I think it is fair. When you buy games through GOG, you get the offline installer. Nobody can take that away from you.
When you buy games through Steam, you can only install them via the Steam client. If the Steam servers are offline, you cannot install your games. In theory, some games are without any DRM, and you can just zip them up, but even then that doesn’t always work, and you shouldn’t have to.
Providing an offline installer that works no matter what is as good as “owning” the game IMO, even if “technically” you are just purchasing a license to use the game.
Vespair@lemm.ee 1 week ago
I think it is more than just technically, personally. A thing I own is a thing I can pass down to my children, a thing I can break apart and rebuild, a thing I can modify without needing permission. I’m not denying that GOG offers a great asset that frees you from a corporate leash; that is awesome. But that’s not the same thing as owning, and presenting it as if it is is disingenuous. You are still licensing, not owning.
Again, I’m not saying this is egregious enough to be wrong, but I don’t like when any company uses manipulative language when speaking to me, even if I appreciate their intent. I just think it’s slimy.
Ganbat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Are you referring to the use of the word “killshot”? Otherwise, the headline says exactly the same thing.
No implication of outright ownership, just that they can’t take away the offline installers. I mean, I guess it doesn’t outright say “that you’ve already downloaded,” but given the length, I’d say that’s a passable omission.
Vespair@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Don’t be disingenuous. It’s the juxtaposition of GOG’s claim paired being intentionally paired with the steam disclaimer so as to present it as if an alternative.