GOG no longer DRM-free?

[MusicallyInspired]

Unfortunately, the game I composed for by Himalaya Studios, Mage's Initiation, does require GOG Galaxy for its achievement integration. It is single-player only and won't work without it. I personally think this was a bit of a bad move on Himalaya's part. So that's at least one single player-only game on GOG that technically has Galaxy DRM.

I think modern day achievements are a current form of Sierra's own points system in a way. The only difference is they are permanent to an account and don't reset when you start a new game. Though, as I understand it, I think it's possible on most clients/systems to reset your achievements? I know it is with Steam....at least I think it is. One of them somewhere is.

[DeadPoolX]

Unfortunately, the game I composed for by Himalaya Studios, Mage's Initiation, does require GOG Galaxy for its achievement integration. It is single-player only and won't work without it. I personally think this was a bit of a bad move on Himalaya's part. So that's at least one single player-only game on GOG that technically has Galaxy DRM.

But that's not quite the same thing. DRM means there's a barrier that either prevents you from playing the game itself or accessing some part of the game, such as DLC. You could say that copy protection (like the kind Sierra's games had) was an early form of DRM.

Achievements are basically a "pat on the back" which aren't needed to play the game.

Unless you're saying that in order to play Mage's Initiation you need to have achievements integrated through Galaxy, in which case that'd be DRM because you couldn't play without it.

I think modern day achievements are a current form of Sierra's own points system in a way. The only difference is they are permanent to an account and don't reset when you start a new game. Though, as I understand it, I think it's possible on most clients/systems to reset your achievements? I know it is with Steam....at least I think it is. One of them somewhere is.

I don't think you can reset achievements on Steam. Achievements are unique to each game, so I don't even see how a reset would work. Some games do allow you to reset your progress, but that's not the same thing as achievements.

And I don't see achievements as similar at all to Sierra's point system. Sierra's point system let you know you did things correctly and explored all you could. Achievements don't tell you that.

[MusicallyInspired]

Unless you're saying that in order to play Mage's Initiation you need to have achievements integrated through Galaxy, in which case that'd be DRM because you couldn't play without it.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The game will not work outside of GOG Galaxy. Himalaya has said actually that if you want a truly DRM-free version of the game to get it from the Humble Store instead which doesn't require any client like the GOG or Steam version does.

I don't think you can reset achievements on Steam. Achievements are unique to each game, so I don't even see how a reset would work. Some games do allow you to reset your progress, but that's not the same thing as achievements.

You're right. I had thought that some games allowed you to reset them but apparently not for Steam itself. I was wrong there.

And I don't see achievements as similar at all to Sierra's point system. Sierra's point system let you know you did things correctly and explored all you could. Achievements don't tell you that.
[/quote]

For adventure games they absolutely do. In fact, achievements can communicate that more than simple points do. Or at least point you in the right direction (no pun intended) with the achievement descriptions. For many adventure games achievements merely track your progress in the story. Then there are extra achievements for things that aren't necessary to complete the game. These are akin to bonus points in an old Sierra adventure game to get full score. So when you finish an adventure game with achievements on Steam and they're not all 100% unlocked, you can read the labels/descriptions to get a hint at what you missed, which is more descriptive than a "145 of 160" score at the end of a game. Most of the time these can be just silly extra things that aren't part of the story at all (like attempt to open a door in The Stanley Parable 6 times or something), but some of them are for extra actions that would normally get you those final few points in a Sierra adventure game. I can't think of any examples right now but I know they exist. I haven't played an adventure game in a while in all honesty...I'm pretty sure the Double Fine LA remasters have some. But my point is they can exist. Which is why I think achievements can be similar to the old score system. That's not usually the way their handled right now (apart from completing certain levels/chapters/events in any given game which happens all the time. At that point it might as well play a score sound like in a Sierra game because it's the same thing).

[Rath Darkblade]

Oh? Now I'm even more curious (sorry). DPX, you've said: "It's not surprising to see that achievements originated with consoles."
Sorry, why do you say that? Just confused, that's all. I've never owned a console (apart from the very old Atari and Commodore 64, when I was a kid in the 80s). Since I can use a PC to do more than just play games, I was just never interested in consoles as an adult.

