I think I get it. Putting GOG and Steam aside for the moment, then assuming the new game is really an independent effort put together by the two developers (as opposed to the developers writing for a publisher who will pay them exactly once), then buying the new Steam game at this point will serve to support them, whereas buying the old game will not, because they were already paid for that game and any further revenue from that game will probably not reach them. That much seems reasonable. Of course, there are a lot of details there that are kind of murky, but nonetheless.

--

SquallStrife wrote:

Oh! This sounds familiar! […]
Show full quote

King_Corduroy wrote:

But my point was that they do not add anything to it, they had nothing to do with the making of the games and so they are making money off of something that they put zero work into. It's pure capitalism.

Oh! This sounds familiar!

Sounds like EXACTLY WHAT STEAM DOES.

*facepalm*

King_Corduroy wrote:

The guys who are going to release it on steam are 2 of the original developers who worked on it in 1998. So I am saying rather than buy it from a company who is obviously not making any games or really doing anything with the games they own the rights to (other than distribute them digitally for a fee) I would rather buy it from the people who made it so that they can make more games for us to enjoy in the future.

What makes you think the GOG arrangement is any different to the Steam arrangement? Why, in your mind, is it a given that GOG are distributing the game without the "2 of the original developers" consent, permission, blessing, etc?

Do you know what Steam does with games they "own the rights to"? They distribute them digitally for a fee. That's it. What's more, they slap some DRM on there for your trouble.

King_Corduroy wrote:

I personally do not like GOG, it is my opinion obviously yours differs.

An opinion that appears to be built on completely baseless assumptions.

Exactly
gog are bad for selling a game made by someone else
valve are not bad for selling a game made by someone else

King_Corduroy wrote:

But my point was that they do not add anything to it, they had nothing to do with the making of the games and so they are making money off of something that they put zero work into. It's pure capitalism.

GOG do add value - they don't just grab an abandonware copy and start charging for it. They add an installer, gather together the relevant documentation, soundtracks, etc. And as stated, they are of course passing on some of the profit to the owners of the property rights.

I don't like GOG period for their stunt of getting their big publicity through referrals on warez sites and their marketing practices on them "fixing" the games and selling on the fixes (implying there's no way of playing it on modern systems unless you buy it from GOG), and as such I don't have a GOG account. Not even for the freebies.

They also don't support Linux and Mac 😀

I can see why someone wouldn't be a big fan of GOG (personally speaking they could use some more attention to detail - e.g. don't just slap half-functional emulators on your releases and make sure they stay broken by stripping the setup program).
With that in mind, I'd still rather give GOG my firstborn child than waste a good fart in Steam's general direction.

It's also available on Steam.

King_Corduroy wrote:

I think you completely are missing the point of what I meant. The guys who are going to release it on steam are 2 of the original developers who worked on it in 1998. So I am saying rather than buy it from a company who is obviously not making any games or really doing anything with the games they own the rights to (other than distribute them digitally for a fee) I would rather buy it from the people who made it so that they can make more games for us to enjoy in the future. I personally do not like GOG, it is my opinion obviously yours differs.

Personally I think they are re-releasing it due to the amount of people still talking about it in Russia. The non russian players of this game are a sort of oddity which is how I ended up talking to one of the devs in the first place. Besides most of the people who played it still have their physical copies (obviously not Schmeisser though. 😜 ) and the only reason I would buy it again is to support the original makers. No offence meant.

The problem with your statement is that it totally false. Some of the money from GOG DOES go back to the holder of the copyright on the game. If you're worried about the actual individual who sat down and bashed out the code, I'm sorry but this idea that you have that buying on Steam puts money in their pocket is totally wrong as well. In copyright law, there is a section about "works for hire". Look it up.What it says is that when you do creative work while on the payroll for someone else, then the person or company that you work for owns the copyright and is the only one entitled to distribute the work and collect payments. You, as the programmer, are not entitled to anything more than a weekly paycheck for your work. So you think GOG is unfair to the programmers, well the whole distribution system does that no matter who you buy it from. You need to get those socialistic ideas out of your head.

