It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Thanks for all the feedback you gave us after the previous update. You’re awesome and it shows the GOG insights piques your interest. Today’s article is about a topic that we know is very important to you – our commitment to DRM-free gaming and what it exactly means.

GOG was built on trust, which is at the very core of our identity. It is evidenced by our 30-day refund policy or releasing games DRM-free, among other things. At the same time, we understand DRM-free might mean different things to different people, especially when modern games blend offline and online experiences.

When GOG first launched, the gaming market looked very different from what it is now – retail was the main place to buy games, and digital distribution was just taking baby steps. DRM, the copy protection software created to protect licenses against unauthorized disc copying, was a huge source of annoyance for gamers often restricting how they can access their content. From the beginning, part of GOG’s mission was to provide gamers with a simple way to access and play games, without the need to fiddle with files or deal with any DRM. Making sure you can play games purchased on GOG offline, make backup copies, and install them as many times as you need is even more relevant now, as things like game preservation become an important topic for the whole industry.

Today, while some of the most infamous DRMs of the past are thankfully long gone, it doesn’t mean the constraints are fully gone. They just have a different, more complex face.

Games are evolving and many titles offer features beyond single-player offline gameplay, like multiplayer, achievements, vanities, rewards. Many such games are already on GOG and will continue to join our catalog. But it also raises the question: is this a new frontier for DRM?

And this is the crux of the matter. Some think it is, some don’t. Some hate it, some don’t mind it. And to be fair, we didn’t comment on it ourselves for quite some time and feel this is the time to do so:

We believe you should have freedom of choice and the right to decide how you use, enjoy, and keep the games you bought. It manifests in three points:
1. The single-player mode has to be accessible offline.

2. Games you bought and downloaded can never be taken from you or altered against your will.

3. The GOG GALAXY client is and will remain optional for accessing single-player offline mode.


We fully commit to all those points. Aside from this, we reaffirm our continuous effort to make games compatible with future OSs and available for you for years to come.

As for multiplayer, achievements, and all that jazz – games with those features belong on GOG. Having said that, we believe that you have the right to make an informed choice about the content that you choose to enjoy and we won’t tell you how and where you can access or store your games. To make it easier to discover titles that include features like multiplayer, unlockable cosmetics, timed events, or user-generated content, we’re adding information about such functionalities on product pages. In short, you’ll always know.

We always took a lot of pride in the freedom we provide gamers. While we know DRM-free may have a different meaning to everyone, we believe you have the right to decide how you use, enjoy, and keep the titles you get on GOG. With games evolving towards adding more online features, we want you to understand our DRM-free approach and what it means to us. It is an important topic – let us know what you think.
low rated
avatar
bombardier: If you, as a store, say that your customers don't accept even this simple things, guess how many games you will have on your store page.
avatar
lolplatypus: Since most of GOG's current catalogue still qualifies, 4174 minus a few offenders.
Exactly. And then you have to start scraping the bottom of porn barrel to make some sales as customer number dwindle.

Edit:
Shit, I had to recheck this...
I own more than 10% of ENTIRE catalog of a game store. That is bizarre.

How to hell do they even stay afloat?

A relative of mine has a small record store, and he has way more vinyls than that.
Post edited March 21, 2022 by bombardier
low rated
avatar
lostwolfe: i understand that you think i'm an old guard person and that my perspective is crazy and nonsense.
Not really. I think you guys have far too much invested in this (literally and figuratively) and that you're quite rigid and stubborn, but that's about it. Anyone who posts weekly or even daily on the forum for a decade and has spent thousands of euros on games here would be the same. There's no shame in that. It's about as crazy and non-sensical as any enthusiast guy investing thousands of euros on any kind of hobby (see hi-fi nerds for example). So not really. Whatever makes you happy :)

avatar
lostwolfe: if gog listened to it's userbase [or the bit of the userbase that feels that drm matters] then they could have something unique and interesting on their hands.
But havent' they catered to the old guard all these years? It's been DRM-free for a decade now, and it has a pitiful revenue stream, razor-thin or negative margins, and little room for growth due to competitors. What makes you think they were/are succesful by doing what they did? This isn't me or anyone saying they need to have always-online/other draconian DRMed games on here, or in fact any DRMed games, just wondering what your measure of success here is? Seems to me GOG is operating like a charity for a small band of the old guard. That can't be sustainable.
low rated
avatar
rjbuffchix: ...
I noticed your other comment about me probably never replying to you, but here I am. Sorry, I'm super busy these days and not really that active on GOG anyways, but I do try to reply.

