Talk:GOG.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Poland (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Cyprus (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cyprus, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cyprus on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

List of available games[edit]

Yesterday I put up the list of games currently available from the GoG site, since I'm in the beta and this information is not widely available but a couple of people have asked about it. It was taken down because the list was deemed as advertising, but is this really accurate when Wikipedia also has extensive lists of the games available from other services like Xbox Live Arcade, the PSN store etc?Schaedenfreud82 (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Also since the beta is closed there MIGHT be something in the NDA about it and no one wants to break that 88.211.96.3 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In signing up for the beta I wasn't asked to sign an NDA.Schaedenfreud82 (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually you probably agreed to an NDA as part of the Terms of Service you clicked 'yes' on. That aside (fairly irrelevant since the beta's now over) the difference between this is that XBLA is a platform (ie it is the download service for the Xbox 360) whereas GOG is just another website selling PC games. Cynical (talk) 09:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

News coverage[edit]

To expand this article from its current mini-stub status we'll obviously need reliable sources. Those wishing to edit the article could check ["good old games" Google News] which links to a large number of relevant articles. Remember to pick reliable sources. Cynical (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Forum[edit]

I was gonna say, you could put that the earliest forum post was of July 21st for the journalism beta. check out [1] for more info. posted by weclock - - I don't feel like signing in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.182.4 (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if the date of the first forum post is important enough to mention here. Remember that you don't have to be logged in to edit: as this article isn't semiprotected you can change it without logging in. Cynical (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourcecode access claims[edit]

I remember that way back around the time of the first press coverage GOG representatives claimed they have access to the games' source code. Later those claims were denied, and GOG officials stated on their own forum that they do not in fact have the source code in any form. It might be a interesting fact to add to the article. However, I can't seem to be able to find it in the news articles where I recall seeing it - looks like someone has removed any mention of this. Does anyone have a reliable source that still carries this information in unaltered form? --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I don't have any such sources. Also, putting in a minor inaccurate statement from a preview into an article of stub length would probably be undue weight. Cynical (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What is there to say?[edit]

I want to expand this article, but what is there to talk about? Look to the Steam article for inspiration. Smurfy 23:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OH GOD THE SOURCES[edit]

I deleted all the sources.

Yes.

It just didn't seem like we needed to cite sources for any of these things, because you can find proof for just about all of them by going to GOG's front page.

Also the page looked awful in the edit. You had to search around to find any text amongst the lines and lines of citing.

If (read: when) you add the sources back, don't just revert the edit. Most of the claims in this article could be cited by one simple link to GOG's front page or something. All of the sources before were six-month-old news articles and previews of GOG before it was open.

Smurfy 23:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether the page looked awful or not is not a reason to remove the sources. I have restored them. If there are terrible inaccuracies in some references, then by all means they can be replaced but information needs to be referenced. Evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable, independent sources is also important in establishing notability.--Drat (Talk) 11:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Just because we can cite GOG's front page, doesn't mean we should. Sources which are independent of the subject of an article are greatly preferred. Cynical (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


GOG is closed[edit]

According to their website, GOG is defunct. The article should be updated.--Azarien (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

They are not closed. There's a lot of misinformation going around, and we'll know more tomorrow and Thursday (23rd). See the articles sourced at the end of the History section. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, yes. With the teaser trailer posted today, this is almost definitely a marketing stunt. Tomorrow we'll have some concrete info to add to the article. Whatever the outcome, this 'happening' certainly deserves some coverage. eyeball226 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this article even necessary?[edit]

Feels like there is little point to this article, and the game catalog part seems to border on advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.215.127 (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

GOG as a website/business meets the requirements for notability and is acceptable. The catalog itself is extraneous, however. --MASEM (t) 18:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Check that, the catalog of publishers/developers they offer is not a problem, as we're not listing out every game, only who they have worked deals with to republish the games. It's definitely not advertising. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Second that, afaik GOG's unique it's business model of offering DRM-free games, even games that originally had some form of copy protection, which makes them very notable. In light of this, the list of publishers is relevant information imo - they do have quite a few titles stripper from all forms of copy protection from major publishers, which in many cases is quite surprising - both that GOG have managed to secure such contracts, and that notable studios apparently have agreed upon it. Looking at the other digital download game distribution services listed on Wikipedia, several articles even contain partial listings of game catalogs.

83.227.152.68 (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

GOG.com is a Cypriot company[edit]

I have reverted 123unoduetre's edition, because the article clearly states where the company is registered, no matter where the parent company is from. Horgelblob (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the place of the registration. However I would like to point out in the article where the company operates. It is obvious that nowadays companies can get registered in a country which has the lowest tax etc. I would like to add to the article the distinction between where the company operates and where it is registered. Does it make sense to you Horgelblob? 123unoduetre (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion GOG.com simply operates globally and not in a single country. From this point of view it doesn't have a particular "nationality" and is "multinational" just like, e.g. Samsung, Microsoft or KGHM Polska Miedź. Horgelblob (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
You could argue they are based in Cyprus because of where they are registered, but their headquarters are in Poland and to say otherwise is ridiculous. 212.219.8.230 (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The work page says the actual location is Warsaw http://www.gog.com/work#gog_mentality And Thus, I Can Do It (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
They have offices and workers in Warsaw. Not that it does any good for this article, but they have made it clear on their forums that they are 'based' in Cyprus strictly for financial reasons, specifically to avoid Poland's VAT taxes and stricter regulations. We can make this clear in the article if necessary, but it seems like a trifling detail. Grayfell (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Always DRM-free or not?[edit]

The first paragraph of the Features section was recently changed to state: "[The games] are typically, but not always distributed without digital rights management.". The second paragraph of the same section contradicts this with: "Unlike some other services, the games do not use digital rights management." Of course there is some elbowroom on what is or is not considered DRM, but I think it should be at least clarified. The reasoning employed for the edit was that some games require CD keys which occasionally turned out to be invalid. My personal opinion on this is that this does not constitute DRM; the decisive factor should be whether copying, installation or execution is limited in any way for the buyer. Since CD keys are part of the digital product that is purchased, and can be backed up and copied normally alongside the program itself, there is no such limitation. Invalid keys being issued is a product defect that is resolved through customer support. --84.227.107.55 (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I tentatively agree. Product keys are not the same as DRM, although it seems like a bit of a grey area. I'm assuming that the CD keys in question are from older games and are verified off-line, right? If so, that seems like a separate case and it's not really worth mentioning in the article, in my opinion. Grayfell (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
GOG has only one such game now - Neverwinter Nights 2. And the key is not even needed for the game. It's only needed for the network gameplay, and official servers are down anyway. The only scenario when those keys are useful is local network play. I think GOG can try embedding those keys in the installer to avoid the whole hassle, but it was probably not easy for them. So I'm not really sure whether this is DRM. Probably yes for the network playing, however it's not a major part of the game which is primarily single player. --Bahaltener (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)