Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Classic Games (Games) Games

GOG.com Not Really Gone 276

Posted by samzenpus
from the stepped-out-for-a-minute dept.
gspr writes "On Sunday, Slashdot and many others reported that DRM-free games site GOG.com was shutting down. Now the site is back, revealing that it was all a hoax. According to the site: 'Now it's time we put an end to all the speculations once and for all. It's true that we decided that we couldn't keep GOG.com the way it was so we won't. As you probably know by now, GOG.com is entering its new era with an end of the two-years beta stage and we're launching a brand new GOG.com with new, huge releases.' So it was all an advertising stunt."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GOG.com Not Really Gone

Comments Filter:
  • The important part (Score:5, Informative)

    by Abstrackt (609015) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:25PM (#33667958)

    They still won't have DRM and they still won't have a download client.

    Love it or hate it, this is one of the more successful marketing stunts of late.

    • by hedwards (940851)
      Indeed, I don't think they'll lose very many customers over this. The people who buy from them tend to do so based upon price and the DRM free games. Compared to the dickishness of EA and Ubisoft for instance, this is really not that big of a deal.

      To be fair to them, the language of the shutdown announcement was peppered with hints that there's be a change, but ultimately that it was a transition of sorts.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by c0d3g33k (102699)

      they still won't have a download client.

      The only download client needed is a web browser. That is as it should be.

      • No, you should have a proprietary client that uses a special protocol. It should be tied in to your globally-unique key, which upon first use adds your globally-unique MAC and CPU IDs to ensure that you are not selling the game to another user.

        It should also be able to install other systems on your machine that track usage and report piracy.

        Nah, it should be an FTP client.

        • No, you should have a proprietary client that uses a special protocol.

          Which should really just be a slightly-obfuscated Bittorrent so you don't have to pay for as much bandwidth. When someone calls you on this, you call them hackers because they reverse-engineered your secure protocol technology.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by hairyfeet (841228)

        Actually they DO have a client, you simply don't have to use it if you don't want to. During the last sale I used it, which is an Adobe AIR based downloader app, and it is really quite nice. I was able to queue all my purchases, including manuals and extras, and have it download everything and put it where I wanted it while I worked on a customer's PC. It was averaging about 1.2Mb per second, which on my 2Mbit cable connection is damned good, and it didn't try to set itself to run at startup or any other cr

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by GravityStar (1209738)

        Well, a download client that supports resume, hash checking and block based re-download of corrupted blocks _would_ be nice though. Especially because we are likely talking about multi-gig downloads.

        It could still use plain http, and allow people to download the games using the web-browser. The extra download client would just add a bit of robustness.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by BlitzTech (1386589)
          If you browse the games they offer, you'll quickly change your assumption of "multi-gig" downloads to "multi-meg" downloads, which are a lot more reasonable to download across a connection with none of the error correcting you mentioned. These games aren't the cutting-edge, multi-DVD games; a lot of what they offer came on multiple floppy disks back in the day, and ranges up to (gasp!) games from CDs. Granted, this doesn't apply to EVERY game they offer, but a significant majority for sure.

          Now, in the fu
    • by Bill Dimm (463823)

      Love it or hate it, this is one of the more successful marketing stunts of late.

      Yes, lying can be very effective marketing. Just like the important announcements about my Verizon service I get all the time (actually FiOS ads), the Clear ads I get in envelopes saying "This is not junk mail" on the outside, the letters to my business that look like they are from government entities (but aren't, as the fine print admits), and the Siemens pop-up ads on scientificamerican.com that have an extra "close" button that takes you to the Siemens website. As long as consumers fail to get sufficie

      • by Abstrackt (609015)

        Not that I disagree with anything you've said, but my comment was based a lesson I picked up from a former prof: "the only bad marketing is when people don't learn what your product is". Shutting down out of the blue was a dick move but their brand awareness is now through the roof.

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        All marketing is lying.