avatar
rjbuffchix: How many resources have GOG poured into imo wasteful endeavors like the client? I see you left that factor out of your financial analysis :) Other users can clarify better but I recall hearing years ago GOG replaced all the installers to include Galaxy, only to then undo all this work. In other words a colossal waste of time and probably money.
Sure, but consider also how tiny their revenue stream is (in addition to negligible profits of that). Even the old guard, if they are buying every single game at full price, hasn't been able to affect it, despite their best efforts. Tad defeatist, or realist, I know, but there it is.

avatar
rjbuffchix: Additionally, this is admittedly anecdotal from my interactions with certain users, but it seems to me the old-school-minded users generally tend to have some of the biggest libraries here and buy extra games to giveaway. Or, at least they did until GOG keep messing up and compromising on the idea of DRM-free.
Anecdotal, but I've seen plenty of the old guard complaining about the price of games on new releases threads and stating they will only buy it once on sale. I bought XCOM2 with all the works at full price just because I love teh game, wanted to support GOG for bringing it here, and thought there aren't that many games here I desperately want anyways so I'll pay 60 euros instead of the 4 euros it was on sale with. This was not very savvy on my part, I could have upped my game count by 10 games or more for bragging rights, but I bought what I wanted and thought would play.

Think about how much revenue that 80% sale is actually bringing in, and how many people buy games on sale on GOG. These sales are incredibly frequent on here, because let's face it, most of the games are past their sell by dates and were released many years ago on other platforms first. Even their base price is low due to the age of the game.

Also think about how limited their catalogue is for most people interested in only playing and buying some of their desired games. At some point you run out of things to buy but definitely not play, and since the sales are ridiculously frequent and abundant, everyone and their mother owns that excellent game that they got for a pittance.

This is not a great business model, and I believe it goes a long way in explaining why GOG basically operates as a non-profit organisation.

avatar
rjbuffchix: Care to take on a friendly challenge related to the above point? I dare you to name a single "new style" user that has bought Epic Fail games through the new app on GOG Galaxy 2.0 who also has high-triple-digit or even quadruple-digit number of games or buys extra copies of any GOG game (even on sale) to giveaway.
You and me both know there probably isn't such a user. Not only because Epic Games hasn't been around for that long, and the Epic integration with Galaxy certainly hasn't, and to accumulate hundreds or thousands of games in a year or two is pretty crazy and wasteful. But that doesn't detract anything from what I've said, in fact it's fairly inconsequential to it. If the old guard can't bring in much of any revenue anyways, why pander to them and stay hostage to their demands? Are they really the ones propping up the whole store? I don't think we will ever know to be honest, unless GOG tells us something about their accumulated data about us. What we do know though, there is little growth out there to get in the market for GOG with the old-guard 'profile' audience. There aren't a lot of people who are diehard DRM-free fanatics that are willing to buy thousands of games and *aren't already* here, let's face it. Everyone who feels so strongly about DRM-free gaming, will almost certainly already be on GOG and contributing. Yet, as we know, it's hardly enough unfortunately.

