lolplatypus: As far as DRMed content in and adjacent to Cyberpunk, that's a valid point, but guessing into the blue here, if one wants to boycott over that, boycott CDPR, not GOG.
While I am a proud refunder of Cyberpunk preorder (shame on me thinking they wouldn't pull some planned microtransaction/online-locked content after GWENT/GWENT was bundled with Thronebreaker), nonetheless I view CDPR and GOG as inextricably linked. I see what you are saying though.
lolplatypus: A stronger commitment to DRM-free is important, unfortunately I can't see that one, either.
A stronger commitment means they've slipped in the past. So they would need to define what DRM-free means here, be clear about their criteria, and then there'd be some games that won't match them. Now, two options:
1. Kick them off the store. Not going to happen. Cyberpunk is one of them.
2. As per the clearly defined criteria, label features that might be controversial and have them stated clearly on the store page. So what's the next thing we do? Ask for exclusive filters, so we can exclude those games while browsing the store. Now, how many of those would tie directly into Galaxy?
Well, I know you suggested maybe it is coming from "above" that Cyberpunk must retain the Galaxy requirement to access the singleplayer cosmetic content. But, it seems to me there is a third option: fix the "offending" games to work without client or online requirements, as they should have in the first place. Clearly, this would be harder when it comes to third party games but when it's something of their "own" like Cyberpunk I don't see much obvious excuse. I also think in theory there is room for a "1a." option such as "Suspend sale of the games until fixed, then if and only if they are fixed, do they return to the store." I say "in theory" because for some developers they will not be willing to do so and will instead deem GOG more trouble than its worth (some do this already anyway). I think that is where curation could shine in actively seeking out developers/publishers who actually want to be here and are willing to provide complete offline working products.
To answer your seemingly rhetorical question at the end, a large number of games here would tie directly into having content/modes locked behind a Galaxy requirement, if there were such a filter or indication on store pages to display such. This sort of unpleasant conclusion is proof positive imo that Galaxy functions as DRM in such instances.
lolplatypus: As far as brainstorming goes, I had written a reasonably long post trying to identify the problems with GOG and how to address them, but I've come to the conclusion that they can't be fixed.
But if I had to try to salvage this, these would be the easy steps:
* get rid of forum post ratings.
* keep up the staff picks during sales.
* stop tying giveaways to promotional newsletters.
All of these should have positive ripple effects for marginal investment.
Of course, no point boycotting over this.
Right, agreed with all of those improvements, though I think they'd have a marginal effect on boycotting if any at all. I would counter by saying even these sort of small tasks are a use of resources that could maybe go elsewhere. In other words, even if they don't have the full resources to address the DRM/Galaxy problem, I would prefer some small steps be taken in that direction instead of attention diverted to other things that are not making any difference in people spending money here.
My apologies for not responding to this earlier post sooner; the reply system can be kind of wonky.
