I guess the core question, is are you allowed to adapt and change to stay profitable and viable, or do you have to stick to core principles declared at a different time and season?

GOG no longer being viable helps no one, least of all those of us who have invested in them by having sizable libraries.

I'm not suggesting a full turn around and no longer being DRM-Free, but life is always about compromise. Nothing stays the same forever, and those that try to, disappear.

I hope GOG continue to survive, but don't change too much in the process, just enough to continue being viable while I am still alive and gaming.

----------------------------------------

DRM-Free is GOG's main claim to fame and why they became a somewhat successful store, and were created in the first place. I cannot see them moving too far from that model, because then they would just become another store and would have to compete more directly with Steam, Epic and others. No guesses in who would ultimately lose in that competition.

What else could GOG use as a significant drawcard other than DRM-Free?
A few games unique to GOG wouldn't be enough.

The world would be a better place if more companies had principles they stuck to. There must be other ways they can grow and change. They have already compromised on DRM in multiplayer, they don't need to go any further.

Nothing. GOG without DRM-free games is as good as dead.

Since they are barely able to preserve their focus on DRM-free games (they already dropped all their other "core principles"), trying to pursue extra goals does not sound like a good idea. Just look at what they managed to lose only by trying to develop an optional games client…

Can't really argue there.

Who knows?
Do you have any ideas? I don't.

Thing is, I simply can't see how adding DRM'ed games, available elsewhere anyway, will help.
Why should I buy a game on GOG that offers no benefits over the Steam version, but rather comes with the potential of missing content and updates as has been seen so often?

GOG adding clearly marked DRM'ed games would not stop me from buying old classics on GOG. (And backing up the off-line installers.)
But it'll probably make me even less likely to buy anything recent enough to still get the occasional update, as I wouldn't feel sure an update wouldn't add DRM'ed elements.
Only a select few developers (e.g. Revolution and Mimimi) have earned some trust in that department.

Heh no, but I'm not a business person. Perhaps they could try to reignite the "Movies" section, there's loads of old films, TV series and cartoons I'd like to get a DRM-free copy of. Or they could sell roms to go with emulators. Or DRM-free music, my dad's been complaining recently that he can't find anywhere to download mp3s anymore because it's all streaming services now.

That's why I said "virtually". I am sure some still wouldn't like it, of course. :)

Besides, that was a hypotethical, DRM is always a problem because in practice, it always ends up causing issues.

To be honest, I really didn't mind the serial keys method, but since even those aren't infallible, it's much better when there is no DRM.

I used to be OK with these too, but I am now beginning to suspect that this is in part due to our lack of refusal of the CD keys in the first place that we now get much more intrusive DRM systems.

I wish they would partner up with websites offering game programming courses, Udemy, Code Academy or coding games like CodeCombat. Maybe they could form an indie gaming hub of sorts, free games from the community, who knows?

You fall into the same trap, that so many others here fall into: you only view this (possible) step (adding DRMed games) from your personal POV.

But fact is: lots of people have only come to GOG after they offered a client of their own (Galaxy).
Because that client offers features that a lot of players today want: online-MP, achievements, etc.

And as to the "why would anybody buy here instead of Steam?"...maybe because people like to support the underdog over the top dog?
Yes, I know...hard to imagine for some here, but even people who have no problem with DRM can still be against the quasi monopoly of Steam, and therefore prefer GOG - IF GOG provides them with the "comfortably features" that they're used to.

Same here.
As I have said so often already: in the end it's all about having choices.

Only, in today's society, certain people don't want other people to have options, where they themselves have made their choice already.

Their stance is: if I DON'T WANT to have X, then YOU CAN'T have X (irrelevant of whether you want it).

Or as I mentioned earlier, there are several open source projects they could partner with. (Though, GOG seems leery of open source for some reason.)

You are profoundly confused on this point.

Here is the way it looks in reality:

Hundreds of places to buy big releases in DRMed form (I'm including Scheme key resellers in the "hundreds").

ONE, ONE single DRM-free store that it is possible to get big releases like Skyrim DRM-free (GOG.com).

By being okay with DRM creep here and eroding the DRM-free principle, which will effectively turn this place into another Scheme key reseller (look at Humble Bundle as an example), it is you my friend that are taking away choice. Not those of us trying to preserve the choice of a fully DRM-free store that has big releases.

Well I can't really think of any, but I am all ears if someone else can.

I would be amused by the reactions.

With would be : "Yes, precisely, that's what I'm saying : that's what the customers want" and "Yes, precisely, that's what I'm saying : it's not a representative survey".

Pretty much my belief too.
But if they sold DRM games alongside DRM-Free, then I could live with that, so long as doing so did not impact the DRM-Free market, and that is where the big issue lies, as it likely would.

I don't have a problem with Galaxy, only a problem with no replacement or update to the old GOG Downloader.

I don't have an issue if GOG provides for other gamers that have different core beliefs to mine, unless I am too negatively impacted by that. And they really should compensate if they do such. Compensating in this instance would have been providing a simple downloader for those who do not want to use Galaxy. By not doing that, they have gone in a bad direction, certainly for folk like us.

It has to be said though, that a store needs to grow, and in reality GOG have got a very limited scenario to do that, all dependent on what is provided by DEVs and PUBs.

It is quite an outstanding effort that GOG have lasted this long really. Apart from a few bastions like GOG and ZOOM Platform and to some degree Itch.io and a handful of small others, DRM-Free is not where the world has been heading.

Sure you can go to Steam and Epic and get lots of games that are potentially DRM-Free Lite, but no-one, least of all them or their providers are advertising that. Hell, I don't know how much it costs to apply DRM to a game, so maybe there is cost saving going on, when it isn't applied, and providers just rely on people sticking to using the store clients, because we certainly don't get all of those DRM-Free Lite games coming here.