The slogan in question is "Respecting your need for ownership."
My reaction can be well summarized by this.https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0H4b3mtOexk/TJTnyUt-iZI/AAAAAAAATfA/Az0VyJre0CE/s400/g.bmp

In other words, I would much prefer GOG to just do the thing rather than making a big production of telling me they are doing the thing. Similar examples are news/information sources labeling themselves as "fair and balanced" or when individual people say "trust me".

Whenever any individual, group or entity goes out of their way to tell me that they are performing the baseline expected action, I begin to wonder if they are.

If something seems too good to be true...

They definitely aren't. If you read the EULAs, ToS'es and/or other legal agreements etc. that the customers have with GOG and/or the games' publishers, then they specifically state that the customers don't actually own the games.

We're all legally allowed to laugh in the face of EULAs.

It's the usual marketing of buzzwords, very common nowadays. Sometimes it does align with actions, sometimes it doesn't. The feedback form we were emailed a while ago was full of such buzzwords and lines, probably to determine what still has an impact on customers. Similar techniques are used when you want to build hype or a cult.

But yea, standard stuff or baseline as you said, shouldn't really be hyped up like this. Though who knows, maybe in the future such concepts will become a luxury.... like, paying for stuff and actually even expecting it to work, etc.

I do think it's odd that GOG equates ownership to a personal need...

... and...

... not a universal right.

"Respecting your RIGHT to ownership" would be a much stronger -- and IMO appropriate -- slogan for GOG to have used.

So the question arises...

... does GOG see ownership as a RIGHT (universal) or simply a NEED (personal)?

I always wondered about if that portrayal of Jesus is really used by the Church. And then not ofc some small independent community.

Feeling triggered in any way is usually the aim for any marketeer. Both good and negative reactions are valued. Especially the negative ones, since most humans tend to value their negative feelings more often than their positive ones.

Given the luxury status of their wares, GOG is completely correct in calling ownership a need. It's a high-value enough prospect to be more than a want, but the purchase of even good art doesn't provide food or shelter.

Who cares about lame marketing slogans?
It's about as worthwhile as a promise made by a political coldcaller. Action is worthwhile, talk is cheap.

Price has nothing to do with it.

They are not granting ownership, but commenting on ownership rights.

It's within this commenting regarding ownership that they have chosen to make "... your need..." subjective... and something they are granting, instead of a right (to ownership) that they are simply affirming.

Their intentions may have been good, but like many of their actions lately, the slogan leaves room for interpretation.

Good job responding to something I didn't say like a damn fool; at no point did I say anything about prices.

Can you download the offline installers and goodies, back them up however you want, and choose whether or not you want to use a game client to play them?

The answer to that question is yes. What we buy here is permanently ours unless you choose not to back them up, but even if you don't, the likelihood of losing access to those games at any point is slim unless GOG goes under or you lose your account.

Who cares?

It is amazing what people in this forum find to complain about.

GOG can write and do whatever they want. It is wrong. LOL.

You said "Price has nothing to do with it" as if I said anything about price to begin with, which is untrue. There's nothing unclear about describing something as "high-value" or having "luxury status", that's a completely separate matter from the price-tag. Nobody is asking you to disgrace yourself by misrepresenting the words of others.