> The GOG Preservation Program is our ongoing effort to save classic games from being lost to time. That means working to secure rights, fixing compatibility so they run hassle-free on modern systems, and even rebuilding missing features so the experience is the best you can get, while staying true to the original.
It still baffles me how the "rights" to a game (or any IP) can be a thing when the company has essentially abandoned it. Like take the Resident Evil example FTA: Launched in 1996, 2000-2023 not available (i.e. not for legal sale). I am a bit of an extremist wrt IP laws, but that just seems so crazy to me that we would provide a legal system to "protect" IP that isn't being used and is just being (essentially) hoarded.
Just because a company doesn't have their IP available for modern systems doesn't mean they abandoned the IP, see also all the remasters and remakes coming out today.
That said, my gut feeling says it's mainly about them not willing to invest in it, because they can't see the economic viability. If GoG were to go to the rights holders and say "Hey lad, we have a platform and a lot of experience in reviving older games, you'll get x% of revenue", I'm sure some would be like "ok".
Of course, I'm also sure these rights holders have received offers like that from various parties for a long time now.
Only the PC version of the original version of Resident Evil was unavailable. It had a Remake in 2003, a port to the DS in 2006 and AFAIK has been and still is available for purchase on PSN in PS1 form for PS3, PSP and Vita since 2009 and PS4/PS5 since 2022. That's not even counting all the sequels and movies. And the PC port is generally considered, not the best.
There's better examples like No One Lives Forever that have been stuck unavailable for purchase because of rights reasons but RE1 is arguably not that.
This is related to "cadastral mapping" in real estate law systems. IP does not have such a map, or indeed any map at all. At best you might find a (no longer obligatory!) copyright notice on it saying who originally owned the rights to something. That doesn't work when the rights get sold.
There's no good way to even ask "who owns this?" for a piece of IP other than the highly inadequate and risky approach of just pirating it and waiting to see who sues you. But even then DMCA provides all sorts of problems with unauthorized groups claiming to be rightsholder representatives.
Sometimes, the legal situation is complicated, especially with old content. Sometimes the technical situation is also complicated, very typical for old games. Not releasing, can't be automatically considered abandoned; we just don't know what's going on behind the scenes.
That's how copyright law works. There's no "use it or lose it" provision. Once you create something it is yours, and others only get rights to it 70-100+ years later.
Basically it is the problem with GOG also, I think that if you do nothing the game is Abandonware and I don't think that anyone can go after you to use it pirated or whatever, and even distribute it.
Maybe it is shady, but something like that if there is no commercial activity and the IP violation is not enforced for some many times, it can be considered that you are responsible for this and there was no legal way for the user to be able to use the software.
But if GOG comes and the restore the "commercial activity" of a game, actively selling, even if no one buys, then you can't say that it was commercially abandoned, and that will postpone of that much that it will be on GOG the legal claim of "having the IP active".
If you don’t sell me a copy of your family albums, I should be allowed to freely sneak into your house and make a copy? After all, you still have the originals and are not making money from them
> Why introduce a membership now? Is GOG in financial trouble?
Glad they put this into the FAQ, because that was certainly my first thought, although I'm not sure the answer really assuages my concerns.
You have to admit that the combination of "Original founder buys back GOG from CD Projekt" and then "GOG introduces patron tier" soon thereafter does suggest a company in some financial hardship.
So let me get this straight, GOG, a privately owned company, wants me to donate money to them so that they can buy the rights to games in order to sell them to me?
It is true, but occasionally it is a practice in some companies with certain business models to leave part of users contributions free up to the users to decide. I have bought some games from their preservation program, and gave me the option to add some extra donation for the project, which I did. I guess this is similar to that.
Moreover, if somebody is really into these old games, they may want to support it and get access to the behind the scenes material, discord, vote for which games to prioritize etc. I don't think this is very different than eg subscribing to the patreon of a creator to get some extra content.
That's what it looks like. I kind of get it, as there's no guarantee that a game they make available again will sell enough to cover the costs - it's as much a preservation effort as a commercial one.
For a lot of games it's just a matter of configuring dosbox and packaging it, I can't see how that would be very expensive. But for others it's a lot more involved.
Simplified, but yes, more or less correct. I'm a patron of theirs, and see it more or less as a donation (obviously isn't, in the eyes of the tax agency).