avatar
rjbuffchix: And if someone had a cancerous tumor, should they only have the doctor remove some of it? After all, they wouldn't want to seem like one of those wacky toxic people who would insist on complete removal. What are they, some kind of weirdo...better to be moderate and only remove some of the cancer, right?
Not only is this a cringe analogy, it's quite flawed. It relies on the assumption that GOG is introducing DRM to GOG, or 'leaving it to grow' and thus will end up destroying and killing it. Forgive me for my ignorance, but aren't there only a handful of DRMed singleplayer games on GOG at the moment? Where is this massive cancerous tumor that you speak of? Where are the hundreds of games with non-optional singleplayer DRM on GOG? Cause I haven't seen much of them. I think it's blown completely out of proportion just to allow outrage and cancellation or boycott of the entire store for the sake of feeling good about people's vidya gaming principles. If there's 6 games out of 4200 that have a whiff of some DRM remnant (someone here mentioned 6, idk if that's accurate), why would you throw the baby out with the bathwater? Enjoy the DRM-free gaming and work with them, don't shoot yourself in the foot and boycott the whole thing and kill the person with the cancer because he has a little bit of a cancerous tumor.
low rated
avatar
mqstout: As I replied before, the people who have problems with "porn games" are generally the ones who are OK with the DRM.

You're conflating separate groups. I have no problems with "porn games". I don't want DRM at all, not even if "disclosed".
avatar
bombardier: I am just pointing to the illogical expectations.

There is a gap between "playing DRMed games" and "playing DRM free games".
There is a gap between "playing video games" and "masturbating".

The second gap was crossed because of income. Why do you think that the first, much smaller, gap is not gonna get crossed? What were you basing your expectations on?

It seems that turning GoG into sleazy porn store didn't bring so much needed income. Maybe team "go porn" has way less disposable income and membership numbers than they pretend to have. :)
No. There's like eighty billion adult stores to buy this stuff from or we can support the devs through Patreon and get access to updates that GOG won't have. Being A DIK for example already has access into Season 3. GOG won't get that for a while. Plus, people generally like to support Jast USA or MangaGamer perhaps on their own sites. Remember, Jast USA admitted that they don't make anything if you buy their stuff from GOG.

And please quit equating adult games with masturbation. Some people just like nude and sexual artworks.
low rated
avatar
rojimboo: Also think about how limited their catalogue is for most people interested in only playing and buying some of their desired games. At some point you run out of things to buy but definitely not play, and since the sales are ridiculously frequent and abundant, everyone and their mother owns that excellent game that they got for a pittance.

This is not a great business model, and I believe it goes a long way in explaining why GOG basically operates as a non-profit organisation.
Just for the record, I think this perspective is flawed. Whether you spend 60€ on XCOM or on ten other games, GOG's getting 18€ from you.

Your budget for games derives from your disposable income and is generally fixed. It's not getting bigger by buying games full price, so for GOG this makes no difference. I'd argue it doesn't even make a difference for the companies making the games.

Unless of course you do have a very short list of games you want to buy and no interest in trying anything else.
low rated
avatar
lolplatypus: Just for the record, I think this perspective is flawed. Whether you spend 60€ on XCOM or on ten other games, GOG's getting 18€ from you.

Your budget for games derives from your disposable income and is generally fixed. It's not getting bigger by buying games full price, so for GOG this makes no difference. I'd argue it doesn't even make a difference for the companies making the games.

