Incline [Poll] Steam vs GOG. Which one do you prefer?

[toro]

I prefer Steam because the shitheads behind gog went woke.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

 

[Melcar]

Goddamn criminals.

 

[somerandomdude]

The pirates used to only be cheap fucks who were just looking to save some money, but now you got people like me who have plenty of money to spend and only pirate games because we refuse the terms of service for the platforms they're sold on. If it's not DRM free, I'm not paying for it.

 

[curds]

Both are shit for different reasons.

Used to use GOG because I used to hate DRM a lot. These days I don't care as much.

I use Steam these days simply because it has more games available on it, plenty of which are likely to never come to GOG.

 

[Azdul]

The pirates used to only be cheap fucks who were just looking to save some money, but now you got people like me who have plenty of money to spend and only pirate games because we refuse the terms of service for the platforms they're sold on. If it's not DRM free, I'm not paying for it.

In good old days crackers took pride in their work.

Nowadays 'cracked' (in loose sense of the word) copy often comes with bloated 'Steam emulator', modifies 'hosts' file on Windows - and if you're not careful you may get a copy with altcoin miner included. Often all this happens while DRM-free copy is available from GoG.

Some people thought that pirates just do not crack GOG copies because they are philosophically opposed to DRM - but actually they're opposed to spending few $$$ - while being completely open to receiving donations in digital currencies. Patches for Steam releases are available on P2P networks - while GOG patches are harder to find there - so end-user of pirated copy gets inferior product because of that.

 

[Darkozric]

GOG and Grog.

 

[Vic]

 

[karoliner]

Poll is missing the fitgirl and rutracker options.

 

[Lyric Suite]

They both fail where it counts: making hard to play games actually work on modern systems.

I mean sometimes they finally get around fixing them but too many instances of games i bought on either that would only play correctly after installing mods and fixes from the internet.

Aside for that i don't think it matters if Steam is selling some 90s game at 90% off or in a bundle i'll get it, then maybe play the GOG version of the same i just removed from inventory i'm too old to really care much either way.

 

[Vic]

They both fail where it counts: making hard to play games actually work on modern systems.

wut? GOG is good in that though, they have old games bundled with DOSBOX and recommended settings. If it wasn't for GOG you'd have to manually hunt down a DOS rom and install it with DOSBOX, tweaking the config to get it to work. For old games GOG wins hands down.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Everybody can make DOSBOX work it's not that hard. I'm talking about games that are just very difficutly to run correctly on modern systems even for an experienced computer enthusiast. If you are selling a product one would assume you are under a legal obligation to make it work right but such was never the case either for Steam or GOG. In many cases GOG had to resort to use fan patches and even then some of the games they sell require further tinkering. And if a game has a source port you might as well use that reguardless which makes the act of buying a "legit" copy of a game redudant. Some source ports ignore the Steam overlay which makes buying games on Steam feel pointless. You basically just paid for a pirated copy at that point.

Now both platforms got somewhat better over time, probably because of the looming threat of legal repercussions hanging over their heads, but i still sometimes buy games that then require me to go look for a fan made patch, a source port and so on. Right now the most useful thing GOG did is help archive older games. Some of the games they sell sometimes are hard to find even on torrent sites so in that sense they are doing some good. And for the lazy who can't be bothered to tinker with DOSBOX settings etc it's also not a bad deal to pay money for what is essentially a commercial "repack". It's still super annoying however that as commercial entities in the unique position to do things modders and third party patchers couldn't do, they basically offered nothing more than some extra convenience. I don't have to install anything if i want to play Fallout the GOG version already comes with the widescreen mod and the rest of what is needed to make it load from the get go. Worth the price of admission? I guess, especially since i've become super lazy now, but it still feels like i was somewhat cheated as i paid for an "official" release and what i got is something any pirate out there could have done. If FitGirl bothered to repack older games it would be the same shit as GOG.