      • by doti (966971) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @05:05PM (#33668578) Homepage

        they did not lie.

        they just said they couldn't keep the site the way it was.

        it was the news (including /.) that said that they were closing.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Bill Dimm (463823)

          "We're closing down the service and putting this era behind us as new challenges await."
          When was the last time you heard a company say something like that when announcing that their service was coming out of beta? Sure, if you parse it really carefully you can claim that it technically isn't a lie, but how did they expect it to be interpreted? If the news (like slashdot) misunderstood their intent, why didn't they put out an announcement contradicting it immediately?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by MBGMorden (803437)

            Um, are you that dense? Their INTENT was to craft the announcement in such a way that people would assume they were shutting down. That's the thing that was supposed to give them the media coverage (as it indeed did). The fact that they technically didn't lie is a fact that should have only be noticeable in hindsight, which appears to have been how it worked.

    • by Quirkz (1206400)
      Bleh. This is the first I'd heard of them, and now I'm mostly annoyed by the publicity stunt. They may have a good product, but their advertising has turned me off. I don't feel inclined to rush over there and try their stuff.
      • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @05:41PM (#33669060) Journal
        They've been running for two years and this was the first you'd heard of them, in spite of the fact that they are mentioned in pretty much every Slashdot story that mentions DRM or Steam. What have they lost? Someone who had never heard of them has not heard of them. Of course, you say you're not going to buy anything from them, but at least you've heard of them so you might change your mind. Before, you definitely weren't going to buy anything from them, because you weren't even aware of their existence. Oh, and from their site, the first paragraph reads:

        First of all we would like to apologize everyone who felt deceived or harmed in any way by us closing down GOG.com without any warning and without giving access to your games. We apologize for that from the bottom of our hearts!

        Sounds like they realise that they upset some people. When was the last time you got an apology like that from a company that made a mistake that didn't actually harm anyone?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Quirkz (1206400)

          What have they lost?

          The chance to make a good impression the next time I hear about them?

          Sounds like they realise that they upset some people. When was the last time you got an apology like that from a company that made a mistake that didn't actually harm anyone?

          Sure, apologies are always nice, but I wouldn't call them that unusual. Hell, Verizon apologized to me just yesterday, because I got spam text messages on my phone. Verizon! And gave me a $5 credit, which is enough to counteract a lot of future spam, too.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Seumas (6865)

      No, a successful stunt suggests that you pulled it off. Everyone knew it was a hoax from the beginning and said so, therefore, they failed.

      Secondly, they would have had plenty of game press coverage if they just announced the changes without pulling this stupid stunting gimmick. Hell, RPS and Joystiq (among others) not only cover them regularly, but write about their weekend sales on a regular (almost weekly) basis.

      This didn't get them more attention than it otherwise would have. The only thing this accompl

      • by flitty (981864)

        This didn't get them more attention than it otherwise would have.

        Well, it did get them 2 important posts on the most important globally influental website out there - Slashdot.

    • by syousef (465911)

      Love it or hate it, this is one of the more successful marketing stunts of late.

      Successful? I didn't realise that the goal of marketing was to make your customers and potential customers believe you're incompetent losers. I have much less respect for GOG after they've pulled this and am less likely to buy. I can't believe I'm the only one.

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      Which is all I care about. You can rip the games out and play then on dosbox or wine.

    • by kurokame (1764228)
      If it was so successful, shouldn't I know or care what their product is by now?
  • I hate it when people and companies pull stuff like this. But for once I'm glad it was just a stunt, because I'd hate them to disappear. Maybe if it was a good enough stunt, they'll even get increased traffic. More importantly, maybe it'll help remind people how sad it would be if the site WAS gone.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bl8n8r (649187)
      It's not a stunt, it's lying. "This doesn't mean the idea behind GOG.com is gone forever. We're closing down the service and putting this era behind us as new challenges await." What friggin part of "closing down" implies they will be back?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by h4rr4r (612664)

        They meant closing down the beta service, they left that out for excitement or whatever some marketing moron thought.

  • by lgftsa (617184) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:29PM (#33668030)

    The stunt worked, they got two front page /. articles about them. Of course, the downside is that they're now on my blacklist.