Unless of course you do have a very short list of games you want to buy and no interest in trying anything else.
Actually, it's not flawed because my point was I would have either spent 4 euros or 60 euros. The other 10 games didn't interest me, like you said at the end. So I gave GOG a lot of money by supporting them bringing in an outstanding game. Little did I know it would be missing stuff plus the native Linux version, but I digress.
low rated
avatar
rojimboo: Actually, it's not flawed because my point was I would have either spent 4 euros or 60 euros. The other 10 games didn't interest me, like you said at the end. So I gave GOG a lot of money by supporting them bringing in an outstanding game. Little did I know it would be missing stuff plus the native Linux version, but I digress.
Okay, in that case you're quite right and I misread your post. My apologies for misinterpreting your point.
low rated
avatar
lolplatypus: Okay, in that case you're quite right and I misread your post. My apologies for misinterpreting your point.
Actually, now that I think about it, you make an excellent point. I was indeed saying if everyone bought everything at full price, Go would be doing amazing. But actually person A will regardless spend 100 euros a month, whether it's on 2 games or 20 so Gog gets the same amount. However, they've lost the potential to charge more and earn more for those games bought on sale. But this only matters if the catalogue is quite limited. Anyways, good point.
low rated
avatar
rojimboo: But havent' they catered to the old guard all these years? It's been DRM-free for a decade now, and it has a pitiful revenue stream, razor-thin or negative margins, and little room for growth due to competitors. What makes you think they were/are succesful by doing what they did? This isn't me or anyone saying they need to have always-online/other draconian DRMed games on here, or in fact any DRMed games, just wondering what your measure of success here is? Seems to me GOG is operating like a charity for a small band of the old guard. That can't be sustainable.
This is where you're wrong. GOG's been profitable until recently [and still generally profitable even with thst], and its profit-ruining has come from the costs related to things like Galaxy development, GWENT maintenance, and things like that. Moreover, losing their competitive advantage (DRM-free) that sets them apart from other retailers is a harm to them actually selling more in the long term.
low rated
avatar
rojimboo: I noticed your other comment about me probably never replying to you, but here I am. Sorry, I'm super busy these days and not really that active on GOG anyways, but I do try to reply.
Hey sorry for that, and thank you for replying. I stand happily corrected. I will respond to some of your points but ultimately from reading your post I believe we are at an impasse so I will probably bow out after that...you are free to follow up, it isn't like I am trying to have "the last word," I just don't think much more progress will be made for either of our "sides" as it were.

avatar
rjbuffchix: How many resources have GOG poured into imo wasteful endeavors like the client? I see you left that factor out of your financial analysis :) Other users can clarify better but I recall hearing years ago GOG replaced all the installers to include Galaxy, only to then undo all this work. In other words a colossal waste of time and probably money.
avatar
rojimboo: Sure, but consider also how tiny their revenue stream is (in addition to negligible profits of that). Even the old guard, if they are buying every single game at full price, hasn't been able to affect it, despite their best efforts. Tad defeatist, or realist, I know, but there it is.
Well, that's the thing...if GOG wasn't pouring resources into misguided attempts at growth, they would theoretically be in better financial shape even with everything else remaining equal.

I am not even necessarily saying here that they shouldn't pour some resources into attempts to grow (though it is a completely valid argument to say GOG should stick to catering to their niche and slowly expanding within that niche); just that I have a vastly different idea of what might be successful. Have you ever seen advertising for GOG...like...anywhere?

Given the fact that GOG has started and ended several promotions or campaigns (GOG Connect, FCKDRM), I think it is clear that the growth ideas they used thusfar were not successful. What's really concerning is that the window for using some ideas may have passed or been re-shaped, as the game industry has increasingly moved towards DRM. That doesn't mean a niche can't be successful, of course.

Your position seems to be that GOG had to try all these alternative ideas since the old-school-minded users supposedly don't bring in enough money but I am saying if GOG spent their money better that may be a moot point, and if nothing else is something that would have to be factored into your analysis. I think it is unfair to attribute that to the old-school-minded users, especially if alternative avenues of growth may have brought in additional similar users.

avatar
rojimboo: Also think about how limited their catalogue is for most people interested in only playing and buying some of their desired games.
I have thought about it...this was addressed by my point that the passage of time means we never need to run out of "old" games. There are many, many games from the 2010s that should come here...of course, if GOG destroys their own negotiating leverage, it is unlikely said games will come here let alone DRM-free. As I'm writing this, I'm seriously wondering why developers would even want to put their games on GOG going into the future, given GOG's direction, considering that GOG's audience is (supposedly) accessible via Galaxy 2.0, the mother of all clients. Us old-school types are just a vocal minority right. So devs/pubs can say to GOG "why should we bring our game here? Your users can just buy it on Scheme/Epic Fail and boot up Galaxy 2.0".

