GOG, CD Projekt's online store for digital games distribution, has always branded itself around DRM-free games. "We are GOG.com, the DRM-free home for a curated selection of games," reads a notice on the front page, and each game page has a section that says "no activation or online connection required to play." Because of this, many have come to see GOG as a haven for games preservation, freeing games from different launchers and storefronts, and allowing players to actually own them in totality, to play however and wherever they choose. However, the latest major release on the platform, IO Interactive's 2016 Hitman reboot, has angered some fans by locking features behind an online check-in. While this doesn't technically stop you from playing offline - Hitman's story and bonus missions can be played offline - the majority of features require a connection to IO Interactive's server, such as Escalation missions, Elusive Targets and user-created Contracts. There is a prominent warning on the game's store page that says this, though some users are claiming it launched without this warning. However, what isn't mentioned in this warning is that major parts of the game's progression system are also locked behind online connectivity. Unlocking new weapons, new starting locations, location mastery and getting your mission scores require a persistent internet connection. "In other words," says GOG user HeavilyAugmented in his review, "playing the game offline means you never unlock new content and you'll have to start with a default loadout of a regular suit and silenced pistol always."

The game's page is being flooded with negative reviews, and currently sits at an average rating of 1.4/5 (for comparison, the game's Metacritic page currently sits at a 7.5 average user rating). A GOG team member named chandra made a post on the GOG forums thanking users for bringing the issue to their attention, and says they will give an update "in the coming weeks," but also mentions that users are free to use their right to refund the game if they are not satisfied. "At the same time," the post continues, "while we’re open for meritful discussion and feedback, we will not tolerate review bombing and will be removing posts that do not follow our review guidelines."

This response only drew more ire, with many users feeling the term "review bombing," often applied to when fans swarm a product's user reviews with frivolous complaints, was not appropriate here. "It's not 'review bombing' when the reviews give better information on what is actually locked behind online DRM than the game's store page," said GOG forum user Breja. Though chandra clarified that they would only be removing reviews that breach their review guidelines, it has done little to calm the angered fans, and left them with an interesting question: should a storefront like GOG be selling a game when the majority of its content is gated behind an online connection?

Hitman - Game of the Year Edition GOG Store Page

 

[Exidous]

Most of the blowback is because GOG is so great for this normally. Not just great, they're the only option. All the other major distributors use DRM, everywhere, all the time.

Just don't let your dismay of this being on GOG redound on GOG itself. There's no indication that GOG wanted this to happen, let alone wants games with always-online drm nonsense in the future. I don't doubt their intentions

The only thing to doubt is GOG's gatekeeping. And frankly, the review bombing of this shitty drm game is sufficient to make sure the developer doesn't profit from what I assume was calculated ambiguity to get this crap on GOG in the first place. GOG's no-review-bombing policy is just necessary to mollify developers. But users gonna user.

I honestly don't know how GOG should come down on this issue in the future. It's not identical to traditional DRM which isn't permitted on GOG, and at the same time they don't want to cast too wide a net that blocks out games that actually do use online content in a non-stealth-DRM way. I think what the devs did here is reprehensible, but that doesn't make GOG's best move clear.

 

[eyeball226]

I disagree that GOG is not to blame. They promote themselves as a "curated" store that only sells things they consider good enough. So there are two possibilities:

Either they considered a game that arbitrarily locks a significant amount of its content behind a connection to the dev's servers to be ok, or they didn't actually try the game out before releasing it. Either way the blame lies squarely with them.

IOI are to blame in as much as they made some horribly anti-consumer choices in making the game, but ultimately GOG are the ones who decided to release what IOI gave them. The only thing that would excuse GOG is some kind of bait-and-switch on IOI's part.

 

[Exidous]

I disagree that GOG is not to blame. They promote themselves as a "curated" store that only sells things they consider good enough.

The top search result for "gog curated" is a 2018 forum post begging them to stop using the word "curated"

Either they considered a game that arbitrarily locks a significant amount of its content behind a connection to the dev's servers to be ok, or they didn't actually try the game out before releasing it. Either way the blame lies squarely with them.

