No disagreement here.

A) If Gog can make more money while maintaining it's DRM-free status then that's only a good thing. If it's clearly marked which games aren't DRM-free or even accessible without some extra client then I don't see any problem with that. Since I don't use Galaxy to begin with then it doesn't bother me in any way.

B) If all the Steam competitors could cooperate with each other then that's only + for the entire industry. Since Steam is so huge they don't have to worry about customer satisfaction too much. If competitors wish to start closing the gap then they should offer better service and features than the current market leader. Simply keepig refugees from Steam isn't going to be enough.

I agree, though the copout is "we're now two completely different stores, so stop judging Galaxy on DRM-Free"...

The problem is if game publishers receive an 88% cut for selling on both Epic & Galaxy (because they're both the Epic version) but if they receive only a 70-80% cut for a "proper" GOG version that costs more to support (having to patch separately, recode achievements for Galaxy, etc), then the more popular "Epic on Galaxy" becomes, the less incentive there is for game publishers who are already on Epic to re-release on GOG.com. So non-Galaxy users may well be negatively affected by fewer games releasing "natively" on GOG.com (as proper GOG releases) in future.

For those who dismiss this as unlikely, see what happened to other dual DRM / DRM-Free stores such as Humble Store's own DRM-Free builds once "but Steam keys are good enough" became the default. The DRM-Free builds are mostly still there for existing stuff, but they soon transitioned into a hollowed out key reseller for newer games. Eg, go to Humble, use the "New Releases filter" = 270 games. Now use the "New Releases + DRM-Free filters" = 8 games or barely 3%...

Technically, GOG is still a DRM-free store, even if they allow Galaxy user to buy DRM-ed games from Epic. It might not affect the catalogue of GOG.com at all, therefor bringing no immediate downsides to users but benefits to GOG.

What it does affect though is their image. It's one of the latest moves in a long line of moves that's been gradually alienating their early supporters and making GOG appear more and more hypocritical, because it does not fit the image they tried to give themselves in the past. And it's not even that long ago that GOG boasted to be part of a big "FCK DRM" campaign, only to quickly sweep it under the rug afterwards when it was not convenient anymore (similar to the "1€ is not $1" campaign). They tried to give themselves a rebellious image, then realized that going with the flow would be more profitable than sticking to principles. Now, if BKGaming can be regarded as a spokesperson in any way, it seems nowadays they're "rebelling" against the pesky fans from the early days who still hang out in the forums, by using GOG's initial USP of "fighting the good fight" as a jibe to deride those who still believe in what the company claimed to stand for back then. And maybe that's deserved, because it's quite clear the GOG of today isn't the GOG of 2012 anymore and don't really wants to be reminded of the old GOG either.

In this regard, I think it's no use to point out how hypocritical decisions like this one look from the outside, because apparently they have grown enough for it not to matter anymore. The rebellious GOG with principles was just a stepping stone to success and the initial userbase who cared about principles has outlived its usefulness long ago. If anything, GOG can pat themselves on the back for managing to keep them this long despite all the disappointments. I thought it was quite revealing when I looked back at a presentation from the early days, where the founders of GOG explained that if you manage to grow a loyal fanbase by creating a bond through sympathy, those fans will still support you, even if you disappoint them repeatedly. And that's exactly what they've done - whether clumsily or fully aware, that's up to you to decide.

Mind you, there's nothing wrong with changing your mind about something. The problem is that GOG still tries to have their cake and eat it too, so instead of being open about any new directions and convictions, they prefer to keep silent and act like all is still in line with their initial "mission", selling every U-turn as Good News (tm) and "enhancements".

I understand your concern but where do you get the 70 - 75% from? Considering that Epic have taken agressive stance on marketing and spending all that sweet Fortnite money on customer acquisition, then I'd expect Epic (and not publishers) to pay the difference.

The way it's done doesn't make much sense. On the one hand access is granted to a third-party library and shop, on the other GOG decides which games are sold from the respective parties' catalogue. Not only is there little benefit, GOG's competitors offer the same option more or less, and none actually offers options to play and keep up-to-date the games without another 3rd-party client.

While integration of Steam and EGS does seem a good idea, when it isn't titles which can't be played with another client running, without a (one) patch to update a game, or such games will be filtered out and one has to manually integrate them into the library, furthermore when you can't be sure you can play with your friends or connect to them across several platforms, using the shop or unified library client is rather pointless.

