I like GOG.com; I really do. They're no DRM-stance and selling of
classic games are both very commendable. Their client remains a
completely optional way of enjoying games. And while they've never
really been a big name in the industry, they were one of the first
digital storefronts to stand up to the behemoth that is Steam.

But the people who run the company have shown again and again they
really have no idea what they're doing. So many of their problems are
of their own making, and you sometimes wonder what's going on in their
heads.

This latest gaffe isn't the most serious, but that almost makes it
more ridiculous. They recently added - and promoted on their store's
front page - a new third-party service - called the "Piggyback
Interactive Map". It's a tool that offers users a high-resolution map
of "Cyberpunk 2077's" game-world, complete with quest-markers, game
progress and user-notes, designed to help players work their way
through CD Project RED's massive opus. It's actually quite a useful
tool, and similar things have been made for other games (including,
off the top of my head, "Skyrim" and "Grand Theft Auto 5"). But
there's a few problems:

First of all, it costs $5.99. That's not a lot of money, but in every
other instance these maps have been made available for free. That GOG
is selling it also has an unfortunate implication that they're making
money off a game they made too complicated to finish without
third-party tools (that's not the case, but that implication exists).
To some, it feels like double-dipping.

But more of a concern - especially to GOG users - is that the service
is online only. There's no download; you can only access the map and
service through a web-browser, and only after a paid registration. For
a company that has made its reputation based on its "no DRM" stance,
this can seem like a betrayal.

GOG users are, to be charitable, upset by the sale of this product and
are demanding it be removed from the storefront. And - while I'm not
entirely sure I agree - I understand that feeling. Plus, it's not as
if GOG should have been surprised by this reaction; they suffered a
similar furor just a few months ago when they offered a DRM-encumbered
version of "Hitman" on their store (ultimately, GOG removed the game).

"Piggyback" probably seemed easy money to GOG; a cheap product that
would hopefully sell thousands of copies (with GOG taking 30% of each
sale), and as an added bonus, it promoted "Cyberpunk 2077". But they
really should have seen this one coming; you can't loudly promote how
you are all about the "you buy it, you own it" philosophy, then turn
around and sell an online-only service and not expect people to call
you out on your hypocrisy... especially if this isn't the first time
you've done such a thing.

I don't know what GOG is going to do in this situation. I'm not
entirely sure that they /should/ do anything. But continued mistakes
like this only reinforce the idea that the people leading the company
have no clue as to what they're doing, and it's not a good look.

>the "Piggyback Interactive Map".
Here it is:
https://www.gog.com/en/game/cyberpunk2077_piggyback_interactive_map
These exist for Elden Ring as well, with similar 'premium features' if you
pay. They are actually kind of neat, if you're the completionist type. In
any case, I hadn't known this existed, so thx for the headsup! Looks like
it has a free version to use as well.

rms

On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 4:26:56 PM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> I like GOG.com; I really do. They're no DRM-stance and selling of
> classic games are both very commendable. Their client remains a
> completely optional way of enjoying games. And while they've never
> really been a big name in the industry, they were one of the first
> digital storefronts to stand up to the behemoth that is Steam.
>
> But the people who run the company have shown again and again they
> really have no idea what they're doing. So many of their problems are
> of their own making, and you sometimes wonder what's going on in their
> heads.
>
> This latest gaffe isn't the most serious, but that almost makes it
> more ridiculous. They recently added - and promoted on their store's
> front page - a new third-party service - called the "Piggyback
> Interactive Map". It's a tool that offers users a high-resolution map
> of "Cyberpunk 2077's" game-world, complete with quest-markers, game
> progress and user-notes, designed to help players work their way
> through CD Project RED's massive opus. It's actually quite a useful
> tool, and similar things have been made for other games (including,
> off the top of my head, "Skyrim" and "Grand Theft Auto 5"). But
> there's a few problems:
>
> First of all, it costs $5.99. That's not a lot of money, but in every
> other instance these maps have been made available for free. That GOG
> is selling it also has an unfortunate implication that they're making
> money off a game they made too complicated to finish without
> third-party tools (that's not the case, but that implication exists).
> To some, it feels like double-dipping.
>
> But more of a concern - especially to GOG users - is that the service
> is online only. There's no download; you can only access the map and
> service through a web-browser, and only after a paid registration. For
> a company that has made its reputation based on its "no DRM" stance,
> this can seem like a betrayal.
>
> GOG users are, to be charitable, upset by the sale of this product and
> are demanding it be removed from the storefront. And - while I'm not
> entirely sure I agree - I understand that feeling. Plus, it's not as
> if GOG should have been surprised by this reaction; they suffered a
> similar furor just a few months ago when they offered a DRM-encumbered
> version of "Hitman" on their store (ultimately, GOG removed the game).
>
> "Piggyback" probably seemed easy money to GOG; a cheap product that
> would hopefully sell thousands of copies (with GOG taking 30% of each
> sale), and as an added bonus, it promoted "Cyberpunk 2077". But they
> really should have seen this one coming; you can't loudly promote how
> you are all about the "you buy it, you own it" philosophy, then turn
> around and sell an online-only service and not expect people to call
> you out on your hypocrisy... especially if this isn't the first time
> you've done such a thing.
>
> I don't know what GOG is going to do in this situation. I'm not
> entirely sure that they /should/ do anything. But continued mistakes
> like this only reinforce the idea that the people leading the company
> have no clue as to what they're doing, and it's not a good look.

I don't know what the issue is, it's a 3rd party making it and asking for
money for it, much as any other mod, just with a price. I don't see why
GoG shoudn't be allowed to sell it and make some of the profit on
something for their own game. It seems like it's about time mod
makers could make some mulah off their efforts.

I don't like the idea of a mod being only online for an offline game,
as drm, for a seller that proposes unencumbered offerings though,
if that's where the issue comes in.

- Justisaur

On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 06:34:33 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
<justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 4:26:56 PM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>I don't know what the issue is, it's a 3rd party making it and asking for
>money for it, much as any other mod, just with a price. I don't see why
>GoG shoudn't be allowed to sell it and make some of the profit on
>something for their own game. It seems like it's about time mod
>makers could make some mulah off their efforts.

The argument it that GOG has made its reputation as a DRM-free shop; a
place where (their words) "you buy it, you own it". They promote the
idea that if you get a product from them (and download it rather than
use their client), that product will always be available to you. "Make
games last forever" they say. An product that is dependent on a
third-party (as this one is) runs directly contrary to that
philosophy.

Had the product been released as a stand-alone thing, people likely
would not have been upset (it's not an impossible feat). But making
the service reliant on a the good graces of a third-party is the sort
of thing that goes against GOG's policy, and they're being called on
that hypocrisy.

But the point of my comment was that - regardless of where you feel on
the sale of the product itself - this is an issue the people running
GOG should have seen ahead of time, and the fact that they didn't -
just like they were unable to predict the angry responses to many of
their other gaffes - speaks a lot about their competencies.