How in the world does the Engadget site use over 50% CPU power on my 4 GHz system? o_O;

As for GOG... I find this move intriguing, though really, it's no risk to them so I guess they figured they might as well give it a try and see what the interest is like. :B

As long as it doesn't decrease their old game releases....which the Indie and New games they release seem to do.

and no excuses about how "there aren't any more games out there" bullshit there's a metric asston of popular old DOS games not to mention everything that's not DOS.

I just wish Blizzard would finally admit that people still want to play their old games, and release them on GoG. If GoG had digital versions of Diablo, Diablo II, Starcraft, and Warcraft II, all optimized to run well on new systems, I'd buy them in a heartbeat.

Blizzard allows you to input CD Keys for certain old games on battle.net and have the game linked to your account. I found some old jewel cases in thrifts, with or without the CDs themselves, just for the keys.

It's a great way to build up a digital game collection for just a few dollars here and there. Works for Steam for some retail games too. I found a Half-Life GOTY jewel case with the disc and tried the code and BOOM, something like 17 games added to my steam library.

I hold on to any cases/games I redeem the codes for digitally though. If I ever sell them off I make sure to let people know that the keys have been redeemed and the games are only good for offline play (If that's still an option)

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/27/gog-drm-free-movies/

Judging by how protective the major studios are of their properties, I almost can't see this going anywhere for mainstream films. It may become a boon for indie filmmakers, however. I'm quite surprised by this because it doesn't seem to go with GOG's usual business, but then again, they may be trying to revolutionize film distribution in much the same way they revolutionized game distribution.

Most likely they are going to be distributing very old films that have gone out of copyright protection. Unfortunately, due to poor preservation methods available in the early years, many of those old films that are out of copyright no longer exist in any form. 😢

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

I just wish Blizzard would finally admit that people still want to play their old games, and release them on GoG. If GoG had digital versions of Diablo, Diablo II, Starcraft, and Warcraft II, all optimized to run well on new systems, I'd buy them in a heartbeat.

If they kept their old games online forever, you'd have less incentive to play the new and improved versions.

Nevermind

GOG is a subsidiary of CD Projekt RED and CD Projekt RED is the parent of cdp.pl - they already selling games, e-books, movies and audiobooks in Poland: https://cdp.pl/ .

sliderider wrote:

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/27/gog-drm-free-movies/

Judging by how protective the major studios are of their properties, I almost can't see this going anywhere for mainstream films. It may become a boon for indie filmmakers, however. I'm quite surprised by this because it doesn't seem to go with GOG's usual business, but then again, they may be trying to revolutionize film distribution in much the same way they revolutionized game distribution.

Most likely they are going to be distributing very old films that have gone out of copyright protection. Unfortunately, due to poor preservation methods available in the early years, many of those old films that are out of copyright no longer exist in any form. 😢

Then what's the point of paying for them unless they're rare prints that no one else has access to?

sliderider wrote:

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

I just wish Blizzard would finally admit that people still want to play their old games, and release them on GoG. If GoG had digital versions of Diablo, Diablo II, Starcraft, and Warcraft II, all optimized to run well on new systems, I'd buy them in a heartbeat.

If they kept their old games online forever, you'd have less incentive to play the new and improved versions.

"New and improved" 🤣 Nintendo is infamous for rehashing their old games year after year, and even they understand that people have nostalgic attachments to certain older games, so whenever they can they put them up on the virtual console for outrageously inflated prices, because they know people will buy them. Blizzard are cheating themselves out of a lot of money by NOT doing essentially the same thing, though tbh I wouldn't pay more than $10 or $15 for most of their older titles.

GL1zdA wrote:

GOG is a subsidiary of CD Projekt RED and CD Projekt RED is the parent of cdp.pl - they already selling games, e-books, movies and audiobooks in Poland: https://cdp.pl/ .

Huh... I was not aware of that... o.o

And here I am thinking my country wasn't contributing in any way to the retro gaming community...

Anyway, I think this is awesome news. But, uhh... does the name "Good Old Games" make sense still?

Yasashii wrote:

But, uhh... does the name "Good Old Games" make sense still?

They haven't called themselves "Good Old Games" for ages, it's just "GOG" now.

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

Then what's the point of paying for them unless they're rare prints that no one else has access to?