avatar
rojimboo: This is not a great business model, and I believe it goes a long way in explaining why GOG basically operates as a non-profit organisation.
GOG is a public company with shareholders which is part of the problem and very likely why we see such trend-hopping attempts at growth. If they could sell you a Geralt NFT without too much backlash they would. I could only dream of GOG, and other businesses, being actual non-profit organizations...very strange to use this as a sort of negative attribute but I don't want to get off topic.

avatar
rjbuffchix: Care to take on a friendly challenge related to the above point? I dare you to name a single "new style" user that has bought Epic Fail games through the new app on GOG Galaxy 2.0 who also has high-triple-digit or even quadruple-digit number of games or buys extra copies of any GOG game (even on sale) to giveaway.
avatar
rojimboo: You and me both know there probably isn't such a user. Not only because Epic Games hasn't been around for that long, and the Epic integration with Galaxy certainly hasn't, and to accumulate hundreds or thousands of games in a year or two is pretty crazy and wasteful. But that doesn't detract anything from what I've said, in fact it's fairly inconsequential to it. If the old guard can't bring in much of any revenue anyways, why pander to them and stay hostage to their demands? Are they really the ones propping up the whole store?
Okay, fair counterpoint on the challenge, so perhaps we could modify this. Would you be able to show me a "new style" user from say the last 5 years who also has high-triple-digit/low-quadruple-digit games and/or buys extra copies of games to give away? By "new style user" I am thinking of someone who came here for CDPR games, uses Galaxy multiplayer/achievements extensively, and, important, doesn't object to client requirements such as the Cyberpunk content and Galaxy-only multiplayer? Is that a fairer point of comparison?

avatar
rojimboo: Where are the hundreds of games with non-optional singleplayer DRM on GOG?
In the pipeline, which has been expertly laid down by the OP and subsequent staff responses, whether they realize that implication or not. C'mon man it isn't hard to deduce what can happen based on the current direction. We've literally seen it happen over the years with Humble Bundle already, DRM-free games seem like an afterthought and they're a glorified Scheme key reseller. Ask yourself what stops that from happening here, especially if you are in favor of relaxing DRM-free definitions in (misguided) attempt to stimulate growth.

avatar
rojimboo: Enjoy the DRM-free gaming and work with them
Why should I work with them? They don't even have the decency to reply to my genuine questions in this topic, though again since I was wrong about your reply, perhaps I can expect one from them too :)

If I can get 100% DRM-free gaming on Zoom-Platform and work in growing a store that seems to care more passionately about DRM-free, what are they offering me here?

I have invested as a customer in this store, sure, but to go out of my way to join them on a direction I definitely did not want or come here for is just the sunk cost fallacy.
low rated
avatar
rojimboo: Not really. I think you guys have far too much invested in this (literally and figuratively) and that you're quite rigid and stubborn, but that's about it. Anyone who posts weekly or even daily on the forum for a decade and has spent thousands of euros on games here would be the same. There's no shame in that. It's about as crazy and non-sensical as any enthusiast guy investing thousands of euros on any kind of hobby (see hi-fi nerds for example). So not really. Whatever makes you happy :)
I can't speak for others, but for me, its not just about the monetary investment here, but freedom in software overall.

I knew that I would never buy a game I don't own, before I even purchased a cent here.

You call us stubborn, but I'd argue that the industry (including GOG) has invested far more in tooling to restrict it (the simplest thing in the world would be to just give us the software that runs offline) than we have in ways to promote it so I'd say they are far more stubborn than us.

Otherwise, yes, one could call our passion for software obsessive, but if you aren't passionate about anything, then why the heck are you living for? I'd argue that everyone living a good life is passionate about something.

avatar
rojimboo: But havent' they catered to the old guard all these years? It's been DRM-free for a decade now, and it has a pitiful revenue stream, razor-thin or negative margins, and little room for growth due to competitors. What makes you think they were/are succesful by doing what they did? This isn't me or anyone saying they need to have always-online/other draconian DRMed games on here, or in fact any DRMed games, just wondering what your measure of success here is? Seems to me GOG is operating like a charity for a small band of the old guard. That can't be sustainable.
Well, we'll never known how that would have turned out if they had invested in ways to make drm-free more user-friendly as opposed to sinking all the capital they have in Galaxy to be like Steam. That surely ate a lot into their profit margin.

