From what I understand from your post is that you advocate for GOG to be an absolute DRM-free (100% DRM-free) store. I do think that is the ideal for us consumers however, I believe this is practically very hard to do considering this is a company that has to make some profit too.
As long as a significant majority of games on GOG are DRM-free, I won't complain. This I definitely agree with and I don't think this is fair. I hope GOG improves on that.

No it's not, as long at it is done in the constraints of the law it's neither unethical nor illegal. And it's CDPR that had it's devs crunch not Gog. If anything the "crunch" at Gog, if there was any, was probably from support trying to answer to all the refund requests...

News-flash ! , it's all just ones and zeroes these days when you talk computer games , no matter if it's on harddisc or optical disc so same thing really !

As written earlier :
(Meaning 'digital repository')
Just so we are clear on where we are having these discussions and about what we are having the discussion :

Quote : www.gog.com/about_gog :
(As far as I remember then GOG were even 'clearer' earlier and spoke about a 'DRM FREE revolution')

Owning the things you buy

We don't believe in controlling you and your games. Here, you won't be locked out of titles you paid for, or constantly asked to prove you own them - this is DRM-free gaming.

No, it's not.

Bowing down to communist censorship is just about as unethical as it gets.

Selling games with DRMed elements (I don't care how minor or optional - that's entirely inconsequential, DRM is DRM) while still claiming to be a DRM-free store, and making a profit on selling DRMed games from Epic when they used to stand on the principle that DRM is wrong and bad for gamers is also clearly unethical. They are clearly breaking their own ethical commitment. They are doing something they themselves used to brand as wrong.

Um what CDPR did with Cyperpunk 2077 and how they handled reviews of the game by asking reviewers to use stock footage and not footage they recorded themselves. This is a prime example of what unethical is. Also they flat out lied about the PS4 and Xbox one versions being playable which is another example. I can go on and on.

I'm well aware 100% DRM-free is what GOG advertised but regardless I don't fully take what GOG said about DRM for granted because I know there will be hiccups (like No Man's Sky). This is why I wrote as long as a significant majority of games are DRM-free, I won't complain.

I use Steam regularly and after the Rocket League and Borderlands 2 scammage (requiring you to log in using a non-steam account) and the Kerbal Space Program EULA & RedShell stuff I started to think more carefully about what store I'll buy games on, that's when I recently started using GOG. I'm much more satisfied with GOG with their aim for DRM-free games, so I'm very grateful with this offering and I can't really complain about a couple of games having DRM (which aren't even as bad as denuvo).
Maybe I can't sympathize as well as you guys regarding these DRM hiccups in the GOG store, but I can say that this issue is not as bad as whatever's happening on Steam

None of those things are unethical on their own. I wouldn't consider it unethical for Steam to sell only DRM-ridden games, for example.

What you seem to fail to consider is that a lot of their actions go against their stated mission and oh so many promises made along the way. Is lying to your customers not unethical?

Broadly speaking, ethics don't really concern themselves with law. If anything, laws try (to an often partial degree) to mimic ethics.

Are you unaware that crunch often gets way out of hand because when it becomes more common, it also becomes the expected norm and part of the regular toolset rather than an occasional willing sacrifice? That any sign of crunch leading to actual health detriments is also a sign of poor management? That meeting deadlines more often than not ends up hurting the people doing the detail work rather than the people who set the final timeline and quality expectations? That if left unchecked, it tends to grow into an untenable situation with serious health consequences long before any laws are unambiguously broken?

If it were just a matter of individual developers occasionally crunching as an act of good faith while being mindful not to overdo it, there would be no issue, and nobody would be complaining about it.

Granted that CDPR and GOG are separate companies, but they are clearly intimately affiliated. As such, the ethics of one inevitably affects the other.

You're not being held hostage by a store simply because you need to take care of the shit you once bought there. I'm not held hostage by a clothing store where I bought my pants because I'm now responisble for washing them and not setting them on fire so as not to need to go there for another pair.

And updates... honestly, I don't much care. I'm not sure why everyone is so obsessed with updates. Any game I buy here should be working fine, and if it is, then it's a safe bet I won't bother with patches fixing something that's not broken. I definitely don't consider a game of mine being held hostage because the version I have backed up is not the one with some newest update I would likely never even notice. But then I tend not to buy games untill they are really, truly, entirely done.

I paid for those updates and backups on GOG servers when I bought my games from GOG. GOG doesn't give discounts for people who don't want those. And good luck playing CDPR games like Witcher 3 and Cyperpunk 2077 (and whatever is their next game) without the updates. Sure the old games might be fine without the updates now, and back in the good old days the updates were released publicly as separate files for everyone to download, but does any publisher do that anymore? And GOG isn't Good Old Games anymore. Games these days need updates - since not everyone think like this “A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever.” ― Shigeru Miyamoto

Like I said - I buy games when they are really, truly finished.

And I'm not saying games should not receive updates, I'm jsut saying that as long as you have a fully working game backed up as an offline installer, some further patches that might eventually surface are not "holding you hostage". If that is how someone sees it, and therefore needs to be forever connected to the service where they bought their games, then buying on GOG for their offline installers is nonsensical in the first place.

I don't know, whether zoom will go downhill too or not. But I'm going to give them a chance. The same chance GOG had.
I'll also buy games directly from devs who offer them directly DRM-free.

But yes, if zoom introduces drm too in a few years, I'll move on. Sure, it's convenient to have all your games in one place, but that place is my computer and a backup disk. That's the beauty of DRM free. Once I have the game, it's completely irrelevant where it came from. As long as it's compatible with one of my computers, I can play it.

A long time I bought all my games here. But that was to support GOG. That support is over, because they abolished the reasons for which I supported them.

If they still have the costumes they need to dust them off, imo. ;)

I don't think we should boycot GOG. Im completely agaisn't that.
But, Im in favor of competition. That's how the market get better.

I believe we should have other companies like GOG with the same "world view" of Games with DRM-Free policies.
This way, we'd probably see better policies about this and better services for people that agree with that.

Edit:

Just edited to say that I understand the concept of the boycot proposed by the OP. It's a protest, which is good. Im "simpatethic" to the cause, but I will maintain my view of "We need more companies like GOG to appear."

People are just stuck with DRM games BECAUSE of the lack of other GOG-like companies that have the courage to go "agaisn't the system", so the fight is hard and, oh well... you all know already about what's happening with GOG.

This is gonna sound callous, but: no one is responsible for anyone's gaming library but themselves. That includes my own....which is why I back the games up that I don't want to lose access to.

Some of it isn't just "outrage", but genuine criticism. Imo it's not fair to lump it all as some sort of (possibly baselss and unneeded) "outrage".

We all want that....which is why you should get to dling them when you can & maybe(just a suggestion) stop buying so many big games until you have space to dl them.

I don't think people should get overly upset over everything either, but I also don't think people should always be mindless consumers.

I also dislike games being buggy at launch & needing a net connection for so many games.

That said, I somewhat like digital distribution, as that allows people to dl games wherever they have a connection...which is very convenient(and doesn't depend on the local game store being open).

(of course I also miss going into old style game shops and browsing/chatting with staff)

Probably when enough say the crap practices by such companies are enough and criticize to/complain about them more.....or boycott in larger numbers.....or buy elsewhere where companies are more good to their customers.

I dislike that too....this is why investing in a good(preferably battery powered) disc/disk buffer is a wise investment, imo. ;)