Because from the customer's point of view, you still represent the supplier, so it all falls on you to drive the changes needed for sales to be possible. It's as simple as that.

Then why you (or whatever person who is owning that fictional burger stall) was adding and selling that condiments in the first place?
What you just wrote is plain confession that you were swindling your own clients by charging them money for something with 0 value. Good job, pal...
But OK, let's say that you learned that only when that supplier stopped providing you with the stuff (it's mean that you absolutely and completely suck at burger-making business, but oh well - not everyone have to be fast-food selling wizard. :D)
In such case, if you have a single grain of work ethics you should say "fuck you, you tricked me into harming my clients who were trusting me that I provide them best food avilable" to that supplier and stop selling burgers that require that condiments. And then - if you still wanted to be a burger retailer - made another recipe and look for other sources of good products. Plus, you should announce that to your clients, explaining why that burger is no longer in the menu.

No, the issue is that you are lacking any integrity and are still trying to make any business with obviously dishonest company, neglecting people that are actually giving you money and are keeping your burger shed afloat - your clients.
Which make YOU a part of the problem and a legitimate targets for complaints.

Uhm, I clearly stated that the condiment was a new item created by the supplier afterwards and that they never offered it to your store or any other store so I can''t argue this as it is based on a false narrative.
Not in this case, the supplier has full control, and they have clearly stated they will only sell it directly, you have no control, you can even tell the customer that you have no say and you yourself are disappointed in this move, moving away from a burger analogy many publishers are quite famous for gating content to there exclusive website or store and have done so for years and it is widely known to the customer base, they have this reputation, yet despite that the store owner must take all the flake.

It really doesn't matter. By reselling the supplier's product, or incorporating it in your own product, you endorse their product and the conduct that goes with it, no matter the circumstances.

This is why rather than sending an angry letter to the drug cartel engaging in child labor, you just don't buy that cool sweater. It's why rather than commenting on Reddit about elephant poaching, you refrain from buying that luxury ivory bathroom sink.

As the owner of that hamburger store, you are the customer of your supplier and are equally free to buy or not to buy, and as a potential buyer you are equally entitled to complain about their products, regardless of any reasons given.

If the demands of your customers and the limitations imposed by your supplier cannot find common ground, then they are incompatible in the first place, and someone's business model has to change.


EDIT: Just fixed a typo.

If you don't like what "people" have to say on the matter, then consider that GOG previously ran a campaign called FCKDRM; on the website for this "sister site", it clearly laid out the differences between DRMed products and DRM-free. As I have pointed out countless times on this forum, it is ironic that Galaxy requirements for multiplayer (or other content) violate the standards, but hey, they're the ones that put them there. Pretty much the only answer (cop-out) that someone can give to this is to say that GOG discontinued the FCKDRM campaign, so the definitional problems don't exist anymore now. However, even if that reasoning made sense, the fact that GOG abandoned such a specific campaign also strengthens the argument of those of us who believe GOG is straying from DRM-free.

Additionally, I don't get why you get to be the arbiter saying that people "stretch the term of DRM". Couldn't we just as easily say you are "relaxing the term of DRM" in reference to your points about the Cyberpunk online-client-required goodies and especially the online-required GWENT. The fact that there exist online multiplayer games that don't require a client, completely nullifies the idea that DRM is required to prevent cheating. Ah, but this is different because it is free-to-play, right? Is this really where we are in 2021? Gamers defending DRM in free-to-play games, and in a singleplayer game which has an upcoming multiplayer where "naturally, there will be microtransactions" (or whatever the quote is).

Here's an alternative idea: how about the DRM-free company who championed DRM-free avoids putting games with client requirements or microtransactions on the DRM-free store? No one is saying that stuff can't exist (though I would be happy if it didn't). Move it to CDPR's own site and/or mobile (isn't GWENT already on mobile?).

Why do people always go to the extreme with counter points, there is a pretty big leap from a supplier withholding cosmetic DLC from store fronts to child labour and drug use.

But again, if you signed a contract with the supplier and then the supplier created the new item afterwards that does not fall within the contract you can't really do much, you can't say I'm not selling your items anymore due to this new condiment because then the supplier can hold you in breach of contract which leaves you liable to damages to the supplier, if the contract has an NDA in it then you can't even say anything about because again you would be violating terms you agreed to.

Also if a store breaks a contract that can severely hurt them when trying to get a deal with another supplier as they would appear to be not a good partner to work with if they break contracts.

If anything you are showing that the customers need to learn more about the situation that is going on, if constantly yelling at the store does nothing it could mean they can do nothing about it (or they could but they would be facing severe penalties)and you must go to the source of the problem which is the supplier.

Because they make the mechanics of the concept being debated much more obvious than wishy-washy ones.


Now you're getting to some actual decent points. Though I'd have to argue that you're always free to choose which contracts to sign and which ones to reject. NDAs come in many forms and don't necessarily have to cover everything.

Sure, but suppliers are unlikely to listen to customers further away in the sales chain. And the reality of the matter is, silence will only ever encourage disappointment to escalate (and often in the background, out of plain sight). The real solution is to never sign away your right to communicate and negotiate with your customers and suppliers.

If that is what GOG has done, welp, that's a nice sinking ship you have there, and have a nice journey.

So, what we need here is a community manager or employee that will actually participate in discussions on the forum. that I can get behind 100%

In this case, it's your fault.

If you had advertised and provided your burgers as "DRM free" then you should have ensured that all your supplier contracts included the same requirement. Then if a supplier tried to "DRM" a condiment or other component, you would then be able to remove their products from your store and sue them for breach of contract.

The situation you describe could only occur due to lack of diligence on your part in drawing up supplier contracts, hence it would be your reponsibility to resolve it.

Do you think they will be able to speak their mind freely?

But if the condiment falls outside of the original contract there is nothing you can do, if you remove the items from your store you would be liable for the breach.

It all comes down to what is in the contract and if the contract covers future content or if one side or the other can prove that the extra content is covered by the original contract.

Unfortunately this part of the argument will just go completely into speculation as we do not have the contracts for these games and DLC so we don't know what has been agreed to, what is even worse is that many companies don't even see these cosmetic items as DLC in the standard term as some have started calling them "goodies" or "thank you gifts" and simply changing the terminology of the item can lead down a legal rabbit hole that can cause even more problems which frankly I hate as it shows how fragile the legal system can be when things come down to how the wording can be manipulated.

Then it's your fault again for not wording your supplier contract properly, and you need to take appropriate steps to compensate aggrieved customers (burger refunds, withdrawal of products offered by that supplier, etc) as well as tightening up on supplier contracts to prevent a repeat.

Any obligation that a company has to its customers (which, in GOGs case, includes "DRM free" content) has to be reflected in supply chain contracts (along with the standard requirements of a product being of merchantable quality, matching its description, safe to use, compliant with relevant legislation, etc). A key part of running any business is ensuring your supplier/customer contracts are properly drawn up and properly maintained.

It's why many contracts include carefully written definitions of the words used, so that they still apply even if the labels used elsewhere change. You'll often see this in the introductory sections of EULAs, for example (sadly these are often the same ones that are long enough to make people go "tl;dr").

^ This. Of course.

Honestly, this is such an inane discussion, it's almost beyond belief that we're having it.