You pay GOG once. For software. Forever. You do not pay them to playtest the games. And when it comes to developers with lots of titles, it would be a waste of their resources to do so. They should rely on the word of the developer in such cases.

Of course, GOG (made its name), in many, many cases making old games playable on modern hardware, but that's not the same thing as making sure you get the experience you wanted, whatever that may be.

The only thing that would excuse GOG is some kind of bait-and-switch on IOI's part.

Ding ding ding. This is a developer that indicated their software did "not have DRM"

In your view, that makes them liars. Spend more time on that, and less time ragging on literally the only platform that comes close to facilitating your views on game distribution.

 

[eyeball226]

The top search result for "gog curated" is a 2018 forum post begging them to stop using the word "curated"

You're kind of proving my point - that's a GOG user asking them to stop. What exactly do you think that thread is in response to if not GOG claiming to run a curated store?
They have not stopped by the way, GOG's "curation" continues to be bizarre at best. As an example, they initially turned down Opus Magnum, only changing their minds after months of petitioning.

You pay GOG once. For software. Forever. You do not pay them to playtest the games. And when it comes to developers with lots of titles, it would be a waste of their resources to do so. They should rely on the word of the developer in such cases.

Again, GOG is the one that claims to playtest things. Often when users complain about delays GOG claims that things take longer to arrive because they test things before putting them on the store. This isn't me saying they should playtest the games, this is something they have claimed that they do.

Ding ding ding. This is a developer that indicated their software did "not have DRM"

In your view, that makes them liars. Spend more time on that, and less time ragging on literally the only platform that comes close to facilitating your views on game distribution.

Do you have anything remotely close to evidence for that though? Based on what GOG has said about their "process" it's just as likely IOI sent this particular version over for GOG to review and GOG checked it over and saw no issues whatsoever.

Again, GOG are the ones that claim they review everything they release. Either it isn't true, or they did a terrible job of it. IOI are obviously going to do as little work on the GOG release as they can so it's not surprising that they tried this.

The surprise is that GOG accepted it - technically speaking there is no DRM on this release but if the GOG curators had two braincells to rub together they could have easily foreseen this response to the game in its current form.

EDIT: By the way, all of this criticism is coming from a place of being a long time GOG user and member of their forums (over ten years). I'm plenty familiar with the things they do or at least claim to do and I wouldn't be as annoyed as I am if I didn't care that they're the only platform that really facilitates my preferred type of game distribution. To see them pissing away their USP is disappointing to say the least.

 

[Exidous]

You're kind of proving my point - that's a GOG user asking them to stop. What exactly do you think that thread is in response to if not GOG claiming to run a curated store?

My point is it's not an emphasized claim anymore, evidently for three years. Early on GOG was aiming for a particular image, but in the modern scheme of game platforms, it's niche has changed from "good old" curated games to essentially not-DRM. The word curated still appears on their website, but it appears vestigial both as used by GOG now and as a practical matter.

Again, GOG is the one that claims to playtest things. Often when users complain about delays GOG claims that things take longer to arrive because they test things before putting them on the store. This isn't me saying they should playtest the games, this is something they have claimed that they do.

In (old) games they themselves adapted to work with modern OSes, they tried to test them, but expressly disclaim the responsibility to do so in their user agreement. https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212632089-GOG-User-Agreement?product=gog. I'm not even sure they do (m)any of those patches/ports anymore. I suspect testing is not the norm, but the exception - and disproportionately concerns the games they have modified, rather than straight-from-developer releases.

So in the instances you're talking about, it's probably a bullshit excuse.

Do you have anything remotely close to evidence for that though? Based on what GOG has said about their "process" it's just as likely IOI sent this particular version over for GOG to review and GOG checked it over and saw no issues whatsoever.

Uh, if you're demanding evidence a "just as likely" standard is a bit unfair, no?