 

[Darkozric]

They both fail where it counts: making hard to play games actually work on modern systems.

wut? GOG is good in that though, they have old games bundled with DOSBOX and recommended settings. If it wasn't for GOG you'd have to manually hunt down a DOS rom and install it with DOSBOX, tweaking the config to get it to work. For old games GOG wins hands down.

Most of the times GOG games work but there are a few rare cases where they don't, and I couldn't find a solution. For example I couldn't run Gorky 17, and a few other shit that I don't remember now. And then, there are cases such as HOMM 3 where the game didn't load and had to install third party launcher for the game to work. And I'm talking about W7, which are supposed to be more stable with old games. I imagine this shit happens more often on W10.

 

[Vic]

Everybody can make DOSBOX work it's not that hard. I'm talking about games that are just very difficutly to run correctly on modern systems even for an experienced computer enthusiast. If you are selling a product one would assume you are under a legal obligation to make it work right but such was never the case either for Steam or GOG. In many cases GOG had to resort to use fan patches and even then some of the games they sell require further tinkering. And if a game has a source port you might as well use that reguardless which makes the act of buying a "legit" copy of a game redudant. Some source ports ignore the Steam overlay which makes buying games on Steam feel pointless. You basically just paid for a pirated copy at that point.

Now both platforms got somewhat better over time, probably because of the looming threat of legal repercussions hanging over their heads, but i still sometimes buy games that then require me to go look for a fan made patch, a source port and so on. Right now the most useful thing GOG did is help archive older games. Some of the games they sell sometimes are hard to find even on torrent sites so in that sense they are doing some good. And for the lazy who can't be bothered to tinker with DOSBOX settings etc it's also not a bad deal to pay money for what is essentially a commercial "repack". It's still super annoying however that as commercial entities in the unique position to do things modders and third party patchers couldn't do, they basically offered nothing more than some extra convenience. I don't have to install anything if i want to play Fallout the GOG version already comes with the widescreen mod and the rest of what is needed to make it load from the get go. Worth the price of admission? I guess, especially since i've become super lazy now, but it still feels like i was somewhat cheated as i paid for an "official" release and what i got is something any pirate out there could have done. If FitGirl bothered to repack older games it would be the same shit as GOG.

Well, if the developers didn't fix the game, but fans did, why would GOG not include the patch? Or do you want them to create their own patches? They're a video game seller, why would they have an obligation to tinker with the product itself? Does Steam sell Fallout with the graphics patch? I think GOG does a good job providing patches etc. to help run older games out of the box, sure it's not always possible but it's better than Steam. I also don't see how making a patch for a game is the equivalent of piracy? Pirates crack copyright protected games, that's a whole different thing from fans who create patches for games to fix bugs or make them look better on modern hardware. And all FitGirl does is to compress already cracked games, again nothing to do with actually fixing/improving a game. If you buy a game on GOG with a fan-made patch applied it's still the base, copyrighted product that is being sold and developers get paid, how retarded can you be to call it the same as pirating a game from FitGirl? One is piracy, the other isn't.

 

[Lucumo]

Everybody can make DOSBOX work it's not that hard. I'm talking about games that are just very difficutly to run correctly on modern systems even for an experienced computer enthusiast. If you are selling a product one would assume you are under a legal obligation to make it work right but such was never the case either for Steam or GOG. In many cases GOG had to resort to use fan patches and even then some of the games they sell require further tinkering. And if a game has a source port you might as well use that reguardless which makes the act of buying a "legit" copy of a game redudant. Some source ports ignore the Steam overlay which makes buying games on Steam feel pointless. You basically just paid for a pirated copy at that point.