Convenience? Also distribution and promotion isn't free.

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

I just wish Blizzard would finally admit that people still want to play their old games, and release them on GoG. If GoG had digital versions of Diablo, Diablo II, Starcraft, and Warcraft II, all optimized to run well on new systems,, I'd buy them in a heartbeat.

I don't understand, these games already run well on modern systems. If you already have them why would you want to buy them again?

I just bought all four to put on my NT 4.0 machine, but also tested them on a Windows 7x64 system. Battle.net for Diablo is dead but everything else works well.

IIRC they are all affected by the Windows 7 pallette issue (which there are workarounds for). Windows 8 fixes that tho.

Oh yes I remember now, StarCraft colours would go crazy after a few seconds of play. But that problem's gone now. I just played a full B.net game without it happening. The other 3 games are fine too.

Edit: I should add that my version of WC2 is the B.net edition. Older versions may have issues I'm not aware of.

Once I pointed out that GOG stood for "Good Old Games", and when I complained that it's become a platform for Indie distribution and New games site instead being a springboard for selling legitimate, otherwise impossible to buy old games, everybody at the GOG forum pounced on me saying GOG is just GOG, and even rated negative at my post. I wanted to post a screenshot from Web Archive showing their original purpose of existence, but got discouraged by their attitude.

I'm not surprised, they lost their focus again.

I would have been happier if they had other sister sites for selling Indie and newer games and now, another site for movie distributions.

And just focus GOG for Good Old Games. (You can't find the reference "Good Old Games" anywhere on their website now.)

So? What's the big deal? They're still selling "good old games" and they keep expanding their library. It is just that they've expanded beyond DOS and early Win9x.

Will they ever cover Mac classic with something like Executor?

DosFreak wrote:

IIRC they are all affected by the Windows 7 pallette issue (which there are workarounds for). Windows 8 fixes that tho.

I guess Windows 8 is not all that bad then. 😉 I've worked around the StarCraft palette issue on Win7 before, but I remember it being a huge pain in the ass. Diablo II was somewhat troublesome as well, though at least you could run it in Direct3D mode (albeit with really, really cheesy-looking scaling effects 🤣).

Malik wrote:

Once I pointed out that GOG stood for "Good Old Games", and when I complained that it's become a platform for Indie distribution […]
Show full quote

Once I pointed out that GOG stood for "Good Old Games", and when I complained that it's become a platform for Indie distribution and New games site instead being a springboard for selling legitimate, otherwise impossible to buy old games, everybody at the GOG forum pounced on me saying GOG is just GOG, and even rated negative at my post. I wanted to post a screenshot from Web Archive showing their original purpose of existence, but got discouraged by their attitude.

I'm not surprised, they lost their focus again.

I would have been happier if they had other sister sites for selling Indie and newer games and now, another site for movie distributions.

And just focus GOG for Good Old Games. (You can't find the reference "Good Old Games" anywhere on their website now.)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with continuing to call it the "Good Old Games" website, provided you can acknowledge that nowadays, the name is nothing more than a reference to how they started out, since now they do modern games, indie games, and have just started releasing indie movies.

I actually think it's a REALLY stupid idea for companies to rebrand themselves and their image just because their focus shifts. Brand loyalty is built upon a foundation which starts with a name. If you change the name, you change the foundation and alienate people in the process. Coleco is an EXTREMELY good example. The name "Coleco" is itself a shorthand word meaning "Connecticut Leather Company"... so when they started making video games and Cabbage Patch Kids dolls, did they change the name of their company to reflect that? NOPE. "Coleco" has established their name and thus they don't have to change it, even though the products they're most known for now have nothing to do with leather. It's not a misnomer to continue calling them the "Connecticut Leather Company" either, it's just a mouthful in comparison to "Coleco". :B

"GOG" will always stand for "Good Old Games" no matter what anyone says. Sure, that's only a part of what they do anymore, but that's not the point. The point is they have a name that is recognizable and they offer products and services people want. ;)

Gemini000 wrote:

I actually think it's a REALLY stupid idea for companies to rebrand themselves and their image just because their focus shifts. Brand loyalty is built upon a foundation which starts with a name. If you change the name, you change the foundation and alienate people in the process.

Borland, anyone? 😉