I don't know what the developer-GOG interface looks like. It must be something more than the form at https://www.gog.com/indie but as a practical matter I know it's something less than robust playtesting by GOG. I suspect developers must represent to GOG that each game submitted does not include DRM - the alternative would be weird, right?

Again, GOG are the ones that claim they review everything they release. Either it isn't true, or they did a terrible job of it.

This claim I want to see. I assume you mean review as in game review, as in play each for hours, which I doubt they do. If they used the word "review" I suspect they meant they look at the submission and scan the executables and "reviewed" whatever the developer submitted describing it. Oh, and packed the installer - maybe.

The surprise is that GOG accepted it - technically speaking there is no DRM on this release but if the GOG curators had two braincells to rub together they could have easily foreseen this response to the game in its current form.

But that brings us right back to the top line issue: is it the distribution platform's fault that a game is all but designed to skirt its rules? And why isn't dumping on the game alone a sufficient remedy for the developer's malfeasance?

My argument is that the answer to whether GOG should change its policy to prevent this specific scenario - online-locked content - is nonobvious. It's fair to be pissed off at the developer for doing it, it's fair to think it doesn't jive with the rest of GOG's offerings, but I don't think it's fair to assert GOG definitely should have prevented this game from appearing on their platform as is.

 

[eyeball226]

My point is it's not an emphasized claim anymore, evidently for three years. Early on GOG was aiming for a particular image, but in the modern scheme of game platforms, it's niche has changed from "good old" curated games to essentially not-DRM. The word curated still appears on their website, but it appears vestigial both as used by GOG now and as a practical matter.

What do you mean "evidently for three years"? Are you under the impression that google presents results in reverse chronological order and that the top result being from 2018 means it's the last time it was mentioned?

You do realise that they claim to be a curated store on their front page right now? If you click that claim on the front page, it takes you to their "about us" page where they state as one of their USPs:

Hand-picking the best in gaming​

A selection of great DRM-free games, from modern hits to all-time classics, that you really shouldn't miss.​

A curated selection of games​

From exceptional AAAs, unique indies to the best of classic gaming. Every game is here because we chose it for you.​

How much emphasis is enough for you? Why would you make the rather bold claim that they haven't claimed this since 2018 when it's on their website right now?

In (old) games they themselves adapted to work with modern OSes, they tried to test them, but expressly disclaim the responsibility to do so in their user agreement. https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212632089-GOG-User-Agreement?product=gog. I'm not even sure they do (m)any of those patches/ports anymore. I suspect testing is not the norm, but the exception - and disproportionately concerns the games they have modified, rather than straight-from-developer releases.

So in the instances you're talking about, it's probably a bullshit excuse.

I'm not talking about compatibility testing, I'm talking about their curation process. They claim to play the games to see if they're they sort of thing their customers would want.

Uh, if you're demanding evidence a "just as likely" standard is a bit unfair, no?

I don't know what the developer-GOG interface looks like. It must be something more than the form at https://www.gog.com/indie but as a practical matter I know it's something less than robust playtesting by GOG. I suspect developers must represent to GOG that each game submitted does not include DRM - the alternative would be weird, right?

Well given the nebulous nature of trying to define DRM*, it makes more sense that they ok each game on an individual basis rather than just a contractual obligation for there to be no DRM. The game was removed today after talks with IOI and the fact they didn't do it sooner implies to me that they needed to renegotiate with IOI to even remove the game from sale. If the game was found to be breaching a "no-DRM" clause then they could have pulled it much earlier and looked better for it.

*One person's DRM is another person's totally reasonable game design choice after all.

This claim I want to see. I assume you mean review as in game review, as in play each for hours, which I doubt they do. If they used the word "review" I suspect they meant they look at the submission and scan the executables and "reviewed" whatever the developer submitted describing it. Oh, and packed the installer - maybe.

They claim to only sell games that they think are worthy of the store. That implies they have a way of determining that worthiness, which one would assume includes actually playing the games.

But that brings us right back to the top line issue: is it the distribution platform's fault that a game is all but designed to skirt its rules? And why isn't dumping on the game alone a sufficient remedy for the developer's malfeasance?