    • by hedwards (940851)
      Why? I mean compared with the problems people have with their competitors, this is really not that big of a deal. I've had DRM problems which resulted in a similar level of trouble from competitors, at least in this case it's somewhat understandable.
      • by spun (1352)

        Whatever you care to say about DRM, it is at least honest. Amazingly enough, some people prefer to do business with honest assholes than with dishonest nice guys.

        • by hedwards (940851)
          Honest? Depending upon the particular type of DRM, they might not let you even install the software if some random application is also installed on the system. Frequently they don't tell you what the restrictions are prior to purchase and they don't provide a refund if the DRM prevents you from using the software that you've paid for.

          Admittedly, that's more towards the scummier end of things, but DRM often seems to lack honesty. I'm not sure the last time I saw a CD which stated that it had DRM, the only
          • by spun (1352)

            What I mean is that, with DRM, you know what you are getting, or you should. No one is claiming that DRM is anything but what it is. These guys claimed they were shut down when they weren't. That makes them liars.

            • Should you? how? DRM covers so many different things to different people, it can mean anything from basic CD protection at one end to ubisofts shit at the other. Noone (not even the companies running them) really knows how long the activation servers will remain online and i've never seen a company be upfront about the problems caused by the anti-hacking steps they take as part of thier DRM efforts.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by hairyfeet (841228)

            Oh you forgot some of the "best parts" of DRM! How about not asking your permission before installing Ring 0 crap that may/may not make your machine unstable and a risk for later hacking, not providing a simple tool with the software for removing said ring 0 crap, oh and how about possibly destroying your hardware? That's right, as a PC repairman I've had to shitcan more than a few DVD/CD burners because DRM threw them into PIO mode and fried them. you see, the reason starforce could say "it wasn't us!" was

        • Dishonest nice guys. That's quite the description... hehe.
          • by spun (1352)

            Well, GOG.com seem like nice guys, doing the right thing, happy customers, etc., except then they went and lied like this. Bad form.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by TheRaven64 (641858)
              They lied? What did they say that was a lie? They shut down the site prior to the relaunch and said that it would not continue in its present form. It was pretty obvious last week that this meant they were exiting beta; everyone except a few sensationalist pundits seemed to agree on that, and the company spokesman said that they would be back.
        • by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @05:05PM (#33668574)

          Really? What boxed games say on the outside "warning includes securerom and may screw your machine"?

          • by spun (1352)

            Does it need to say that? I just assume, if it is commercial, it has DRM, and if it has extra nasty DRM, I will have heard about it.

        • Fair enough they put warnings on games that you will need an internet connection.

          What they don't tell you is the other side of things, a purchase with an online activation requirement is essentially a rental of unspecified duration, sooner or later those activation servers will almost certainly be taken offline (especially in an industry as volatile as gaming, sure steam is big now but who knows if it will stay that way). Nor do they tell you about the problems that ever more agressive CD protections schems

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Daetrin (576516)
      This is the second time GOG has treated me in a somewhat crappy manner, though at least this time i've got a lot of company. (Yay?) However i'm not willing to boycott them permanently because of this stunt since they're the only ones trying to do the no DRM thing, even if they are sometimes asses about the way in which they do business.

      However i do think i shall compare their catalog to Impulse's, find several games i want that both sites have, purchase those games from Impulse, ("Age of Wonders" seems li
      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        Is impulse DRM free? Does it require some bullshit client?

        • by Daetrin (576516)
          I don't recall the technical details (i'm sure someone else will come along at some point and fill in the details) but Impulse has "light" DRM. I believe there's some kind of registration check at install, but nothing after that. You don't have to keep checking into some internet server to keep playing your game after it's installed. So worse than GOG but better than Steam in that regard.

          My usual buying pattern when looking for games was to check first GOG, then Impulse, and finally Steam, and buy it from
    • by kalirion (728907)

      I agree.

      <Homer Simpson's voice>GOG, you just lost yourself a customer!!!</Homer Simpson's voice>

  • by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:30PM (#33668048) Homepage

    GOG has been gaining popularity and consumer visibility, ESPECIALLY in the past few months. Unless they were hit with a huge lawsuit or financial disaster, there would be no reason for them to close permanently.

