czwarty: 2024 has shown that as a storefront, you can't do much without having publishers / right holders on board. Without them on your side, this is nothing but a marketing gimmick.
tfishell: Because we didn't get many games in 2024, or what do you mean?
I think what they mean is, the whole GOG Preservation project thing is mostly a marketing thing advertising that fact the new program lets GOG patch games
they already sell without needing the developer / publisher to rubber stamp every minor tweak (as they used to). For some bizarre reason, every time it gets mentioned people seem to incorrectly believe it will bring NOLF, Age of Empires, etc, and every other game they don't already have to the store, essentially treating it as a secondary community wishlist.
Nothing at all has changed legally though, GOG is a for-profit store that lacks the special status some museums gain in some countries (in being able to acquire and host media by default without needing to seek publisher permission as long as they don't redistribute them), and it wasn't the lack of a "preservation" program that was blocking wishlisted games from coming here in the past. For some games (NOLF) the unique legal challenges are no different now vs last year. For others though, eg, Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, Rise of Nations, etc, the originals will never, ever be "preserved" here because they'll never be sold here due to remakeitus (it's more profitable for Microsoft, etc, to throw old games away and keep remastering everything), at which point the average Joe who still has the disc is doing a better job 'preserving' them than an official preservation program run by a store which can't get permission to do, with GOG still lacking many titles like Gold Rush that Steam, even Fireflower Games has managed to get the rights to sell.
CMiq: Some people genuinely would rather games be lost to time, if the re-release is not identical to the original release, down to the last bit. At least that's what I'm getting from comments here and in the announcement thread for the preservation program.
I think people are misreading intent there. Perfect example - GOG has "preserved" only approx 25 DOS games released between 1970-1995 (out of approx 400 DOS titles) here and for some of them have unnecessarily arbitrarily deleted the game's .exe which allow them to run under DOSBox just because they added ScummVM. Conversely, eXoDOS has preserved 7,666 DOS titles + related books, catalogues, magazines, soundtracks, of same era, etc), without butchering any DOSBox compatibility.
"At least we can sell the game" vs
"don't go artificially crippling DOSBox compatibility just because you added ScummVM" is not an "either-or" choice by any measure. I have games like Loom, Lure of The Temptress where I can play any combination of EGA / VGA or floppy vs CD variant under either DOSBox / ScummVM.
"Unless you half-butcher the game so it runs under just one single source-port then it'll be lost to time" is a 100% false dilemma fallacy.