That distinction doesn't really exist. You have to pay employees. You have to pay for equipment. You have to pay for office space. And the countless other costs of running a company. There's no way they can realistically say "this particular dollar we got from you was used for exactly this purpose".
> The GOG Preservation Program is our ongoing effort to save classic games from being lost to time. That means working to secure rights, fixing compatibility so they run hassle-free on modern systems, and even rebuilding missing features so the experience is the best you can get, while staying true to the original.
It still baffles me how the "rights" to a game (or any IP) can be a thing when the company has essentially abandoned it. Like take the Resident Evil example FTA: Launched in 1996, 2000-2023 not available (i.e. not for legal sale). I am a bit of an extremist wrt IP laws, but that just seems so crazy to me that we would provide a legal system to "protect" IP that isn't being used and is just being (essentially) hoarded.
That's how copyright law works. There's no "use it or lose it" provision. Once you create something it is yours, and others only get rights to it 70-100+ years later.
If you don’t sell me a copy of your family albums, I should be allowed to freely sneak into your house and make a copy? After all, you still have the originals and are not making money from them
> Why introduce a membership now? Is GOG in financial trouble?
Glad they put this into the FAQ, because that was certainly my first thought, although I'm not sure the answer really assuages my concerns.
You have to admit that the combination of "Original founder buys back GOG from CD Projekt" and then "GOG introduces patron tier" soon thereafter does suggest a company in some financial hardship.
So let me get this straight, GOG, a privately owned company, wants me to donate money to them so that they can buy the rights to games in order to sell them to me?
It is true, but occasionally it is a practice in some companies with certain business models to leave part of users contributions free up to the users to decide. I have bought some games from their preservation program, and gave me the option to add some extra donation for the project, which I did. I guess this is similar to that.
Moreover, if somebody is really into these old games, they may want to support it and get access to the behind the scenes material, discord, vote for which games to prioritize etc. I don't think this is very different than eg subscribing to the patreon of a creator to get some extra content.
Honestly I find GOG's whole mission of "update old games for modern Windows" kinda weird when I compare it to what people who want to play old console games do: they just fire up an emulator. Running a virtual Windows machine sounds like a much easier solution than individually patching every crusty old executable to run on the modern OS, and re-patching every single one of them when MS rolls out yet another new graphics/controller system a few years down the line.
GOG uses emulators as well. GOG has a share of games that use Dosbox or ScummVM as two somewhat common emulators they will configure a game to run in that I'm aware of.
That said, there's also something to be said that if a game is patchable, there is some value in patching it to run directly rather than "need" an emulator.
Seems weird to ask for donations for game preservation without pledging to release the games under an open license. Why would I give you money so you can go buy a game and then turn around and sell it back to me?
Wait, what? Subscribe for £4 a month to fund a for-profit company so they can buy rights to patch up old games I used to play so I can... Buy them again?
I've bought Resident Evil twice before guys, I'm not paying £7.99 to get another copy. I get that there's some service provision —maybe even some first party dev work— but patrons should either be the product and these games get released for free, or the price of the game should recoup the hassle of licenses.
What am I missing? It seems like they're trying to double-dip.
24 comments
[ 38.7 ms ] story [ 421 ms ] threadThe FAQ should state explicitly that patron money will only be used for preservation, not put into GOG general revenue, if that is indeed true.
> The GOG Preservation Program is our ongoing effort to save classic games from being lost to time. That means working to secure rights, fixing compatibility so they run hassle-free on modern systems, and even rebuilding missing features so the experience is the best you can get, while staying true to the original.
It still baffles me how the "rights" to a game (or any IP) can be a thing when the company has essentially abandoned it. Like take the Resident Evil example FTA: Launched in 1996, 2000-2023 not available (i.e. not for legal sale). I am a bit of an extremist wrt IP laws, but that just seems so crazy to me that we would provide a legal system to "protect" IP that isn't being used and is just being (essentially) hoarded.
https://www.gog.com/forum/legor_the_lord_of_the_rings/crashe...
(there are other forum posts about other crashes)
So, when I had some money left over at Christmas, I got a couple of Lego games for my Nintendo Switch instead.
Glad they put this into the FAQ, because that was certainly my first thought, although I'm not sure the answer really assuages my concerns.
You have to admit that the combination of "Original founder buys back GOG from CD Projekt" and then "GOG introduces patron tier" soon thereafter does suggest a company in some financial hardship.
Moreover, if somebody is really into these old games, they may want to support it and get access to the behind the scenes material, discord, vote for which games to prioritize etc. I don't think this is very different than eg subscribing to the patreon of a creator to get some extra content.
That said, there's also something to be said that if a game is patchable, there is some value in patching it to run directly rather than "need" an emulator.
https://heroicgameslauncher.com/
I've bought Resident Evil twice before guys, I'm not paying £7.99 to get another copy. I get that there's some service provision —maybe even some first party dev work— but patrons should either be the product and these games get released for free, or the price of the game should recoup the hassle of licenses.
What am I missing? It seems like they're trying to double-dip.