    Sincerely,

    A not surprised (yet very relieved!) gamer

  • DRM demonstration (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MDHowle (634114) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:35PM (#33668112)

    It was all a demonstration of what inevitable happens to DRM media.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It was all a demonstration of what inevitable happens to DRM media.

      And targeted at consumers of non-DRM media: The message was "We operate on a shoestring, so buy it from us while we're still around to sell it." (Not a bad message, come to think of it. You'll buy that game now, not six months from now, since you don't know if the seller will be around six months from now. And if you do buy it now, because it's DRM-free, you'll at least have it six months - or six years - from now when you finally get a

      • And if you do buy it now, because it's DRM-free, you'll at least have it six months - or six years - from now when you finally get around to playing it.

        Bought Half-Life 11 years ago. Registered it with Steam 7 years ago. Lost the disc sometime since then. Finally beat (the Steam DRMed versions of) Half-Life, Opposing Force, and Blue Shift 6 months ago.

        You were saying?

  • Unprofessional (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joshuaf (551531) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:36PM (#33668126) Homepage
    I only have 2 games from them, but this kind of weird drama does make me less likely to purchase anymore in the future. It just seemed super unprofessional compared to steam and impulse.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hatta (162192)

      Why should a company that sells games act professionally? The sillier the better I say.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Quirkz (1206400)
        Silly, yes. Great. Jokes. Weird promotions. That's all good.

        Pretend you're going out of business when you're not? That's not silly, that's frustrating or unsettling.

      • by rm999 (775449)

        I bought a game from them last week, and was concerned that it would no longer be supported. This is especially scary when they don't sell you physical media.

        Yeah... that was my last purchase from them.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by idontgno (624372)

          Yeah... that was my last purchase from them.

          ^^

          I don't buy appliances from the crazy neighborhood appliance store that's had a perpetual "going out of business sale" for the last three years, either.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Why would you not purchase from them in the future? You pick a game, you buy it, and download it, and it's yours. DRM free. For life. You're not buying stock in the company. Or are your principles so rigid that you have to take a stance against every "wrong".

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Bill Dimm (463823)

        Why would you not purchase from them in the future?

        Because the money you are giving to people who are willing to lie to you if it will put more cash in their own pockets could otherwise be spent on products from companies that have an ounce of respect for their customers. If you don't punish companies that cheat, the only companies that will survive are those that do.

        • by h4rr4r (612664)

          So using DRM is respect for their customers? Because that is what other game sellers do.

          If you could not see through their little "deceit" you need your head examined.

          • by Bill Dimm (463823)

            So using DRM is respect for their customers? Because that is what other game sellers do.

            I didn't say anything of the sort.

            If you could not see through their little "deceit" you need your head examined.

            So, it's OK to lie if the lie is obvious enough? Should I point out that the Slashdot editors apparently bought it, since they carried the story (and it's not April 1st).

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by PitaBred (632671)

          Or perhaps they were proving to the public that you didn't lose anything if they went away. You still had everything you purchased from them. That's huge, what with various DRM servers shutting down and removing content people thought they purchased.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TheRaven64 (641858)

          They did not lie. They withheld some facts (unless you actually bothered to ask them - they were actually quite forthcoming with the journalists who did, rather than jumping straight to the conclusion that they were going bust, rather than coming out of beta), but nothing on their announcement was an outright lie. And they made a very good point about DRM in doing so.

          If they had been selling DRM'd games and had actually gone bust, all of their customers would have been screwed. As it is, the only 'prob

        • Re:Unprofessional (Score:4, Insightful)

          by hedwards (940851) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @06:03PM (#33669352)
          As opposed to the companies that DRM the hell out of their products, refuse to give refunds if the aforementioned DRM prevents you from using it and fails to disclose the degree to which the DRM impacts the security of your computer?

