I´ve received the survey too. Some things i worried me:

A subscription model? Seriously? Definitively not, it could have advantages as game bundles or exclusive discounts but it would generate users of first and second class inside the Community. I disagree.

A Gog App? I would agree because i navigate with the browser on my phone to post or see the store. Or to access to my email for two step password if needed. So if using the app would be the same, then yes. As Steam Guard do.

Well, subscriptions are the thing currently (Amazon, Netflix, Microsoft, PSN, Ubisoft, whatever). Companies lilke these because they are easy to calculate, they guarantee a certain income, even if the company may earn less compared to selling stuff. Customers like them because they offer easy access to certain content

I don't want subscriptions and I made that clear in the survey, but I can understand why GOG would be interested to see if their customers are interested.

I don't see any gain in an app other than being dependent on my phone even more. The store works good enough in a browser on the phone, an app would make no difference. It only makes accessing the site easier.

They have more important things to program than these things, they are spread thin enough as it is.

The survey has one clear target. It's meant to give the users an opportunity to point the direction in which the service should go. I don't fully understand the decadency mood that it caused. If most of the participants will want a specified route, this means that this direction has a big growing potential and will contribute to the success of platform, not its failure. I have to remind you that even AAA developers sometimes used surveys to gain knowledge about the desired direction in which the development of next title should go. It's quite simple for me: if most of the users want something and the service follows this direction, there's no chance it'll suffer a failure.

Fair enough, and I personally did not see the survey as negative, just that like many I guess I was concerned about a few things. My hope of course, is that it helps improve the store, certainly for customers like myself, while at the same time I am not against what other customers might want, so long as it does not impact me negatively or at least not badly so.

I'm also an older guy, and fully understand that the future is going to be more important to those who are younger than me. Many new things are great, even if they don't really appeal to me personally. Despite personal reservations, I don't believe in standing in the way of progress, and I am realistic enough in any case, to know I cannot prevent such changes, only perhaps make them slightly better than they might have been. Time stands still for no person.

I don't see a bad thing about the survey, and it is normal that it can cause some speculation.
All I can say is keep releasing DRM free games. That is more than enough and marks a clear difference with the rest of the competition.

There are many ways GOG could take the service and some are really exciting. More important would be fixing all that's broken first, including games, and conforming to the new Consumer Rights Act 2022 which strenghtens our position as customers. For example, GOG will have to provide us with updates, DLC and patches in a timely manner, keeping us informed about changes etc. This means that it is on GOG to run after developers and publishers to force them to make all patches and updates available elsewhere here, don't allow games to be abadoned because it's too much work or developers can't be bothered to provide the same support for other shops and communities, publish new content and have us beg to also take care of their release over here.

Once the website and community have been modernized and the long list of issues is fixed should the company consider in which direction they will take the service based on the results of this survey.

A: A mouse is not a mammal. It's too small.
B: The relative size of the animal is not relevant to whether it is a mammal.
A: What is irrelevant to you is relevant to ME.

For one thing, we're not worried about GOG suffering failure, we're worried about it succeeding in becoming something we don't like :D

For another, it's not the answers users are giving that got people worried, it's the what the questions themselves indicate about what GOG is considering, and whether answers rejecting certain ideas are really enough for it to abandon them, or will only, for instance, shape the strategy of their implementation.

Our super rad market research shows apps are #cool an #kids like them [thumbs up emoji]!

Yeah, but you realise the absurdity of your sentence ? "I don't like Steam but I dislike where GOG is heading even more (Steam) so I prefer Steam therefore I use Steam". It's like people vote for political side A because they reproach political side B to act too much like political side A. It's a rationalization, it's not a motive.

To be crude, you can complain that a burger tastes almost like shit but then when you're chewing shit instead of the burger it becomes a weak reproach.

I didn't receive the GOG survey too. Is it sent to everyone or just targeted customers ?

Not to be a busybody, but how come so many can't agree to disagree?

DRM is a matter of principle to some, and a "practical matter" for others. There is a lot of overlap, and of course what's "practical" is a very subjective assessment, so I can understand the disagreements, but it seems like people are talking in circles.

What I mean is that, even if you don't agree, is it really so hard to see each other's point, as flawed as you might think it is? For example, those who want no DRM, no matter what, do this because they worry about the future, and the possible consequences down the line. They also find it distasteful to receive arbitrary restrictions. There are also other concerns, such as ownership over our licenses, accessibility and so on, all of which have a lot of validity (I personally feel the ownership part as very important, and to this day I generally regard most of my purchases outside of GOG as "cheap rental").

There is a lot be said for preservation, and what can be accessed legally despite buying a game, and I imagine those are all self-explanatory arguments.

On the other hand, it's not difficult to see a practical argument as well. For example, if a game used to have an online component, but the service is long dead, should it be denied a presence on GOG? I think almost no one would be against having the single-player here. But then, if another game has DRM for the multiplayer, should it be denied?