Now both platforms got somewhat better over time, probably because of the looming threat of legal repercussions hanging over their heads, but i still sometimes buy games that then require me to go look for a fan made patch, a source port and so on. Right now the most useful thing GOG did is help archive older games. Some of the games they sell sometimes are hard to find even on torrent sites so in that sense they are doing some good. And for the lazy who can't be bothered to tinker with DOSBOX settings etc it's also not a bad deal to pay money for what is essentially a commercial "repack". It's still super annoying however that as commercial entities in the unique position to do things modders and third party patchers couldn't do, they basically offered nothing more than some extra convenience. I don't have to install anything if i want to play Fallout the GOG version already comes with the widescreen mod and the rest of what is needed to make it load from the get go. Worth the price of admission? I guess, especially since i've become super lazy now, but it still feels like i was somewhat cheated as i paid for an "official" release and what i got is something any pirate out there could have done. If FitGirl bothered to repack older games it would be the same shit as GOG.

Well, if the developers didn't fix the game, but fans did, why would GOG not include the patch? Or do you want them to create their own patches? They're a video game seller, why would they have an obligation to tinker with the product itself? Does Steam sell Fallout with the graphics patch? I think GOG does a good job providing patches etc. to help run older games out of the box, sure it's not always possible but it's better than Steam. I also don't see how making a patch for a game is the equivalent of piracy? Pirates crack copyright protected games, that's a whole different thing from fans who create patches for games to fix bugs or make them look better on modern hardware. And all FitGirl does is to compress already cracked games, again nothing to do with actually fixing/improving a game. If you buy a game on GOG with a fan-made patch applied it's still the base, copyrighted product that is being sold and developers get paid, how retarded can you be to call it the same as pirating a game from FitGirl? One is piracy, the other isn't.

GOG should never sell games with already applied (fan) patches. I want to play the game how I want, not how some fan or whatever decided the balance etc should be. Same with technical changes.

 

[Vic]

Everybody can make DOSBOX work it's not that hard. I'm talking about games that are just very difficutly to run correctly on modern systems even for an experienced computer enthusiast. If you are selling a product one would assume you are under a legal obligation to make it work right but such was never the case either for Steam or GOG. In many cases GOG had to resort to use fan patches and even then some of the games they sell require further tinkering. And if a game has a source port you might as well use that reguardless which makes the act of buying a "legit" copy of a game redudant. Some source ports ignore the Steam overlay which makes buying games on Steam feel pointless. You basically just paid for a pirated copy at that point.

Now both platforms got somewhat better over time, probably because of the looming threat of legal repercussions hanging over their heads, but i still sometimes buy games that then require me to go look for a fan made patch, a source port and so on. Right now the most useful thing GOG did is help archive older games. Some of the games they sell sometimes are hard to find even on torrent sites so in that sense they are doing some good. And for the lazy who can't be bothered to tinker with DOSBOX settings etc it's also not a bad deal to pay money for what is essentially a commercial "repack". It's still super annoying however that as commercial entities in the unique position to do things modders and third party patchers couldn't do, they basically offered nothing more than some extra convenience. I don't have to install anything if i want to play Fallout the GOG version already comes with the widescreen mod and the rest of what is needed to make it load from the get go. Worth the price of admission? I guess, especially since i've become super lazy now, but it still feels like i was somewhat cheated as i paid for an "official" release and what i got is something any pirate out there could have done. If FitGirl bothered to repack older games it would be the same shit as GOG.

Well, if the developers didn't fix the game, but fans did, why would GOG not include the patch? Or do you want them to create their own patches? They're a video game seller, why would they have an obligation to tinker with the product itself? Does Steam sell Fallout with the graphics patch? I think GOG does a good job providing patches etc. to help run older games out of the box, sure it's not always possible but it's better than Steam. I also don't see how making a patch for a game is the equivalent of piracy? Pirates crack copyright protected games, that's a whole different thing from fans who create patches for games to fix bugs or make them look better on modern hardware. And all FitGirl does is to compress already cracked games, again nothing to do with actually fixing/improving a game. If you buy a game on GOG with a fan-made patch applied it's still the base, copyrighted product that is being sold and developers get paid, how retarded can you be to call it the same as pirating a game from FitGirl? One is piracy, the other isn't.