My argument is that the answer to whether GOG should change its policy to prevent this specific scenario - online-locked content - is nonobvious. It's fair to be pissed off at the developer for doing it, it's fair to think it doesn't jive with the rest of GOG's offerings, but I don't think it's fair to assert GOG definitely should have prevented this game from appearing on their platform as is.

They certainly share the blame if they claim to hand pick the games that they allow on the store, yes. Hitman 2016 in its present form was not at all a good fit for the store, so either they don't really "hand pick" games, or they did a bad job with this one. It doesn't take many braincells to realise that a game with a substantial amount of single player content arbitrarily locked online would piss a lot of people off.

 

[Exidous]

Are you the 2018 complainer? This is apparently all just about the curated thing for you. Forget the curated thing. You want to literal Nintendo Seal of Quality them (look it up, not a seal of game quality, it just meant approved and compatible).

What's GOG's responsibility, as a game distribution platform with the rule: no DRM?

You need to disentangle your game quality preferences (triggered by "curated") from your recommendation on what the distribution platform should be doing. And you're crossing these wires on the basis of bland market-speak on the website instead of the revealed preferences of the people running GOG.

If you think GOG should dump all its bad games, they've got a long way to go before they get to this one, if they're going in quality-ascending order. You already conceded this isn't technically DRM.

So what's left? GOG should be actively policing edge cases like this? Spending resources on hounding developers who are only very, very, very recently and sparingly willing to release their games on GOG's platform without traditional DRM? DRM, which suffuses the vast majority of modern PC game releases? You'll note this is the "2016" edition.

All that stacked against: they could just let users review it negatively.

Don't get me wrong, I'm usually a proponent of the value of purity, but this is just stupid if you want to reduce the prevalence of DRM. Given the reality of the industry, GOG should be engaging with these developers, which won't happen if GOG steps out to block their games for not-rule-violations.

 

[eyeball226]

Are you the 2018 complainer? This is apparently all just about the curated thing for you. Forget the curated thing. You want to literal Nintendo Seal of Quality them (look it up, not a seal of game quality, it just meant approved and compatible).

Nope, blissfully unaware of that thread until you linked to it. Stop trying to deflect from your own silly mistake. Apparently the curated thing mattered to you when you thought it was some kind of slam dunk that hadn't been mentioned for three years. As soon as I point out that it's still plastered all over their website it's suddenly my weird obsession.

And no, I've never interpreted Nintendo Seal of Quality to refer to the quality of the game. GOG's no DRM promise is like the Nintendo Seal of Quality, it means that things found on their store fulfil certain technical requirements. None of this has anything to do with the quality of the game.

What's GOG's responsibility, as a game distribution platform with the rule: no DRM?

To not release games with DRM.

You need to disentangle your game quality preferences (triggered by "curated") from your recommendation on what the distribution platform should be doing. And you're crossing these wires on the basis of bland market-speak on the website instead of the revealed preferences of the people running GOG.

What on earth makes you think this is a game quality preference? This is a glaring technical issue that GOG should have picked up on when playtesting it (for their curation).

You seem to think that I think it's a poor quality game and that GOG shouldn't have approved it on that basis. You're the one that's crossing wires.

My entire point is that the game shouldn't have been on the store because it broke the rules in a technical sense. When I say this should have been picked up by the curation team, I don't mean "because that makes it a bad game".

What I mean is that in the process of playing the game to decide whether it is good or not, the fact that it breaks the rules should have become apparent. Either GOG approved this game without testing it, or they tested it and went "that's fine".

If you think GOG should dump all its bad games, they've got a long way to go before they get to this one, if they're going in quality-ascending order. You already conceded this isn't technically DRM.

No, because this isn't about bad games. Hitman 2016 is (supposedly) a very good game, it's just one that doesn't belong on GOG because it doesn't fit the technical requirements. As for whether this is DRM or not - how exactly do you justify putting progression in a single player game server-side? There's nothing about it that couldn't be done locally, therefore its purpose is simply to make the player "want" to connect to the server because the offline mode is gimped. It's the illusion of choice.