Yeah my first reaction was, what the heck is is this ?
Now I can imagine having specific campaigns. Let's say they need $50,000 to release an upgraded port of Shining Force.
Cool, I might be open to pre-ordering it at $25 so they can see if there's enough interest to proceed. But why am I going to literally just donate to a private company. I think the entire world has gone mad, there's not even a real product here. It's not like for that $5 a month they give you a random game or something. They just want money.
Seems weird to ask for donations for game preservation without pledging to release the games under an open license. Why would I give you money so you can go buy a game and then turn around and sell it back to me?
Also weird not to have an easily accessible list or some kind of plan to show which games will be prioritized.
Just a vague 20,000 game list which may or may not have games that I am interested in.
Also seems like Patrons should get access to the games that are preserved, at least after some point of contributions (e.g. after $60 were accumulated in donations over a period of time)
I would gladly pay 2x or 3x that amount if I knew I would get access to this game library hassle-free in the future.
That distinction doesn't really exist. You have to pay employees. You have to pay for equipment. You have to pay for office space. And the countless other costs of running a company. There's no way they can realistically say "this particular dollar we got from you was used for exactly this purpose".
Their FAQ is not really clear on that, my feeling looking at this page is that it is more like: this money goes directly in the pocket of GOG, so by helping us to generate more money for us, you are helping (indirectly) the preservation of games as it is what they do.
But I saw nowhere in the FAQ explicitly that this subscription money will only be used to the "active act" of preserving other games.
Speaking personally I'd rather pay a few dollars than risk my PC getting Good Old Virusy, which may or may not be a real risk, but is certainly an idea that puts me off pirating software.
Honestly I find GOG's whole mission of "update old games for modern Windows" kinda weird when I compare it to what people who want to play old console games do: they just fire up an emulator. Running a virtual Windows machine sounds like a much easier solution than individually patching every crusty old executable to run on the modern OS, and re-patching every single one of them when MS rolls out yet another new graphics/controller system a few years down the line.
Their DOS releases are fantastic. I install the games, then copy the files to my virtual C: directory for DOSBox-X and know those games will always Just Work and I will never have to reinstall anything or mess with configurations. Some games I also copy to my phone to play in DOSBox in Android.
To repeat myself from old threads, it would be awesome to have something like a WindowsBOX, like DOSBox but emulating (probably) Windows 98SE, fully open source. GOG could use that for old Windows games and never have to modify the games themselves. I would be happy to support GOG developing an emulator like that, rather than making old games run on new Windows.
GOG uses emulators as well. GOG has a share of games that use Dosbox or ScummVM as two somewhat common emulators they will configure a game to run in that I'm aware of.
That said, there's also something to be said that if a game is patchable, there is some value in patching it to run directly rather than "need" an emulator.
Wait, what? Subscribe for £4 a month to fund a for-profit company so they can buy rights to patch up old games I used to play so I can... Buy them again?
I've bought Resident Evil twice before guys, I'm not paying £7.99 to get another copy. I get that there's some service provision —maybe even some first party dev work— but patrons should either be the product and these games get released for free, or the price of the game should recoup the hassle of licenses.
What am I missing? It seems like they're trying to double-dip.
freedomben|1 month ago
> The GOG Preservation Program is our ongoing effort to save classic games from being lost to time. That means working to secure rights, fixing compatibility so they run hassle-free on modern systems, and even rebuilding missing features so the experience is the best you can get, while staying true to the original.
It still baffles me how the "rights" to a game (or any IP) can be a thing when the company has essentially abandoned it. Like take the Resident Evil example FTA: Launched in 1996, 2000-2023 not available (i.e. not for legal sale). I am a bit of an extremist wrt IP laws, but that just seems so crazy to me that we would provide a legal system to "protect" IP that isn't being used and is just being (essentially) hoarded.
Cthulhu_|1 month ago
That said, my gut feeling says it's mainly about them not willing to invest in it, because they can't see the economic viability. If GoG were to go to the rights holders and say "Hey lad, we have a platform and a lot of experience in reviving older games, you'll get x% of revenue", I'm sure some would be like "ok".