You literally answered your own question, I think: Since I can use a PC to do more than just play games.

Consoles needed a way to keep people playing games, and needed something that PCs did not have when it came to gaming. And a way to say, "Look at what I've done!" (Show off achievements in profile).

OK ... so when it comes to gaming, what do PCs have that consoles don't? Now I'm even more confused (since I use a PC for games, but also for spreadsheets, documents, playing music etc.)

... when you finish an adventure game with achievements on Steam and they're not all 100% unlocked, you can read the labels/descriptions to get a hint at what you missed, which is more descriptive than a "145 of 160" score at the end of a game. Most of the time these can be just silly extra things that aren't part of the story at all (like attempt to open a door in The Stanley Parable 6 times or something), but some of them are for extra actions that would normally get you those final few points in a Sierra adventure game.

I can't think of any examples right now but I know they exist.

You're absolutely right, MusicallyInspired. I can think of several examples off the top of my head from "Dragon Age: Origins" -- for example, you get an achievement for:

1. Getting all the "talents" for being a sword-and-shield warrior
2. Getting all the "talents" for being a two-handed sword warrior
3. Getting all the "talents" for being a double-sword-wielding rogue
4. Getting all the "talents" for being a bow-slinging rogue
5. Getting all the rogue "talents" (e.g. sneak, pick locks etc.)
6. Romancing Alistair/Morrigan/Leliana/etc.
7. Romancing everyone (there's an achievement just for that)

...and then there are silly extra ones, such as..

1. Helping out a bunch of unlicensed <mages> and doing all their quests
2. Helping out a bunch of unlicensed <warriors> and doing all their quests
3. Finding all the lost love letters, hidden all over the place, and handing them in to some bar owner
...and so on. All in one game!

[Tawmis]

For adventure games they absolutely do. In fact, achievements can communicate that more than simple points do. Or at least point you in the right direction (no pun intended) with the achievement descriptions. For many adventure games achievements merely track your progress in the story. Then there are extra achievements for things that aren't necessary to complete the game. These are akin to bonus points in an old Sierra adventure game to get full score. So when you finish an adventure game with achievements on Steam and they're not all 100% unlocked, you can read the labels/descriptions to get a hint at what you missed, which is more descriptive than a "145 of 160" score at the end of a game. Most of the time these can be just silly extra things that aren't part of the story at all (like attempt to open a door in The Stanley Parable 6 times or something), but some of them are for extra actions that would normally get you those final few points in a Sierra adventure game. I can't think of any examples right now but I know they exist. I haven't played an adventure game in a while in all honesty...I'm pretty sure the Double Fine LA remasters have some. But my point is they can exist. Which is why I think achievements can be similar to the old score system. That's not usually the way their handled right now (apart from completing certain levels/chapters/events in any given game which happens all the time. At that point it might as well play a score sound like in a Sierra game because it's the same thing).

I think it varies. Like, in GEARS OF WAR, if you do 10 "perfect" reloads in a row you might get...

fully.png (10.87 KiB) Viewed 6632 times

But there's no "score" type thing for something like this in a Sierra game...

I mean, ya might laugh - but that's the kind of achievements there are - where they reward you not for "accomplishing" the next part or a part of the game - but doing something that might be otherwise difficult.

[Tawmis]

Oh? Now I'm even more curious (sorry). DPX, you've said: "It's not surprising to see that achievements originated with consoles."
Sorry, why do you say that? Just confused, that's all. I've never owned a console (apart from the very old Atari and Commodore 64, when I was a kid in the 80s). Since I can use a PC to do more than just play games, I was just never interested in consoles as an adult.

You literally answered your own question, I think: Since I can use a PC to do more than just play games.
Consoles needed a way to keep people playing games, and needed something that PCs did not have when it came to gaming. And a way to say, "Look at what I've done!" (Show off achievements in profile).