So what's left? GOG should be actively policing edge cases like this? Spending resources on hounding developers who are only very, very, very recently and sparingly willing to release their games on GOG's platform without traditional DRM? DRM, which suffuses the vast majority of modern PC game releases? You'll note this is the "2016" edition.

Yes! It's absolutely GOG's responsibility to uphold their own rules. No hounding is necessary, just a simple "We won't be releasing the game as-is for the following reason(s)."
Now I know your position is that "sneaky developer tried to get one over GOG", but since GOG claims to test games this is really something they should have picked up on. By claiming to be a curated store, GOG has voluntarily taken on responsibility for what they choose to release.
They chose poorly this time, they've rectified it and I've forgiven them. The fact that this worked out in the end doesn't absolve them of that responsibility.

All that stacked against: they could just let users review it negatively.

Don't get me wrong, I'm usually a proponent of the value of purity, but this is just stupid if you want to reduce the prevalence of DRM. Given the reality of the industry, GOG should be engaging with these developers, which won't happen if GOG steps out to block their games for not-rule-violations.

If they had allowed this to remain, it would have rendered GOG's word essentially worthless. By all means engage with the developers, but use that engagement to explain why aspects of their game design would be received negatively rather than just roll over and take whatever the developer is willing to give.

 

[Exidous]

You conceded it's not technically DRM. Therefore, the developers didn't break a rule. Thus, you're using a double standard to criticize your-only-hope games distribution platform in order to push them to a self-destructive policy for the reasons I already laid out.

What you're left - given that concession - is that the not-DRM in the game renders the game bad and because GOG is so "curated," they shouldn't let such a bad game on their platform.

If this is about DRM, "curated" is an irrelevant claim, which is the paradigm I've been trying to push this discussion to. If your argument is, as it appears to be now, the concededly-not-DRM in this game should count as DRM for purposes of GOG's rules then you need to retract your concession.

At which point, by not being a twit about your contradiction, I'll have one over on you for this:

Stop trying to deflect from your own silly mistake. Apparently the curated thing mattered to you when you thought it was some kind of slam dunk that hadn't been mentioned for three years. As soon as I point out that it's still plastered all over their website it's suddenly my weird obsession.

Sheesh.

Yes! It's absolutely GOG's responsibility to uphold their own rules. No hounding is necessary, just a simple "We won't be releasing the game as-is for the following reason(s)."

That's not what they did, they disappeared it and are likely mid-burning the bridge with the developer. Presumably because of others' equivalent of your complaining at GOG instead of at the developer.

Purity is enforceable when you're the majority. Trying to achieve it when you're the minority (and here, solitary qualifying entity) is usually a mix of impossible and self-destructive. Disappearing the game was a strategic mistake by GOG, and pushing for it was a worse mistake by the purportedly anti-DRM internet warriors like yourself.

I expect we can look forward to fewer modern developer releases on GOG, and a bigger-than 2016-2021 time delay if and when we do get them as a direct consequence of these events. Is that what you wanted?

As for whether this is DRM or not - how exactly do you justify putting progression in a single player game server-side? There's nothing about it that couldn't be done locally, therefore its purpose is simply to make the player "want" to connect to the server because the offline mode is gimped. It's the illusion of choice.

I don't justify it. It's the developer trying to limit access to make more money. But if you think that is a sufficient reason to ban such a developer, I invite you to join me in my quixotic crusade against copyright, it has fewer (if any) immediate negative consequences than the tact you've taken here.

 

[BeanMKW]

People should just pirate the game so they lose sales

wow very good not illegal suggestion

 

[BeanMKW]

I hope this debacle irreparably further damages their reputation

:/

 

[the_randomizer]

wow very good not illegal suggestion

Get over it lol

 

[BeanMKW]

Get over it lol

i am, im just trolling

 

[the_randomizer]

i am, im just trolling

Didn't know text could convey emotion

 

[BeanMKW]

Didn't know text could convey emotion

i dont have any emotion lmao