So… Is this a good thing? Bad thing? Gut reaction says that probably not the greatest for GOG, being detached from a huge publisher like CD Projekt probably isn’t great for a niche marketplace. In their faqs it states that GOG had a strong year financially but they would of course bill it that way. The question about why the new owner did so also just sounded disingenuous.
Interested to see where this goes from here. While I love gog and am a patron, their Linux support leaves a lot to be desired. The sole fact that cloud saves are such a pain to get working has led me to switch back to steam. I hope with these changes they can maybe get some support on Linux.
The most benefit-of-the-doubt read on this that I’ve got is that, as a publicly traded company, the small margins GOG operates in might not be worth CDPR’s time when they can get higher margins for the same investment elsewhere. Adding some of my own hopium and conjecture, based on the “Why is Michał Kiciński doing this?” section of the FAQ, I hope this means a semi-near future of closing up the last few gaps in GOG’s DRM-free promise.
One of my biggest pet peeves with GOG is how it handles multiplayer. Some games add a warning when multiplayer is only available via LAN and direct IP connections. I need a warning when the opposite is true, because if it relies on GOG Galaxy or some other server, it’s just DRM by another name. To their credit, this warning is usually there, but I’ve come across a few games’ store pages that left it to the imagination, and I’d have to go to the forums link to find someone complaining about it to be sure. Other games, like Doom 2016, just omit multiplayer from the GOG version entirely, because they can’t even fathom how to make multiplayer work in a self-hosted way.
What I’d like to see (I’m a programmer, but I’m not deep in the world of gaming software engineering) is for GOG to provide a drop-in multiplayer server that can serve as a self-hosted version of GOG Galaxy’s multiplayer functionality, so that even if the developer doesn’t see it as financially viable to ensure their game’s multiplayer lives on, GOG can do that for them and make any online game LAN-able. If that’s possible. In my head, it sure seems possible.
GOG Galaxy only handles lobbies, matchmaking and relaying connections to the host. So even if they provide a way to self host it, if the game uses dedicated servers to host sessions it still wouldn’t work if the game devs don’t provide the server runtime binaries. Only games that can host a session on the client would work without the server runtime.
If they’re using GOG matchmaking to find dedicated servers, then those binaries are in our hands already, as far as I know. Feel free to provide a counter example if you know of one. The whole point of using the store’s infrastructure is that the developer doesn’t have to pay for it, and I’ve never heard of a store that offers hosting for bespoke dedicated servers for different games.
Matchmaking is nothing more than a user database query. That database sits on GOG’s servers and the only thing GOG does is put users into a lobby and then send that data back to the clients so the game can show it to the user. And then when the game starts GOG connects the clients to the host. So developers don’t have to setup their own lobby and relay server. That host can be another client, then the developers don’t have to pay for anything, or a dedicated server which the devs have to provide and pay for themselves. And in case a game only does multiplayer with dedicated servers then clients do not have the server binaries unless the devs provide it.
I know how it works. Do you know of a game on GOG with dedicated servers that the company is paying for that also uses GOG’s matchmaking to find those dedicated servers? Because at that point, they may as well run the matchmaking themselves and open up the possibility for cross play, and I can’t imagine what value they’d get from GOG’s services. For instance, I’m pretty sure I’m hitting GOG’s matchmaking servers for the likes of Star Wars Battlefront II, but all that’s doing is registering player-run servers that it then connects me to.
The idea sounds like GameSpy back in the day for multiplayer games.
I feel like a lot of understanding behind the financial decisions around online games could happen if we explained to the kids what GameSpy was. Online was never “free”. Before microtransactions and Steam footing the bill, there were ads. But we had self-hosting as a backup plan back then.
I really want them to bring back self-hosting. Multiplayer games don’t need to have a limited lifespan.
I’d love to see legislation that if a game requires servers to play any portion of it, and those servers get taken offline, the source code must be released. Like, they’re already demonstrating that the game doesn’t hold enough value for them by shutting down the servers, so let the community take over.
I would love this as well. I think we should start with must be able to self host servers or use p2p servers though. You can have server software without it being open sourced, and I think that licensing wise it will be easier to pass a p2p requirement than a full open source requirement.
I would also prefer a self-hosted/P2P type setup as it would work better for older game where it’s a just a small group of players.
That being said, from my understanding, these days P2P is very rarely used.
It was free for the consumer, Nintendo just footed the bill.
And that likely stopped making financial sense once online multiplayer operated at larger scales. On PC, GameSpy servers came with ads. Even downloading patches for games meant going to an ad-supported third party web site.
Remember Mplayer aka Mplague?