          Perhaps I'm missing something, but is this PR stunt really worse behavior than the competition or are you talking about not buying games from anybody?
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Bill Dimm (463823)

            As opposed to the companies that DRM the hell out of their products, refuse to give refunds if the aforementioned DRM prevents you from using it and fails to disclose the degree to which the DRM impacts the security of your computer?

            Disgusting behavior is disgusting, even if the competition is worse.

            Perhaps I'm missing something, but is this PR stunt really worse behavior than the competition or are you talking about not buying games from anybody?

            They're selling games, not water; you can live without it. If you can't find any good options in the entire gaming industry, spend your entertainment dollars elsewhere. If you aren't willing to walk away when a company/industry treats you like crap, they'll just keep doing it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by joshuaf (551531)
        Except I hadn't actually downloaded them yet. I mostly bought them as a show of support for a DRM free company that was bringing back old games. It was MOO 1 and 2. I just liked knowing I had them out there when I wanted them. I've also since bought the same games on steam, when they later came there. Guess where I can download them from RIGHT NOW if I wanted. This is what makes me less likely to buy from them in the future.
  • Wow! What a concept. Promote your site by doing something that may cause the majority of people who might be interested in it to delete their bookmarks and never come back.
  • Lovely. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by RyanFenton (230700)

    Essentially, they call their customers suckers after taking away access to the games they chose to pay GOG money for, then call them too sensitive for feeling pissed off by that ("We're sorry you were offended"), then say that taking money for games is no longer good enough, so everyone's just going to have to take, oh, let's say whatever we decide is good enough for you.

    This certainly matches with the usual playbook of corporate non-apologies - smarmy, fake ingratiation, blame shifting their own words, all

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by KillaGouge (973562)
      As long as you kept the files you downloaded, you can ways play the games. I think you might need to take a little time and think next time. Unlike Steam's DRM model GOG has no DRM and doesn't have to every phone home to a server.

      Why are you so angry?
      • Re:Lovely. (Score:4, Informative)

        by hedwards (940851) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:57PM (#33668470)
        The big issue there was that some people had just purchased and as a result hadn't had the chance to download and secondly, they'd promised the customers that they'd always be able to download the games. I'm not sure anybody really believed always, but I do think that most of us assumed that when or if they shut down that there'd be arrangements in place or some sort of warning to download your stuff.

        I mean even 3d Realms when they went out of business made arrangements to handle recent orders.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by maugle (1369813)
      "Taking away access?"
      You buy and download the game. It's yours. Forever. No matter what happens to GOG that game will still play on your PC

      If Valve ever goes under, though, you're SOL. All your games will no longer work*.

      *Yes, I know Valve could release DRM-removing updates on all their games if they start going under. Really think that'll be high on their list of priorities, though?
  • by thetagger (1057066) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:45PM (#33668246)

    ... this stunt was horrible and silly and an annoyance. I recently reinstalled my computer, and when I went to Gog.com to redownload Gabriel Knight I got that stupid "zomg we're closing down" message. It feels like something straight out the 1990s, when nobody expected any degree of seriousness from Internet companies - thanks for reminding us how WE SHOUDLN'T TRUST YOU in the future, that's great marketing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ChaosDiscord (4913) *

      Part of why I love GOG is that I don't need to trust them. There is no DRM. I'm free to make my own backups and never visit their site again after purchasing a game. It doesn't matter if they go crazy and pull stupid stunts like this. It doesn't matter if they get bought out. It doesn't matter if the game's copyright holder gets into a snit and pulls the title. I still have my backup. This is as it should be.

      Yes, it was a stupid stunt. But a rational consumer has to assume that eventually every bus

  • Whoever organised this stunt needs to be shown the door. They've managed to do permanent damage. What's more it was so badly executed you wonder if it was the incompetent work of a 3rd grader.

    • by hedwards (940851)
      To be honest, it's going to be interesting to see whether this was more harmful, helpful or makes little difference. I suspect that it's not going to do them a whole lot of harm, as they've got a really loyal customer base and most of the competition is worse behaved.