Otherwise, you could argue that not caring about drm would be more profitable (look at Steam), but if they had done that, you think they'd be were they are now?
Post edited March 21, 2022 by Magnitus
low rated
avatar
mqstout: This is where you're wrong. GOG's been profitable until recently [and still generally profitable even with thst], and its profit-ruining has come from the costs related to things like Galaxy development, GWENT maintenance, and things like that. Moreover, losing their competitive advantage (DRM-free) that sets them apart from other retailers is a harm to them actually selling more in the long term.
Um, not really wrong. Their revenue stream is very small and they basically operate as a charity without a big Cyberpunk or Witcher release. Remember, revenue doesn't consider any costs yet.

And your "generally profitable" means razor thin margins in the best case scenario unfortunately, as in 6% in GOG's best year 2020:

(copy pasta from one of my previous posts)
How tiny is GOG really?

Is anyone else surprised, horrified and amused at the fact that the profits and losses for GOG fluctuate between +28k euro and -1M euro quarterly?

"However, despite slight revenue gains year-over-year, the CD Projekt-owned game selling website GOG.com posted a loss of 4.8 million PLN on revenue of 41.8 million PLN. For context, GOG.com saw 40.5 million in revenue and 130,000 in profit for the same period in 2020."

A quarterly revenue of only 9M euros!!

"Year-to-date, GOG has posted net losses of 9.21 million PLN ($2.21 million) compared to a cumulative 5.7 million PLN ($1.37 million) gain through the first three quarters of last year."

In their best year (2020), GOG made 20M PLN, followed by basically negligible profits in 2021. And that 20M PLN represents razor thin margins too at ~6% (20M/343M). Considering this was an exceptional year for GOG due to the release of Cyberpunk, it's kind of worrisome. This indicates GOG is entirely propped up by the rare CDPR release.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-11-29-cd-projekt-sales-up-but-gog-struggles

low rated
avatar
rojimboo: Um, not really wrong. Their revenue stream is very small and they basically operate as a charity without a big Cyberpunk or Witcher release. Remember, revenue doesn't consider any costs yet.

And your "generally profitable" means razor thin margins in the best case scenario unfortunately, as in 6% in GOG's best year 2020:

(copy pasta from one of my previous posts)

How tiny is GOG really?

Is anyone else surprised, horrified and amused at the fact that the profits and losses for GOG fluctuate between +28k euro and -1M euro quarterly?

"However, despite slight revenue gains year-over-year, the CD Projekt-owned game selling website GOG.com posted a loss of 4.8 million PLN on revenue of 41.8 million PLN. For context, GOG.com saw 40.5 million in revenue and 130,000 in profit for the same period in 2020."

A quarterly revenue of only 9M euros!!

"Year-to-date, GOG has posted net losses of 9.21 million PLN ($2.21 million) compared to a cumulative 5.7 million PLN ($1.37 million) gain through the first three quarters of last year."

In their best year (2020), GOG made 20M PLN, followed by basically negligible profits in 2021. And that 20M PLN represents razor thin margins too at ~6% (20M/343M). Considering this was an exceptional year for GOG due to the release of Cyberpunk, it's kind of worrisome. This indicates GOG is entirely propped up by the rare CDPR release.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2021-11-29-cd-projekt-sales-up-but-gog-struggles
avatar
rojimboo:
I've said it already but what you've mentioned is why, from a business perspective, part of me wouldn't blame CDP for selling GOG or shutting it down. The juice doesn't seem worth the squeeze.
high rated
avatar
chandra: Tl;dr if it's on the main branch and there is still disparity, then you could ping our Team in regards to it.
Did you have occasion to pass my list:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/bgog_2022_update_2b_our_commitment_to_drmfree_gaming_8cb8b/post259
to the relevant people?
Post edited March 22, 2022 by mrkgnao
high rated
I come here for the offline installer downloads. I hope those stay as I rarely use the client.