They aren’t even reliably committed to no DRM. They frequently sell games that require GOG Galaxy accounts to access certain content(online/multiplayer functionality, DLC packs). GOG has explicitly gone on record saying that these forms of DRM are acceptable, despite running a store for years without them.
And preservation of old games(at least how they are doing it) is an inherently unprofitable service. Them preserving games that they don’t even have the licensed right to sell is one of the dumbest decisions they have made so far. Most of their older releases have just been grabbing a bunch of existing fan patches into a more polished installer; these sorts of tasks will always end up in the hands of hobbyists who would do this work without being paid.
I feel like at this point, you have to focus on individual developers/publishers if you want to properly support DRM free releases. Having brand loyalty to GOG will get you nothing.
This AMA is about the new ownership, and they talk about allowing online services as a form of DRM in it. So at least that policy is staying in place.
I’ve got “Good Old Games” that are more than 20 years old with self hostable online multiplayer. No accounts, no CD keys, nothing. Make a random plain text display name, forward some ports or use a community/proxy server, and you can play with whoever you like. GOG can make excuses as much as they want to try to appeal to publishers, but they are by definition hosting games with DRM.
They aren’t even reliably committed to no DRM. They frequently sell games that require GOG Galaxy accounts to access certain content(online/multiplayer functionality, DLC packs). GOG has explicitly gone on record saying that these forms of DRM are acceptable, despite running a store for years without them.
And preservation of old games(at least how they are doing it) is an inherently unprofitable service. Them preserving games that they don’t even have the licensed right to sell is one of the dumbest decisions they have made so far. Most of their older releases have just been grabbing a bunch of existing fan patches into a more polished installer; these sorts of tasks will always end up in the hands of hobbyists who would do this work without being paid.
I feel like at this point, you have to focus on individual developers/publishers if you want to properly support DRM free releases. Having brand loyalty to GOG will get you nothing.
Now to be fair that was under the old(?)ownership so we will see how reliable the new(?) is
This AMA is about the new ownership, and they talk about allowing online services as a form of DRM in it. So at least that policy is staying in place.
I’ve got “Good Old Games” that are more than 20 years old with self hostable online multiplayer. No accounts, no CD keys, nothing. Make a random plain text display name, forward some ports or use a community/proxy server, and you can play with whoever you like. GOG can make excuses as much as they want to try to appeal to publishers, but they are by definition hosting games with DRM.