OK ... so when it comes to gaming, what do PCs have that consoles don't? Now I'm even more confused (since I use a PC for games, but also for spreadsheets, documents, playing music etc.)

It's that PCs CAN do more. You can use your PC to draft word documents, excel documents, create PDFs, VNC/RDC to another machine, etc.

Consoles needed something to say "We need something that PCs don't do for our games to make gaming on a console more interesting than gaming on a PC - 'Achievements.' How about when they do something, we give them 'Achievments' - and those 'Achievements' can be seen by anyone on their friends list. And that creates a friendly competitive spirit among their friends to unlock more Achievements. And let's put a point value to those Achievements, where 10 successful jumps in PITFALL without dying gives you the 'By Leaps And Bounds' Achievement and adds 10 points to your total profile score - but if they do 20 successful jumps in PITFALL they will unlock the 'Leap Over Tall Buildings' achievement that gives them 20 points to their profile. So now they have achievements to compete against, and points on their profile to rack up against one another!"

[DeadPoolX]

Oh? Now I'm even more curious (sorry). DPX, you've said: "It's not surprising to see that achievements originated with consoles."

Consoles needed a gimmick to keep players interested in paying for a service to compete against one another. These services were usually free on a computer, but up until the early-to-mid 2000s, the types of games available on a computer were different than those on a console.

In the 2000s we began to see games being made concurrently for both platforms, which — in my opinion — caused a lot of problems, such as taking away tried-and-true features like manually saving when and where we want.

Classic PC gamers were used to being able to save at our discretion, whereas classic console gamers weren't. Many developers used this ignorance to their advantage by making games with limited save mechanics because those are much easier to program and framed their laziness under the guise of "challenge" while ridiculing those who wanted to save as "save scummers."

I've never owned a console (apart from the very old Atari and Commodore 64, when I was a kid in the 80s). Since I can use a PC to do more than just play games, I was just never interested in consoles as an adult.

Just so you know... Commodore 64 wasn't a console, it was a computer. Atari was primarily known for their consoles (particularly their famous Atari 2600), but they also made computers as well.

Think of computers (both PC and MAC) as jack-of-all trades/general purpose machines whereas consoles are designed for a very specific purpose.

This means that while consoles can make gaming easier in some ways (you don't need to worry about upgrading components, all games SHOULD work right away, you don't anti-virus programs or firewalls, and you don't need to bother with OS updates or getting an entirely new OS) they're limited in their overall scope.

In contrast, computers can perform all sorts of business and productivity tasks, like Internet browsing, online shopping, graphic design, CAD, audio/video editing, game design and creation, etc., in addition to gaming. This also comes with a downside in that computers come in all sorts of configurations, so there are more problems that require troubleshooting. Also, computers require protective software, like anti-virus programs and firewalls, and need semi-regular updates.

Back during the MS-DOS days, just getting a game to actually run (which often required the use of a boot disk and managing EMS and/or XMS memory) computer gaming had some significant barriers, not the least of which was the high upfront cost of a computer.

Computers are still more expensive than consoles, but they can do a lot more and games are usually MUCH cheaper. The game prices I see on Steam, GOG, UPlay, Origin (not to mention sites like Humble Bundle or Fanatical) are often, at minimum, a good $20 less than their console counterparts. Some of this is due to licensing fees by Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo, but it's also because console games are still physical products sold in brick-and-mortar stores. The costs involved in shipping and packaging can be immense.

Fun Fact: Because "personal computer" (or PC) can technically refer to machines that run Windows, Linux, and Mac OS, the term Wintel was created years ago. It technically refers to a computer using an Intel processor that's running a Windows OS, but today it can also refer to a computer with an AMD processor as well. The defining feature is that some version of Windows is used. This term has never really caught on, at least with the public, so people still refer to all computers that don't run Mac OS as "PCs" even though it's not exactly correct.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The game will not work outside of GOG Galaxy. Himalaya has said actually that if you want a truly DRM-free version of the game to get it from the Humble Store instead which doesn't require any client like the GOG or Steam version does.