Since GOG allows it, they should be the first to try to abolish the update/patch and achievement system the way it is, work with the other parties to allow for one system that can be shared and accessed, which takes lots of work off the backs of developers and studios and customers as the only decisions to be made would be: Do I want this client or that other one? Do I wish to buy DRM- or DRM-free titles. Neither party would miss out on customers or lose money over it if there was this one system and the winners in the end would be we the consumers.

That's inaccurate, a blue has stated on the record GOG does not charge at flat 30% cut like most stores. What they said was it's on a case by case basis and largely depends on the work involved for GOG (ie getting an old game to run on modern systems vs just hosting a new game for sale). So it's entirely possible GOG could be offering some devs a closer percentage to Epic. This info is not public.

It may vary individually, and GOG are now certainly paying devs more (that was what the removal of the Fair Price Package was about), but I still highly doubt it's anything close to 88/12. The 20-25% was an educated guess, but one grounded in reality that Epic have +$6bn annual income from Fortnite / Unreal Engine licensing money coming in that GOG doesn't. If they were swimming in money we wouldn't see weekly posts complaining about abnormally long wait for support tickets to be resolved...

This "deal" with Epic looks more like "affiliate marketing" sort of deals where you get % of that existing 30%. It's not like Gog is losing anything by advertising games they don't sell themselves.

cybersoy backlash really broke this place

That does appear to be how it works.

The issue is how many future non-GOG Epic games will they be advertising, that could come to GOG but will be less likely to because they are advertising the Epic version on Galaxy. Eg, imagine future games such as say Metro Exodus that released on Epic. After a year it came to GOG & Steam. But had the Epic version been sold on Galaxy during that year, would there still been the same incentive to go back and release on GOG.com?

GOG wants people to believe the answer is "yes" simply because they like marketing Galaxy, but the bottom line is it will cost the developer less not to, and GOG have basically communicated that it cost you less money to sell 1x variant of your game on 2x stores than it will having to make 2x variants for 2x stores, with little bargaining position to undo that. And we've already had experience in that area from Humble where 1-in-3 new games were DRM-Free shrunk to today's only 1-in-30 (and people at the time also swore blind "it won't have any impact, people still have a choice, etc, etc").

The most obvious answer would be them going back on their word and slogans etc if they did. So this is a method to avoid that while also making some profit via EGS.

Another answer, is that GOG have a huge customer base, of which the greater majority don't seem to care about DRM or DRM-Free, and just get a game they want, with maybe some consideration over price etc.

I guess it is possible for some to not mind DRM while also not liking Steam, and EGS and GOG linking up could really appeal to them.

No matter what is claimed though, it will effect the amount of DRM-Free games available at GOG, how could it not. So long as GOG make profit though, and don't blatantly go against their DRM-Free mantra, then they can choose to ignore the obvious ramifications. It will only be the DRM-Free customers that miss out.

Another answer again, is that it is just a baby step to something else further down the track. You could even theorize that GOG feel or felt vulnerable by having all their eggs in the DRM-Free basket. This may especially be the case, when you consider that DRM is increasing around the world, not lessening.

^ Exactly. The bulk of sales are during the critical first few months after launch. If Epic-on-Galaxy were already running, I don't believe "actually GOG.com" versions of 1 year Epic exclusives games like Control, Metro Exodus, etc, would be here at all if they were already on Galaxy during same period. And if devs see other devs accepting that, they'll start to demand a single joint Epic + Galaxy Epic version release.

As much as some people like BKGamer protest "I don't believe this will ever happen", if the totality of GOG sales make up say 10% of total game sales, and 50-75% of those 10% GOG users (5.0-7.5%) will buy the Epic-Galaxy version, devs will simply not make a proper GOG.com version for a couple of percent. They've literally come out and said this (it's why we lost Supraland in the developers own words). All encouraging more and more Galaxy users to buy the Epic versions of games and saying "that'll do for our GOG version" does is reduce demand for proper GOG.com releases of future games. It's the worst idea GOG have had unless their long-term plan all along is to develop a meta-client with the full intention of transitioning to a Humble style key-reseller.

There is an amazing amount of GOg defenders here considering “you guys” apparently refers to a minority, who only use the forum, only want offline downloads? Would expect them to be off on their fancy client, or twatting each other up on their walls for achievements or whatever? Strange really. Anyways, simple answer, buy games direct from Epic, just avoid GOG.