for you maybe

some games the achievements unlock things for the player If I recall right ''Forager'' you do specific things and in game achievements pop with some cosmetic unlocked with the in game achievement aswell but ya overall achievements are pointless

In Trails from Zero / Azure achievements give you points to unlock some content and newgame+ bonuses.
Even fighting game character unlocks like Tekken used to have are basically achievements that alter the game.

I guess articles like this add a bit to the awareness about "game ownership", or rather can and should a game publisher be able to decide whether you can play your purchased games.

https://www.engadget.com/ubisoft-is-deleting-the-crew-from-players-libraries-reminding-us-we-own-nothing-165328083.html

I don't get it though, why do they even care if an online-only racing game, which doesn't work anymore, is pulled from their libraries? Or is it possible to continue playing the game on private servers, without Ubisoft being involved?

Anyway, I guess everyone makes their own decisions, as long as they are properly informed and understand the consequences of their decisions, like that always-online games will become unplayable at some point etc. And if one values the ability to decide the fate of their gaming so much, there are "alternatives" like GOG.com.

Maybe use arrow keys or scroll then?

It's better to have the ability to link to videos like trailers, game news, GOG media interviews, etc. and other factual sites than to not have it because of inconveniencing someone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWKgNNzXNxQ

In a way, news like that ("people tend to play mostly older games, not brand-new games") is good news for services like GOG which operate more with the mindset that they will not try to restrict where and when you play your purchased games.

Yeah, I also play older games, like currently Soul Reaver 2 and Planescape: Torment EE. Yet, I buy semi-new releases to my backlog as well (99% from GOG) because I have some kind of certainty no one will be actively blocking me if I will not play it until 5 or 10 years from now. Sure, it may be harder to get it to run on future systems, but that is up to me, not someone else deciding for me if I can play them.

If all games were online-only or even heavy DRM that could make them non-functional when the store from where I bought them is no more, or their gaming client decides where, or nowhere, I can play the game (e.g. the game refuses to run on anything newer than Windows 7 or XP, but the gaming client doesn't let me run the game there anymore), I would buy games much more seldom. Mostly just if I was sure I will play the game in the near future.

So as long as the game publishers and stores don't put restrictions on where and when I play my games, I am willing to buy games to a backlog, not knowing for sure when or if ever I will play the said game. My body, my choice.

Also specifically for online multiplayer games, I feel people tend to stick to only one or few games they know the best, and not eagerly jump ship to newer online games, abandoning their old favorites. And since they are not going to jump ship to newer online games, there is no reason to buy it either, or even pay for a subscription. I should know, still playing a free-to-play Team Fortress 2 online, which originally came out in 2007 (17 years ago) and somehow just refuses to die, even if there have been newer online shooters trying to dethrone it.

Did you look at the game list? Basically it's online-only games that will never come to GOG that get the most players. Not sure that I see that as good news for GOG.

You are comparing eggs to oranges. "Active players in an online game" and "people having bought a single-player game they are not necessarily even playing yet" are two wildly different things. Games like Hogwarts Legacy or Elden Ring (which I guess are at least predominantly single-player games) are not high on that list even though they have sold incredibly well and made a lot of money to their publishers.

I would argue that with single-player games the money used by customers is spread more evenly across lots of games, while with online games, a few winners take all the money. Also, single-player games are less risky investments too because you don't have to set up gameplay servers for them (without knowing if people will join the game at all) etc.; with single-player game you sell a game and that's it, apart from churning out updates every now and then, as long as you feel like doing it.

The point was that newer online-only games struggle because people who play always-online games, are hesitant to move to newer (online multiplayer) games. Online games are a different breed in that sense, people tend to stick to older multiplayer games they know well and know they enjoy, along with other people playing them. This is made worse with people usually playing only one or few online games at a time; e.g. since I still get enjoyment from Team Fortress 2 (a 17 year old free-to-play online shooter), I have very little reason to switch to something newer like Overwatch 2 (I've installed and tried out OW2, but was "meh" and got back to TF2).

I don't know how good business TF2 was and is for Valve, as I've played it for over a decade with thousands of hours, yet I've used only 50 cents or so to the game years ago, just to get an inventory expansion early on (later I found out you can get an inventory expansion also without money, but meh...). No idea how many of its players over the years have been cheapskate gamers like me causing mostly just expenses to Valve, and how many have actually made money for them.

There are only selected few winners in online games, as there the community decides for you whether it is feasible to play a game, people flock to certain online games only, and the aforementioned fact that people don't usually play several online games at the same time, but stick to those dearest to them.