Okay, that's not good and runs contrary to GOG's stated purpose. I wonder if there's a way to run it without Galaxy. Even some Steam games can be run without starting the client, so it may be possible, just not intuitive or easy to do.

For adventure games they absolutely do. In fact, achievements can communicate that more than simple points do. Or at least point you in the right direction (no pun intended) with the achievement descriptions. For many adventure games achievements merely track your progress in the story. Then there are extra achievements for things that aren't necessary to complete the game. These are akin to bonus points in an old Sierra adventure game to get full score.

I can see what you're saying here, but most achievements I see fit into one of three categories:

1. Mission or Level-based: These achievements tell the player, "Hey! You've gotten to such-and-such area!"

2. Character-based: These generally involve upgrading your character, acquiring a new class/profession, or beating the game with a specific class/profession.

3. Silly or Nonsensical: These are achievements that're mostly there for humor or reward you for doing unnecessary — yet sometimes humorous — things that have nothing to do with the game's story or affects anything in-game other than possibly providing a brief chuckle.

So when you finish an adventure game with achievements on Steam and they're not all 100% unlocked, you can read the labels/descriptions to get a hint at what you missed, which is more descriptive than a "145 of 160" score at the end of a game.

True, but I've found that many achievements like this are vague. Whether or not that's done on purpose I couldn't tell you, but in my experience they rarely spell out what's really needed. I suppose that's still better than just a numerical score, though.

Most of the time these can be just silly extra things that aren't part of the story at all (like attempt to open a door in The Stanley Parable 6 times or something), but some of them are for extra actions that would normally get you those final few points in a Sierra adventure game.

For a while, Steam sold a game called Deadpool (based on the Marvel comic book character) and in the tutorial, there's an on-screen prompt to push a single button to get Deadpool to stand up. Once you do that and he stands, there's an achievement that pops up and Deadpool replies, "Oh... it's going to be one of THOSE games." It's too bad they no longer sell Deadpool on Steam as it was a pretty good action/RPG/platformer and was absolutely hilarious.

[Rath Darkblade]

Oh? Now I'm even more curious (sorry). DPX, you've said: "It's not surprising to see that achievements originated with consoles."

Consoles needed a gimmick to keep players interested in paying for a service to compete against one another. These services were usually free on a computer, but up until the early-to-mid 2000s, the types of games available on a computer were different than those on a console.

In the 2000s we began to see games being made concurrently for both platforms, which — in my opinion — caused a lot of problems, such as taking away tried-and-true features like manually saving when and where we want.

Classic PC gamers were used to being able to save at our discretion, whereas classic console gamers weren't. Many developers used this ignorance to their advantage by making games with limited save mechanics because those are much easier to program and framed their laziness under the guise of "challenge" while ridiculing those who wanted to save as "save scummers."

OK, thank you. I had no idea why some games allowed to "save where you want" and others only allowed to "save where we let you". Thanks!

I've never owned a console (apart from the very old Atari and Commodore 64, when I was a kid in the 80s). Since I can use a PC to do more than just play games, I was just never interested in consoles as an adult.

Just so you know... Commodore 64 wasn't a console, it was a computer. Atari was primarily known for their consoles (particularly their famous Atari 2600), but they also made computers as well.

Think of computers (both PC and MAC) as jack-of-all trades/general purpose machines whereas consoles are designed for a very specific purpose...
[/quote]

Great! This all makes much more sense about the difference between consoles and computers.

Yes, I'm aware that Commodore 64 was a computer. It's just that I could never do much with it, other than play games (saved on audio-tapes) and write/save programs in BASIC and store them on audio-tapes.

I cut my programming teeth on BASIC, back in the day. (Yup, I'm ancient). But then, I was 5-6 at the time.

Of course, nowadays if you tell kids that computers "back in my day" only had 64K of memory (and a blue screen with a light blue cursor), they'd roll their eyes and say "Aww Daaaaad, that's like so 1980."

[DeadPoolX]

OK, thank you. I had no idea why some games allowed to "save where you want" and others only allowed to "save where we let you". Thanks!

The reason also stems from the fact that up until the Seventh Generation of consoles (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii) the ability to save at the player's discretion was either absent or extremely limited.