      Personally, I'll be recommending them in the future, it's just really hard to pass up on cheap, DRM free games that are simply fun to play. There aren't a whole lot of options for that out there.
      • by JSBiff (87824)

        I'm not sure, but if any 'harm' comes to the company from this, I suspect it'll be less from people being angry at them, and more from people who either saw the reports of GOG's demise, or saw the 'placeholder' page, left, and don't come back because they missed the news that the site is back.

        That is, people who heard GOG was dead, and believed it, and just never look again.

  • "Yes my brother Gog was right. How were we to know the comet would land right in the middle of our giant warehouse. It's a cataclymic sale down here. We're up to our poor necks..You're crazy we got'em. Your nap will rise again and that's my story...Good god its Magog brothers, Atlantis Carpet Reclaimers, serving Hooker, Heater, Hellmouth, and the low desert area."

    -- Firesign Theatre from "Everything You Know Is Wrong (and dogs fly spaceships!)"

  • by seebs (15766) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @04:57PM (#33668462) Homepage

    So far as I can tell, nothing they said was untrue, people just read more into it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kalirion (728907)

      Mr. Seebs,

      We regret to inform you that your position has been terminated. You will now be escorted from the building by security. Someday next week we will allow you to stop buy and get your things.

      -HR

      4 days later:

      Mr Seebs,

      Haha, you fell for it. You're actually being transferred to a different position with the same responsibility, and we needed to remodel your office. Sorry if you were offended, but nothing we said was untrue - your fault for reading too much into it.

      -HR

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @05:07PM (#33668600)

    For 2 months the GOG forums have been rife with posts about how their birthday event better live up to expectations, or else (else is always ominously undefined). I think many customers were getting a little annoying. Living 2-3 days thinking GOG might be gone probably grounded a lot of these folks and imo it serves them right. I've purchased a ton of stuff from GOG and will continue to do so, since they're still offering the product that I want.

    I was depressed when I saw the notice not because I wouldn't be able to redownload some games I'd lost in a hard drive crash but more because there's no other company like them. GOG folding would be essentially saying, "Okay, Steam wins." Steam sucks in my mind, if that's online game sales, count me out. I already feel marginalized for enjoying PC games (even if I do have a 360), I'd be left with only indie titles sans DRM on my PC. I like my indie titles but I also like some of the big releases and the classics.

    I think there might have been a couple of behind the scenes reasons for doing this and all in all, it will benefit GOG in the longrun. It probably cost them some goodwill in the short term, but if the cost is low enough that's not de defacto a show stopper.

  • Honestly, when I saw their previous announcement, I instantly thought "Oh, they're just revamping their site".
  • by tlhIngan (30335) <slashdot@wor f . n et> on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @05:24PM (#33668806)

    All the people who said they had failed was either reading a bad summary or didn't check it out for themselves.

    Their temporary page had two things.

    First, was, they "could not continue operating like this". Now, that can mean they're going out of business, or it can mean something else. The literal translation is, "change is happening". That change could be "this site is dead", or it could be "please wait for the new and improved GoG 2.0".

    Secondly, they said "you will be able to download all your games on Wednesday". So something was happening today. If they were shutting down, it's a last-gasp download mania.

    Fact is, they didn't say "GoG.com is now closed for business, we thank all our customers for the past 2 years". It's also sort of unprofessional, because it screws everyone who bought a game just before they shut down, but haven't downloaded it yet (which is a dick move).

  • by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Wednesday September 22, 2010 @06:31PM (#33669682)

    ...is the negative reactions now.

    "Huff! Puff! Well, *I* won't be buying form them again after *this* treatment! Harumph!" Seriously, people, do you have any idea how you sound? Like a curmudgeonly old fool. Oh, you are SO offended! And you know *someone* out there is thinking of suing because their fragile little selves were damaged.

    My reaction was "Oh, shoot, I was going to go and get Syberia next week." and then "Oh, cool, I can still get Syberia." Any reaction more serious that that is a complete failure of your perspective matrix.

    As for Syberia, hey, I played the updated Monkey Island and now have an urge to go play some of the point and click puzzlers I missed. Weclome back, GOG. :-)

Lend money to a bad debtor and he will hate you.

Working...