If you look at it practically, even if you are against DRM, there would be no meaningful difference (if anything, the one with DRM is even better than the other, since it's still playable online if you are willing to compromise). Is there really a point in waiting for the online to die, before we can have the single-player DRM free? Or perhaps to be fair to all these game we should deny any on here which have content currently unavailable because of present or past DRM, which is extremely restrictive and might disqualify perfectly good single-player experiences from ever appearing (heck, I don't know the entire GOG's catalogue, but this might be relevant for a lot more games than I can think of, perhaps even some classics).

Someone brought up the bonus for Cyberpunk 2077. I think it's needlessly restrictive and arbitrary to block it behind Galaxy (even if I personally use Galaxy), but I can see why it's not a big deal for many. I mean, you are probably aware of games having unique bonuses for pre-orders or purchases on certain consoles or gaming stores. It's a ridiculous trend, but should any game with unique content on console be labeled as DRM-ed and refused sale on GOG?

Sure, it's annoying that they are dangling the extra in front of you with the Galaxy requirement, but is it really different from having a special skin for, say, a playstation version? Both are arbitrary, silly restrictions, but it's easy to see why it's not considered as core for such games. Just like some games might have problems with licensed music or other temporary deals for extras, cameos and whatnot, some content might really be legally impossible to obtain at this point in time, should that bar any version of a game from appearing?

These are just some examples, mind you, and sure you can argue against any of those, but can't you really see the point the other is trying to make? Everyone should push GOG as far as they are willing to, because that's the way to get the best out of GOG, but people usually have their reasoning for their positions, there is little to be gained from getting hostile with each other (yes, even if you think the "other side" is undermining your efforts by being overly rigid or flexible with their interpretations).

My thoughts too. With DRM, I am unsure what would be the angle GOG would use that people should buy DRM games through them, and not e.g. Steam (or Epic for that matter).

Being CDPR's "home store" is probably not enough, as Gamersgate.com has shown, originally being the home store of Paradox Interactive.

If CDPR/GOG can come up with a massively popular free-to-play online game/shooter like Fortnite or Team Fortress 2, that would attract lots of people to GOG... then maybe. But even for Epic it seems to be an uphill battle, online gamers flocking to Fortnite does not guarantee they will also buy DRM single-player games from there, instead of e.g. Steam.

I personally don't mind multiplayer online games have DRM, in fact I still believe they pretty much need it in order to block cheaters. The problem though is that I don't buy online multiplayer games, but expect them to be free-to-play, just like Team Fortress 2 and Fortnite.

I only require that my single-player games are DRM-free, otherwise I will rarely, if ever, buy them.

I am not worried about the future. Every game can be cracked, in many cases the illegal version hits the internet some time before the official release. I've been applying cracks to my games since the first CD/DVD copy protections, also learned how to trick some games into not requiring the disk.

Also I don't like launchers tracking my every move. Galaxy can be configured to not track, which is great. I would never use it otherwise. For a few games I like to see achievements however, so for those I use Galaxy as well.

Legally there is not much of a difference between replacing a DRM dll and replacing other DLLs to make a old game run on modern computers, we aren't allowed to do either, so who cares.

For me, DRM is for convenience. Since GOG I hardly ever visit crack sites anymore.

Nothing wrong with surveys at all though to understand people's suspicious responses, you have to admit that if a store that called itself GoodOldLosslessAudio.com suddenly started asking random questions after 14 years like "How do you all feel about us introducing streamable 128kb/s WMA's", many customers who were drawn to the store for unprotected downloadable FLAC albums would find such questions contradict the store's long-term branding and "About Us" page to a bizarre extent. So you can't blame people for wanting GOG to clarify where they're going with this.

It seems GOG constantly wants to 'grow' into... something... but doesn't know what beyond wanting a slice of the 'Steam Pie'. Microsoft and Epic also want a slice yet both are struggling to make any serious inroads despite both embracing DRM & micro-transactions and being massively subsidised by serious Fortnite / Azure money. Ubisoft / EA money comes from simply developing and publishing many more games than CDPR does. In all these cases, the real money isn't brought in by the subsidiary store, they're brought in by what the parent company publishes or earns elsewhere, ie, Epic & MS have been pumping far more money into subsidising their stores than CDPR has with GOG, and if CDPR wants more money, then really it's the CDPR side that needs to grow (as in publishing more) than there exists some "magic beans" solution to GOG suddenly bringing in "Fortnite money" by embracing MTX & DRM on a few GOG releases.

Likewise Steam is #1 simply for "being first" to replace 50% physical disc vs 30% digital distribution costs at the right moment of mass broadband adoption + free Steam DRM saving the need for separate SecuROM, etc, licenses, then worked hard to manufacture a 'captive audience' via client lock-in. Publishers gradually stopped making retail discs between 2006-2010 and moved there by de-facto default in being the only 'choice' and gamers just followed where the games went. The "store features" people misremember 'choosing' were actually mostly added years (2008-2015) after they made their "choice" to use the platform (2004, HL2). That's the real Steam success story - simply being first to build a captivating walled garden. Personally, I'm not here because of the features Steam has but GOG doesn't, I'm here because of the features GOG has that Steam doesn't (ie, offline installers that (should) work without any nonsense).