Up until that point, consoles relied on passwords, battery backups (this was present on very few NES games), and 3.5" diskettes, although this was only ever available on the Famicom in Japan. Later on, memory cards were mostly used to keep track of checkpoint saves, but some PS1 and PS2 titles allowed you to save when and where you wanted, although you always loaded at a predetermined checkpoint.

This led to at least one generation having grown up with primarily consoles (due to their relatively low price compared to computers) and their nearly non-existent save game mechanics. Somewhere along the line this lack of saving transformed from "an annoying inconvenience" to "a badge of pride."

There's a term for games that're incredibly difficult and have limited save capabilities: Nintendo Hard. Oddly enough, many of those who champion the idea of games that're "Nintendo Hard" weren't even born when the NES (or even the SNES) was around. It's a weird mix of chest thumping and misplaced nostalgia.

Like I previously wrote, game developers who either grew up on consoles or were opportunistic saw this attitude shift and used it to their advantage. It's a lot easier to program set checkpoints into a game (especially if the developer wants to force a specific narrative) and for a while was the only way to program the same game for both PC and consoles.

Nowadays there's no excuse for excluding manual saves and quicksaves because every console has a hard drive. It's more about laziness and low expectations on the part of gamers coupled with the aforementioned chest thumping. To these nitwits, being able to save when and where you want is cheating. It's obviously not, but even if it was, how would that negatively affect someone else's single player game?

Even in games that have manual saves and quicksaves, I'm continually amazed at how people forget to save or how few save slots people use... and then brag about it, as if it's a heroic feat to only use five-to-ten save slots while mostly relying on quicksaves. Inevitably, something messes up and their game bugs out, leaving them with an unrecoverable save or forcing them to redo a lot of stuff.

[Rath Darkblade]

Sigh. How is it cheating to be able to save when and where you like? Suppose (as a hypothetical) that, for several game days, you've had a goal - to find and rescue a main NPC (non-player character) - and you've just done it. Personally, once that is done, I'd be so relieved that I'd like to save my game. Perhaps after that, I'd quit and think a little about what I've achieved and what it taught me about the game-world. (I'm thinking specifically of "Heroine's Quest", where the first major quest is to save some guy's life, after which you find the village in the wilderness).

Or, to take a simpler example: you're playing a game, glance at the clock, and realise it's getting close to lunch-time. If you like the game so much, then ... what's simpler than to save your game, quit, make and eat lunch, and resume your game?

As for not allowing this ... I'm sorry, but developers who don't allow this are jerks. (I'm thinking of a much stronger word, but I'd rather keep this family-friendly). What kind of a jerk-move is it to not allow gamers to save their game where/when they want, especially (as you point out) it's more easily done now, even with consoles? Suppose a player just slogged through a dungeon full of monsters, about to face the big bad, opens the door (without saving), fights the big bad ... and is beaten. Now he/she has to do the whole dungeon again. GAH!!! Cue pulling your hair out, etc.

All right, so I grew up with computer games where you can save at any time, so maybe I'm biased (or spoiled). But fighting the same "Big Boss" over and over until you win? To me, that's not a "badge of honour" -- more like a badge of stupid game design.

Am I too harsh? I hope not!

[DeadPoolX]

The whole "saving is cheating" ideology is actually somewhat tied to achievements. A lot of the "concern" shown towards manual saving and quicksaving is that people could easily gain achievements if they can save when and where they want. An often-cited worry is that if there's an achievement for making a certain number of headshots with a sniper rifle, someone could save, shoot, load, etc., until they gained the achievement.

What these morons don't seem to understand is that saving and loading doesn't cause the bullet to automatically hit the target. The player still needs to do the work. Saving and loading just means you don't have to start from scratch each time.

A different concern is with "save scumming." Normally, the term is limited to Rogue-Likes, a genre that's based on high difficulty and having one life, where if you die your save is erased.