Single-player games, on the other hand, have less issue with that as they can and will be completed, after which most seek some other (single-player) games to play. And in case there is less worry of your purchase becoming unplayable in the coming years (e.g. DRM-free), people like me are willing even to buy games into their already big backlog, without knowing where and when they will play those games. This can carve at least some kind of market to services/stores like GOG which promote this idea of "game ownership".

Maybe. I can see people saving before an event, and going through the requirements for the achievement, then dropping it only to go back to how they wanted to do it in the first place. Why? Maybe achievement 'get past the guards without being spotted/detected', and you wanted the loot. Some achievements are just 'do X thing a bunch of times' so you might do that more often until the achievement is done just to collect it.

Going out of your way to collect a thing, doesn't mean it was better than not getting the thing at all.

Adding to part of the script (in general or scene specific) to mark a flag of 'Did a thing' so it shows up, hardly seems hard coded. More like a side effect. It's not like it's part of the core engine.

But if achievements are tied to game mechanics (likely give you global bonuses) THOSE would have tangible in-game effects. Rogue-likes like ToME where you get an achievement for fighting in the arena, and as such you unlock halfling slingers. Then there's this box you get the box automatically on every new game from then on which auto-sells loot you don't claim, etc. THOSE are worth going for.

I care about achievements the same level as i care about my Xbox gaming score. I personally consider it clutter. I don't find meaning or pride in what my achievements are, or what my total score is, or my steam level. At the end of the day it's if you had fun, and jangling keys saying 'you didn't get this, you are missing out' is just annoying to me.

Rent-a-hacker!
We are a team of professional hackers. Our expertise is programming, running exploits, and setting up DDoS attacks, databases, WordPress pharma-hack, SEO and web design, hosting & server management, marketing, and website hacking services. We like the challenge of doing things where most others give up.

Examples:
Spear phishing attacks to get accounts from selected targets. Recover account passwords of most social networks easily, remote control smartphones. Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, Twitter account hacking. Criminal record expungement, Credit score increment, Change of a school course grade, tracking live location, etc.

Full package deal, getting access to personal or company devices and accounts, and searching for the data you need. Hacking web servers, game servers, or other internet infrastructure. Economic espionage. Get private information from someone. We have no restrictions or boundaries to the type of jobs and services we offer!

Contact via
Telegram:............ @Blackhat_plug

I don't buy DRM-ed games, because I hate DRM. To me, there is no such thing as a game I like/want that has DRM, because the fact that a game includes DRM automatically means that I don't want it. There are thousands of great games that are available DRM-free - many more than I would be able to play in my lifetime. Why would I need to debase myself by fawning after ones that include DRM?

To the OP: if there are games you want that unavoidably have DRM, then for those games, you need to choose between missing them, putting up with the DRM, or resorting to the 'high seas'. But remember: it's the developers of that game that are putting you in that position and forcing you to make that choice.

I agree that client-based achievements are not 'part of the game'. If they were 'part of the game', then they would be handled purely within the game and be functional if the game were installed stand-alone, separately from any client.

Steam-style achievements easily could be implemented that way, but they're generally not. The way they are implemented, Steam achievements are nothing more than a cheap marketing tool, used to promote an artificially symbiotic environment to lock players in to having to use Steam's client to play their games. They are a tool for manipulating and constraining gamers, nothing more.

But at least, either:
* Make the URL clearly visible (by just typing the URL as plain text)
* Make it clear, in the post, that the link is too a video

Also, phones don't generally have arrow keys, and even if a phone does have arrow keys, they're not particularly convenient. (Also, hovering is annoying on a phone, and too close to actually following the link.)

Out of curiosity: What exactly is the problem with "accidentally" clicking on video links?
Don't want to waste bandwidth and exhaust your data plan?
Or are you afraid your boss might finally notice that you are wasting your precious work time on the GOG forum? :-P
Why not just disable auto-play in the browser and/or mute sound?

Disabling auto-play doesn't work as well as it should. For example, I believe that Chrome/Chromium will only limit autoplay for sites that you don't regularly visit. So, if you intentionally watch youtube videos enough, the browser will autoplay them, even if you didn't intend to watch a video.

It's also a waste of bandwidth, and could easily result in exposure to images or sounds that can be triggering or causing other issues.

The problem with just muting sound all the time is that sometimes I want sound.

Edit: Also, I'm of the opinion that sites that do things like autoplay videos are not good internet citizens, and therefore said practices should not be rewarded.

One of the many examples of the dopamine psychologists say gaming delivers being weaponized by corporations.