I once questioned why GOG no longer focuses on good old games - those classics, but instead started to be a platform for indie releases, and non-DRM new games, with occasional sprinkling of older games here and there. I got fired back real badly from the forum members there. I thought of displaying the web archive shots of the humble beginnings of GOG, but, I just didn't want to waste my time. And I find the GOG forum members (well, most of them) to be stereotypically immature bunch. They also seem to be overly protective of that site... 😜

King_Corduroy wrote:

Well I assume they will no longer be able to distribute it when (if my info is right) they make it available on steam. But my point was that they do not add anything to it, they had nothing to do with the making of the games and so they are making money off of something that they put zero work into. It's pure capitalism.

So what do you expect GoG to do; adding DRM on games that were originally come without DRM?

GoG actually adds value by making old games available again - in legal way. For example, I'd rather see Martian Dreams being sold on GoG instead of disappearing forever because ESA cracks down abandonware sites.

Malik wrote:

Either I'm getting too old, or anything that's post 1992 does not sound "old" to me!

Anyway, the Vangers game looks interesting. Never heard it before. Might try it one day.

The problem with Vangers is the difficult controls. Too bad, because the premise is interesting indeed. I like that kind of 'RPG' where your character is your vehicle (spaceship, car, etc).

I once bought an N64 version of UltraRacer steering controller to play Vangers (because the PC version is so hard to find). I thought it'll be easier to control the car with it. Too bad the controller doesn't work on Windows even with N64 to USB converter.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

The problem with Vangers is the difficult controls.

I had a similar experience with KISS:Psycho Circus on Dreamcast. The controls are completely non-intuitive and I believe they were deliberately set up that way to make the game more difficult.

sliderider wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

The problem with Vangers is the difficult controls.

I had a similar experience with KISS:Psycho Circus on Dreamcast. The controls are completely non-intuitive and I believe they were deliberately set up that way to make the game more difficult.

It's called 'artificial difficulty'. I don't mind difficult games, but artificial difficulty is annoying as hell.

Malik wrote:

I once questioned why GOG no longer focuses on good old games - those classics, but instead started to be a platform for indie releases, and non-DRM new games, with occasional sprinkling of older games here and there. I got fired back real badly from the forum members there. I thought of displaying the web archive shots of the humble beginnings of GOG, but, I just didn't want to waste my time. And I find the GOG forum members (well, most of them) to be stereotypically immature bunch. They also seem to be overly protective of that site... 😜

Hmm yea you're right. I kinda noticed it but always spotted the DOS releases 😀

I believe most of the work GOG,com does is sort out the legal stuff. There are so many angles and opinions. If you really care about the original developers, just send them some money via PayPal.

DOS releases of GOG.com games are usually quite good. But things really fall about with early Windows games. They have hacked / patched / modified them to death so they run on modern machines. Often breaking compatibility with real hardware. They removed EAX support from Splinter Cell for example or Tomb Rader 2 or Incoming don't work on real hardware.

So for these games I now just buy the original copy on eBay. But do let GOG.com know, because maybe they change their practices and include an "original copy" of the game.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

So for these games I now just buy the original copy on eBay. But do let GOG.com know, because maybe they change their practices and include an "original copy" of the game.

Do they ever reply?

Half-Saint wrote:

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

So for these games I now just buy the original copy on eBay. But do let GOG.com know, because maybe they change their practices and include an "original copy" of the game.

Do they ever reply?

Nope 😒

@sliderider I don't particularly like steam either. Although I must admit they are doing wonders in bringing more attention to linux as a gaming platform with the new steam OS including improving open graphics drivers, or so I've heard. I prefer to buy the original physical copies of a game if I can, just my particular quirk but I just like having a real thing to put on my shelf.