Of course, I'm also sure these rights holders have received offers like that from various parties for a long time now.
chocochunks|1 month ago
There's better examples like No One Lives Forever that have been stuck unavailable for purchase because of rights reasons but RE1 is arguably not that.
pjc50|1 month ago
There's no good way to even ask "who owns this?" for a piece of IP other than the highly inadequate and risky approach of just pirating it and waiting to see who sues you. But even then DMCA provides all sorts of problems with unauthorized groups claiming to be rightsholder representatives.
PurpleRamen|1 month ago
paxys|1 month ago
greatgib|1 month ago
But if GOG comes and the restore the "commercial activity" of a game, actively selling, even if no one buys, then you can't say that it was commercially abandoned, and that will postpone of that much that it will be on GOG the legal claim of "having the IP active".
WillAdams|1 month ago
https://www.gog.com/forum/legor_the_lord_of_the_rings/crashe...
(there are other forum posts about other crashes)
So, when I had some money left over at Christmas, I got a couple of Lego games for my Nintendo Switch instead.
PetitPrince|1 month ago
The Resident Evil IP is still alive and kicking though (with the latest installment trailered during the game awards a few weeks ago).
burnt-resistor|1 month ago
nikanj|1 month ago
AdmiralAsshat|1 month ago
Glad they put this into the FAQ, because that was certainly my first thought, although I'm not sure the answer really assuages my concerns.
You have to admit that the combination of "Original founder buys back GOG from CD Projekt" and then "GOG introduces patron tier" soon thereafter does suggest a company in some financial hardship.
qwertfisch|1 month ago
jon-wood|1 month ago
freehorse|1 month ago
Moreover, if somebody is really into these old games, they may want to support it and get access to the behind the scenes material, discord, vote for which games to prioritize etc. I don't think this is very different than eg subscribing to the patreon of a creator to get some extra content.
Cthulhu_|1 month ago
For a lot of games it's just a matter of configuring dosbox and packaging it, I can't see how that would be very expensive. But for others it's a lot more involved.
embedding-shape|1 month ago
999900000999|1 month ago
Now I can imagine having specific campaigns. Let's say they need $50,000 to release an upgraded port of Shining Force.
Cool, I might be open to pre-ordering it at $25 so they can see if there's enough interest to proceed. But why am I going to literally just donate to a private company. I think the entire world has gone mad, there's not even a real product here. It's not like for that $5 a month they give you a random game or something. They just want money.
whazor|1 month ago
paxys|1 month ago
antisthenes|1 month ago
Just a vague 20,000 game list which may or may not have games that I am interested in.
Also seems like Patrons should get access to the games that are preserved, at least after some point of contributions (e.g. after $60 were accumulated in donations over a period of time)
I would gladly pay 2x or 3x that amount if I knew I would get access to this game library hassle-free in the future.
Good idea overall, "meh" execution so far.
intexpress|1 month ago
rpdillon|1 month ago
lucraft|1 month ago
The FAQ should state explicitly that patron money will only be used for preservation, not put into GOG general revenue, if that is indeed true.
paxys|1 month ago
greatgib|1 month ago
But I saw nowhere in the FAQ explicitly that this subscription money will only be used to the "active act" of preserving other games.
lostmsu|1 month ago
bo1024|1 month ago
Y_Y|1 month ago
freehorse|1 month ago
zamalek|1 month ago
paxys|1 month ago
unknown|1 month ago
[deleted]
danparsonson|1 month ago
binary132|1 month ago
egypturnash|1 month ago
1313ed01|1 month ago
To repeat myself from old threads, it would be awesome to have something like a WindowsBOX, like DOSBox but emulating (probably) Windows 98SE, fully open source. GOG could use that for old Windows games and never have to modify the games themselves. I would be happy to support GOG developing an emulator like that, rather than making old games run on new Windows.
WorldMaker|1 month ago
That said, there's also something to be said that if a game is patchable, there is some value in patching it to run directly rather than "need" an emulator.
oliwarner|1 month ago
I've bought Resident Evil twice before guys, I'm not paying £7.99 to get another copy. I get that there's some service provision —maybe even some first party dev work— but patrons should either be the product and these games get released for free, or the price of the game should recoup the hassle of licenses.
What am I missing? It seems like they're trying to double-dip.
ekianjo|1 month ago
lizardking|1 month ago
https://heroicgameslauncher.com/
bigfishrunning|1 month ago
izacus|1 month ago