GOG should never sell games with already applied (fan) patches. I want to play the game how I want, not how some fan or whatever decided the balance etc should be. Same with technical changes.

What game has a rebalance patch applied? All games I saw had graphical/compatibility/bugfix patches to allow play on modern hardware and fix bugs. VtmB comes with the unofficial patch preinstalled. Fallout comes with the widescreen mod, etc. You can, ofcourse remove those patches and just have the base game, if you're a purist

 

[DJOGamer PT]

GOG

Although Steam's features are quite appealing, specially if the games in question have any sort of multiplayer

 

[vibehunter]

If I can get it on GOG, I will do so. However, Steam’s interface is miles better. GOG Galaxy is slow and cumbersome. I use Playnite to manage my GOG games instead.

 

[Lucumo]

Everybody can make DOSBOX work it's not that hard. I'm talking about games that are just very difficutly to run correctly on modern systems even for an experienced computer enthusiast. If you are selling a product one would assume you are under a legal obligation to make it work right but such was never the case either for Steam or GOG. In many cases GOG had to resort to use fan patches and even then some of the games they sell require further tinkering. And if a game has a source port you might as well use that reguardless which makes the act of buying a "legit" copy of a game redudant. Some source ports ignore the Steam overlay which makes buying games on Steam feel pointless. You basically just paid for a pirated copy at that point.

Now both platforms got somewhat better over time, probably because of the looming threat of legal repercussions hanging over their heads, but i still sometimes buy games that then require me to go look for a fan made patch, a source port and so on. Right now the most useful thing GOG did is help archive older games. Some of the games they sell sometimes are hard to find even on torrent sites so in that sense they are doing some good. And for the lazy who can't be bothered to tinker with DOSBOX settings etc it's also not a bad deal to pay money for what is essentially a commercial "repack". It's still super annoying however that as commercial entities in the unique position to do things modders and third party patchers couldn't do, they basically offered nothing more than some extra convenience. I don't have to install anything if i want to play Fallout the GOG version already comes with the widescreen mod and the rest of what is needed to make it load from the get go. Worth the price of admission? I guess, especially since i've become super lazy now, but it still feels like i was somewhat cheated as i paid for an "official" release and what i got is something any pirate out there could have done. If FitGirl bothered to repack older games it would be the same shit as GOG.

Well, if the developers didn't fix the game, but fans did, why would GOG not include the patch? Or do you want them to create their own patches? They're a video game seller, why would they have an obligation to tinker with the product itself? Does Steam sell Fallout with the graphics patch? I think GOG does a good job providing patches etc. to help run older games out of the box, sure it's not always possible but it's better than Steam. I also don't see how making a patch for a game is the equivalent of piracy? Pirates crack copyright protected games, that's a whole different thing from fans who create patches for games to fix bugs or make them look better on modern hardware. And all FitGirl does is to compress already cracked games, again nothing to do with actually fixing/improving a game. If you buy a game on GOG with a fan-made patch applied it's still the base, copyrighted product that is being sold and developers get paid, how retarded can you be to call it the same as pirating a game from FitGirl? One is piracy, the other isn't.

GOG should never sell games with already applied (fan) patches. I want to play the game how I want, not how some fan or whatever decided the balance etc should be. Same with technical changes.

What game has a rebalance patch applied? All games I saw had graphical/compatibility/bugfix patches to allow play on modern hardware and fix bugs. VtmB comes with the unofficial patch preinstalled. Fallout comes with the widescreen mod, etc. You can, ofcourse remove those patches and just have the base game, if you're a purist

Warlords Battlecry III had for instance, before enough people complained and they eventually removed it. VTmB also shouldn't, even more so because of the controversy. It would have been easy to give the option to install patches when using the installer, asking the user and as such not patronizing them. Using patches (and especially fan patches) should always be optional and they should never come pre-installed.

