still under license or not, is all hells kind of illegal. Because one’s a license, which can usually never be sold or transferred, but each specific contract you agree to specifies this
That's a textbook circular argument. You're trying to argue that things are licenses because they're licenses.
We know your angle and game.
What, standing up for property rights? Do you have some sort of problem with that?!
You can’t even rip the disc and then try and sell that,
Yes you can! If you don't keep the original (or any other copy) for yourself. Then you're actually selling your (albeit format-shifted) copy, not making new copies (plural). It's doing things that increase the total number of people who have it that makes copyright law kick in; otherwise it's just reselling an individual good.
And yes, the same applies to a downloaded file. It's still just format-shifting!
If you think that's wrong, cite the "all hella kind" of laws it breaks. Surely it'll be easy for you, being so confident.
Your consideration is being able to access the game.
Edit: I brain farted, and think I mixed up terms. Aleatory contracts are still valid, the issuers just have to withstand higher scrutiny if challenged.
Your consideration is being able to access the game.
No it isn't; the purchase itself granted that right.
(At least, to obtain the copy once, because otherwise you're not getting what you paid for. You could argue that some license offers continued access to re-download -- i.e. access to the GOG service, not the copy of the game itself -- but it would be absurd to argue that it can hold hostage your use of that first copy you already downloaded.)
What else ya got?
And these are the terms of use for that purchase. If I sign a contract with a party magician for them to come and perform, and then violate the terms of the contract, they can stop providing their services without being in breach of contract. If those terms include that you don’t later publish videos of them on social media and then you do, you open yourself up to being sued, even though after the service has been provided you are no longer receiving an active benefit.
And these are the terms of use for that purchase.
That sequence of words is literally nonsense. There is no such thing as "terms of use for that purchase;" it is simply not a concept that exists.
What part of the Doctrine of First Sale do you not understand?
If I sign a contract with a party magician for them to come and perform, and then violate the terms of the contract, they can stop providing their services without being in breach of contract.
We're talking about goods here, not services. A magician is providing a service, not a good, and is therefore irrelevant.
I’m not sure how you’re getting to those conclusions, but it doesn’t make sense to me and clearly my conclusions aren’t making sense to you. Have a good night.
lol no they aren’t.
EULAs are bunk. Quit buying the lies of copyright cartel shysters.
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.
Ballistic.NG
Invalid weblink, so I'll link the store page for BallisticNG, for anyone else who wants to take a peek
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.
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
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
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
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.
This isn’t quite right. You do not own the game, you are purchasing a non-transferable license, bound to you:
2.1 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. This license is for your personal use.
3.3 Your GOG account and GOG content are personal to you and cannot be shared with, sold, gifted or transferred to anyone else.
It’s simply a boon that they entitle you to download DRM-free binaries but technically, if that license is revoked by GOG, you are not legally entitled to use or store that binary anymore. Practically, however, is a different story.
I did. That’s the bit that’s wrong. You don’t own a copy. Read the terms and conditions. I handily copied and pasted the relevant parts.
The fact you have a copy does not mean you own it. Ownership would mean you could transfer that property. You cannot transfer it (legally).
You own nothing on GOG. It’s a license like everywhere else plus the benefit of having access to DRM-free binaries. Your license permits you to download and use those binaries personally. But you do not own them.
That benefit of the rights to download and use those DRM-free binaries, however, is not to be sniffed at. It’s a fantastic benefit!
But you don’t own them.
THAT IS A LIE. YOU ARE PARROTING THE LIES OF PEOPLE MOTIVATED TO SWINDLE YOU. STOP IT.
I do not give the slightest fuck what any bullshit "EULA" says, and neither should you, because EULAs are not legally valid in the first place, and never have been. They fail to meet several of the basic requirements of a contract, and the legal theory they rely on (that you have to copy software in order to install and/or run it) has a specific exception carved out for it in black-letter copyright law.
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.
Functionally, yes. Legally, no.
Can you transfer your game to someone else? If not, then its not functionally yes either.
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
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.
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.
Can you transfer your games legally to another person?
There is your answer.
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!
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!
If you aren't a steam shill, why are you lying that steam gives you ownership of a game? It doesn't. GoG does.
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.
Oh really? Explain how I'm wrong, then!