However, when going beyond that genre, "save scumming" is used to describe someone who saves and loads repeatedly in order to gain the result they want. In most cases, this is really only an issue in games that have a high RNG-factor to them. The complaint goes on to say that players should just "take their lumps and move on" if something they do fails, like attempting to pick a lock or persuade someone.

While I can somewhat understand that concern, ultimately the decision should be left up to the player and how much they wish to roleplay. I think roleplaying is also an issue because many who cite this as a concern are power gamers, who attempt to max out their character at the expense of everything else, so because they lack self-control they want artificial restraints placed on them, and by extension, everyone who plays the game.

I also think there are many gamers out there who automatically assume players will replay their games multiple times in order to experience new things. Maybe that's true for some people, but gamers like Maia and me, we don't do that. We play the game once, mostly because no matter how hard we try, we end up making the same decisions in the end. So being able to save before and after important decisions and choices is integral for us so we can make different choices and experience differing results.

[Rath Darkblade]

Fair enough. *nods* I can quite understand it (i.e. where you and Maia come from).

As for power-gamers or other people who think that "saving is cheating" ... well. There's no point arguing with them. =\ But yes, I agree the decision should be left up to the player. After all, you are the one playing, not some power-gamer or RNGer, or the developer.

It boils down to this: since every person is different, every person will play a game differently. Some gamers like the "no-save" challenge, others don't -- that's all.

But calling people names because of this preference is immature and childish. More than that, I'd call it borderline bullying (if not actual bullying). What, are we in kindergarten? "You like to sa-ave! Neener neener", etc. Spare me.

[DeadPoolX]

You'll find that many gamers — particularly those who thrive in highly competitive environments — have the maturity of a blueberry muffin.

[MusicallyInspired]

Apparently a save-anywhere system that saves all character/item positions and all states and variables is really hard to do in modern games and the save files end up being huge, so they fall back to the checkpoint system. I know nothing about modern game development or what it's actually like, but they say it's too complex and complicated to create a save system like that anymore. Even though some devs actually do it.

[DeadPoolX]

Apparently a save-anywhere system that saves all character/item positions and all states and variables is really hard to do in modern games and the save files end up being huge, so they fall back to the checkpoint system. I know nothing about modern game development or what it's actually like, but they say it's too complex and complicated to create a save system like that anymore. Even though some devs actually do it.

While it's understandably a lot more difficult to do than relying on checkpoints, a "save anywhere" system is obviously possible because you see it in most RPGs and stealth-based games. The real issue here is the amount of work involved and many developers are either lazy or too focused on what THEY want and not what's most useful to the player.

Plus, I think more than a few of them grew up on consoles, so they're accustomed to extremely limited save systems, and as such, they see nothing wrong with using those same limited save systems in their games.

Some people point to bugs and/or save file corruption as drawbacks to a "save anywhere" system, but what they neglect to mention is that these same problems exist in checkpoint saves, autosaves, and save points. In fact, those problems are worse in games without a "save anywhere" system because you can easily have your entire playthrough broken that requires you to start over. Manual saves and quicksaves mean that you SHOULD be able to salvage your game by going back a few saves.

The odd thing is that even when a "save anywhere" system is implemented it's used... well, moronically by many gamers. For instance, Cyberpunk 2077 has manual saves, quicksaves, and autosaves (it may also have checkpoint saves, but I don't know for sure). After reading Cyberpunk 2077's Steam boards, it's obvious that many gamers are using an absurdly low number of manual saves. Some people rotate out only two or three. Even advocates of manually saving suggest that players "save once every hour or so."

Maybe it's because I grew up with the ability to freely save at my discretion, but whenever I have the capability to create manual saves, I make a ton of them. Some games limit how many you can have, but in games that don't limit you beyond whatever hard drive space you have free (like Dragon Age: Origins, Skyrim, the original Fallout games, or both Divinity: Original Sin games), I've easily made hundreds of saves.

Why not, right?

There's no downside — beyond taking up room on your hard drive — to this at all, so why limit yourself? Again, it's likely console-thinking or perhaps the idiotic chest thumping that goes along with stupid ideas like thinking saving is cheating or that saving is for "casual gamers."