- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Good for GOG, but I don’t think having games still available after they’re delisted is special. It would have been news if this didn’t happen.
Edit: I mean you can still download the games, if you’ve already bought them, not that you can still buy them.
It doesn’t happen all the time… Games being kept around is the exception not the rule…
Is it? Steam does it all the time. Afaik they only completely remove games (meaning you they get removed from your account), when they break some TOS stuff.
As for Blizzard themselves (since this article is about Warcraft 1&2), they still offer downloads for old titles. I can just download Warcraft 3 or Diablo 2 right now, even though they’re remastered, and the old versions not for sale anymore.
Usually if the author pulls the game you can’t get it anymore if you didn’t already have it before, afaik.
Yes, that’s what I meant. I didn’t mean you could still buy them. Sorry, I probably should have clarified that in my first comment.
Yes, but if you already had it in your account you can still download it, which is the same thing GOG is doing, so not sure what all the fuzz is about.
You’re not wrong… But there’s a reason why game preservation has been in the news lately.
Going forward, even if a game is no longer available for sale on GOG, as part of the GOG Preservation Program, it will continue to be maintained and updated by us, ensuring it remains compatible with modern and future systems.
This commitment to ongoing support is more than any other shop front offers for their delisted titles.
For these titles it probably just means updating the dosbox wrapper but its still
more than we get from anywhere elsesomething.Yes… But actually no. For these games, sure, they’re committed to update the dosbox, but for more modern games there’s nothing that can be done on GOG since if the binary breaks for windows lack of backwards compatibility, they’re done because they don’t have access to the code. This works for these games because they’re being emulated, so they can maintain them by extracting the ROM and updating the emulator.
IMO what Valve is doing is leaps ahead, Proton can be used to maintain even broken binaries by providing compatibility with older versions of binaries from Windows. Not to mention the runtime library shipped with Steam for native titles.
It’s always mind boggling to me how GOG does something which Steam is already doing (sometimes, like this, they do a worse job at it), yet they get all of the credit as if they’re revolutionizing the way the industry works. Allowing people to download a game they bought, even if delisted, is the standard, and Proton is a much better preservation tool than whatever GOG is doing behind the stages, because it’s open source and if Steam ever goes under it will continue to exist, whereas on GOG solution you depend on GOG for it to keep working.
I’ll be honest I’m not really across what proton does other than an general impression that it is a Wine alternative.
Is proton offering any enhanced compatibility for players running Windows as their daily driver?
Proton is essentially just wine, but:
Backward compatibility in Wine is generally superior to that of Windows, as newer versions of Windows can force users to upgrade legacy Windows applications, and may break unsupported software forever as there is nobody adjusting the program for the changes in the operating system
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_(software)
Valve’s has been financing the development of Proton (and wine), so their efforts are to improve an open source tool that can be used and enhanced by anyone, which among other things provides excellent compatibility. That is a much better commitment to preserving games than choosing a handful of titles and updating their compatibility layer when the old one breaks. In other words, GOG is choosing a couple of games to update their emulator periodically, Valve is financing the development of an emulator for old games. The two things are not even in the same league for how much they help preservation of old games as a whole.
As for the question of windows users, I don’t think wine runs on Windows natively, but I assume one could use WSL as a stepping stone. In any case GOG’s method also doesn’t address Linux or MacOS users, so I don’t see how bringing platform into the mix makes any difference.
I’m all for platform level comparability (one of my major gripes with xbox BC was that BC of original xbox and 360 titles was implemented per-title and while some were supported most of the library was left behind).
But from a pragmatic perspective my home PC has always been Windows and preservation efforts that allow me to run the games I know on the hardware I am running will mean more to me.
I support the principal and encourage the cross platform efforts but its unlikely to mean much to me personally until its bundled in with a plug and play solution like Batocera.
I’ve edited my initial comment to reflect that not everyone will share my priorities.
preservation efforts that allow me to run the games I know on the hardware I am running will mean more to me.
You mean software, your hardware is perfectly capable of running Linux+Wine. But again, this is a very personal response, my personal computer is Linux, therefore what GOG is doing means less to me by your own definition, which is why I don’t think it makes any sense to try to bring platform into the table. In fact, since apparently they’re responsible for the DOSBox version that a game uses, and there is a native version of DOSBox for Linux, this means that the decision of the game not being available on Linux is entirely on GOG.
Imagine Valve was financing an emulator, and GOG was compromising themselves to keep a binary updated with the latest version of that emulator whenever problems appeared on the old version, which of them is doing more for the preservation of games? The only difference is that the “emulator” Valve is financing is not the same as the one that GOG is using.
I’m not saying that there isn’t value in what GOG is doing just because it doesn’t affect me, but as is they can only help preserve DOS era games, so investing in DOSBox and hosting the ROMs would be a much more valuable approach (half of it they’re already doing, they do in fact host the ROMs, you just get 50 extra copies of DOSBox in the process). What I’m saying is that I don’t understand why everyone thinks they’re so great for doing what they’re doing, they could be investing in getting wine to run on windows which would be a much better effort for the preservation of games for your platform.
Sure, Valve deserves a lot of praise for their work, but do they offer offline installers for their games? That and (mostly) DRM-free experience makes GOG superior to me. It leads to smaller library and less new releases, of course.
Steam also offers DRM-free games, and they don’t hide them behind a closed installer. I don’t like installers since they’re yet another moving part that can break, e.g. an installer built for windows 95 might not work even though if you were to extract the game binary from it it would work, so having an installer could make a game less compatible.
The ideal form of distributing games is compressed folders, I recognize this is less user friendly, but it is the format that most preservation effort uses (e.g. zip of a ROM, instead of an installer that installs the emulator+ROM like what GOG is doing).
I’m also not shitting on GOG, I believe they’re a good company, although I’m not their target audience since they refuse to sell me games I can play on my Linux machine. I’m all in favor of DRM-free and wished they would be more strict about it, that could convince me to buy some stuff from them. I did bought games from them in the past until I grew tired of almost no game having Linux compatibility and them not offering an official client, plus I noticed that some games had DRM and that was the last straw for me, because of I’m going to be buying maybe DRM-d games, might as well do it while giving money to a company that cares about my use-case.
I think GOG should be praised for some of what they do, particularly by their anti-DRM stance (even though they’re not 100% behind it). But what annoys me is that people seem to praise them as if they were doing this amazing work that no one else is doing, when most of the stuff people get overly excited about is just a marketing move and Steam is usually doing much better work in that regard, but is usually cited as the bad guys by the people who drank the GOG Kool-aid.
It used to. I haven’t used it in years, and I’m no longer sure if it still exists or where to find it if it does, since the UI has changed a few times over the years; the last of which was less than a year ago and it really overhauled everything. But also, so many games can literally just be copied from their install directory and work on another machine without Steam or cracks. There’s no good way of knowing which ones without trying it, though. At least not to my knowledge.
Short version is that Blizzard’s removal of Warcraft I & II is the first case to be in the scope of GOG’s (re)commitment to game preservation since GOG published that commitment.
Obligatory mention that ExoDos exists. Look it up.
Y’know, I kind of get why a storefront would prefer delisting when there’s just a more complete or more “HD” version. I’ve had a friend buy an old version of a game for the same price as the “complete” version since both were up and he didn’t check. Blizzard is obviously just trying to promote their remake, but I wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
(I’d still prefer having options, though, and that option should be free because playing the DOS version of Warcraft 2 would likely help promote the HD version, as sort of a demo. That game is fire and deserves the love, too bad the execs are morons).
They did that with StarCraft. The original is free and the remaster is paid
