Firstly, open source can be used commercially and is used. Does it work always? Not necessarily.

Secondly, GOG's business is not impacted by them opening the client, because they don't sell it, they sell their service which only benefits from improvements in the client which can happen if it's opened. If it has a proper license, competitors will have to open their own additions to the client, so GOG is free to reuse that. That's even an upside really.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: alcaldeThe obvious downside: some other gaming store uses the open source client. Now their competition benefits from GOG's effort.

That's a pretty empty downside. GOG doesn't sell their client, they sell their service.

Quoting: alcaldeIf everything were open there'd be no money to be made in programming anymore.

That's nonsense. Open doesn't mean it can't be commercially used to make money. Or I guess RedHat and others just get money from thin air.

In gaming context, that can be more interesting though. For example you can't use most business models like support and etc. Games work on hard sales. So making the game fully open makes it hard to sell. For that one can make the engine open and artistic assets closed.

Anyway, in GOG's case they aren't selling their client.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Hehe, so that boils down to having "something to hide"? That's exactly the point of this request. To gain trust, such things shouldn't be hidden. There is nothing wrong with preventing cheats or gathering stats, and why should it mandate closed clients? Authentication can be performed using open ones. Say for example you don't claim that you can't use an open browser to make a transaction with your bank, because you can cheat?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

For example if GOG open the client, they'll have to deal with bug reports, pull requests (i.e. features and fixes requested to be added to the code) and so on. While normally that's very useful, to actually handle all that, GOG will have to allocate resources (i.e. people, time etc.). I'd say it's worth doing, but GOG can think it's just an extra burden.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I think more than governance, the overhead of running the open source project can be an issue, especially if GOG never did it before.

So, even if GOG can't open source the client, they can document the protocol:
https://secure.gog.com/wishlist/site/document_the_protocol_and_api_of_the_galaxy_updater_client_to_enable_community_alternatives [External Link]

That for sure shouldn't have any blockers.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ZeloxWhat I'm trying to say here is, I dont think gamers will use the GOG client. I dont really see a point in it myself.

Ah, that's a completely different topic, unrelated to the discussion above which is about convincing GOG to open their own client.

And just to clarify - you are wrong. Gamers are already using GOG's Galaxy. For example for the Witcher adventure game.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ZeloxCause valve is to big :P.

I don't understand really what you mean. What does Valve have to do with GOG opening or not opening their client?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BillNyeTheBlackGuyI just don't see the point. Not every program needs to be open.

From the GOG perspective, there is a very obvious point - trust (as explained in the GOG wishlist item and on the forum. Just open and read the explanation). Open code can be audited externally (it doesn't mean it always is, but it can be).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: DrMcCoyYeah, there's no chance in hell this will ever happen.

I dare you to prove me wrong, GOG.

Why can't it happen? I don't really see any downsides for GOG.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The game surely is original.

View this comment - View article - View full comments