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

They both fail where it counts: making hard to play games actually work on modern systems.

wut? GOG is good in that though, they have old games bundled with DOSBOX and recommended settings. If it wasn't for GOG you'd have to manually hunt down a DOS rom and install it with DOSBOX, tweaking the config to get it to work. For old games GOG wins hands down.

Generally speaking its not that hard to find DOS games, even with GOG resulting in the nicer abandonware websites taking down games, and most DOS games are preinstalled -- the ones that aren't you won't find on GOG or don't take much effort to install its hardly a concern. And that's assuming you want to play a game with whatever sound DOSbox emulates. The Roland MT-32 and Gravis Ultrasound, two of the best DOS-era soundcards, you aren't going to see in any GOG installation. These genuinely improve the sound of a lot of old DOS games and the only way you can get it is by working on it yourself.
There's also the issue sometimes that games on DOS are inferior to other computer ports, especially in the '80s with games that were also on the Amiga. Of course if you care about that you probably already have an installation of WinUAE along with a romset.
(there are also issues with games like Bloodwych, where they don't include a fix to a known issue for some unknown reason)

But I note that those aren't really the concern, like Lyric Suite pointed out, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can get DOSbox working for most games, if not, DOS for Dummies sold millions for a reason, it actually works. No, the concern is with old Windows games. SCUMMVM and games like Doom don't count because that's just people taking credit for fan work. Assuming they haven't actually fixed this since I last checked, there are titles like Chaos Overlords which don't work in OSes newer than Windows 8, among others I can't find at the moment. And they just haven't bothered fixing it whatsoever. Basically spitting in the face of anyone who wanted to play an old Windows game again that doesn't want to have to set up a virtual machine and install an old version of Windows.

TL;DR: You're not getting the best sound in some DOS games, and for older Windows games they're selling games they know won't work for a growing number of their audience.

 

[blessedCoffee]

If I can get it on GOG, I will do so. However, Steam’s interface is miles better. GOG Galaxy is slow and cumbersome. I use Playnite to manage my GOG games instead.

I have a feeling they always knew they can't rivalize with Steam client. I mean, take a look at their forums, it received multiple complaints over the years by its members, and they were too lazy to give a damn – I'm an old Gog user, which registered in 2008. And their apparent leniency to slow updates to the games in their store (meanwhile, Steam gets updates normally). Sure, they're not the sole culprits for this, but they should demand quicker updates in a more effective way, perhaps adding clauses in the contract that must be signed before a company can have their games added to Gog's catalog.

Irrelevant as it currently may be when you compare clients side by side, I'm OK with Galaxy and its flaws, because it's not a requirement to play the games after my payment is verified. So it doesn't affects in which store I'll take my "cart".

 

[vibehunter]

If I can get it on GOG, I will do so. However, Steam’s interface is miles better. GOG Galaxy is slow and cumbersome. I use Playnite to manage my GOG games instead.

I have a feeling they always knew they can't rivalize with Steam client. I mean, take a look at their forums, it received multiple complaints over the years by its members, and they were too lazy to give a damn – I'm an old Gog user, which registered in 2008. And their apparent leniency to slow updates to the games in their store (meanwhile, Steam gets updates normally). Sure, they're not the sole culprits for this, but they should demand quicker updates in a more effective way, perhaps adding clauses in the contract that must be signed before a company can have their games added to Gog's catalog.

Irrelevant as it currently may be when you compare clients side by side, I'm OK with Galaxy and its flaws, because it's not a requirement to play the games after my payment is verified. So it doesn't affects in which store I'll take my "cart".

I remember a while back that GOG was marketing their new big update to the Galaxy client. It seems strange to me that they would make an effort to push people to start using their client yet not care enough to make sure it's up to par with its main competitor. Fair enough if they don't care, but don't throw the client in our face and beg us to use it either.

 

[Fedora Master]

GoG also has just as little curation as Steam. The entire store is shat up with RPGmaker weeb garbage.

 

[Bigg Boss]

I use GOG to pirate games or get free games and use Steam to play games with friends.