I don't see why you had to post this as a reply to me. Perhaps next time you chose to reply to something I said, you make an effort to actually address the content of my post, and if you don't understand it, ask for clarification, instead of just using it as a vehicle to make assumptions about me, and post whatever you want to say.

I'll TL;DR my post,

I definitely agree with your statement of steam exclusive doesn't mean it top notch release always.

But your kind (who keep on insisting 'Steam is evil corp for DRM and/or killing market') is minority in grand scheme of things, so I wrote it plainly in my last sentence.
Because your money means all profit, right?

GOG now stands for "Geoblocking Of Games"

Is it DRM positive? I don't play that.
Is it singleplayer steam only? I don't play that.
Is it censored? I don't play that.
Is it steam only multiplayer based game? I might consider playing it - but the only exception I've made so far - is DayZ. Nothing else.

There are so many new games I'd like to play and do not fit the categories above, that I don't have to feel sorry about missing games crippled by DRM and censoring.

...
4 years ago it was a minority
3 years ago it was a minority
2 years ago it was a minority
1 year ago it was a minority
now is a minority

but there is a BIG difference: this minority has grown year after year, this minority is growing as we speak and this minority will grow to the point when it's no more a minority anymore but a pretty good chunk of the marketshare.

yes, the big stinky gorilla will not disappear nor die but because of the growing competition it will change, it'll be more clean, trimmed and civilised.

Unfortunately I remember you, you were a ssteam apologist years ago, still are and probably will still be their fanboi in the future. No evolution for you all this time.
But I refuse to have an argument with a blind ssteam troll like yourself who is so brainwashed in supporting an obvious monopol that can't see the simple fact that competition=good and monopol=bad for the consumer.

Exactly. That's why a lot of us wish DRM would go away. I'm not "worried" about it, it fucking annoys me and wastes my time when I have to deal with it. That's it.

Exactly my point. There's becoming less and less a difference between console and PC gaming. Except a good gaming PC costs 5x or more than a new console. So, if in either case you're going to end up with games you "semi-own", which rely on external servers to install or even play, well whats the benefit of doing that on your PC vs a console, other than somewhat better graphics (and the gap there seems to keep narrowing as well).

Well I'm sure this is just me then, but with my limited time I would never spend time modding out a game I don't truly own, that could become unplayable at some point cuz of something somebody else does that I have no control over. Unless I'm just adding 1-2 easily working mods or something. I spent all kindsa time modding out Morrowind and FO3 for example, and I'll always save those builds cuz they took some time and effort to get the game exacly how I want, and to get confilcts resolved and what. Would never do that unless I knew I could keep my setup forever, assuming I don't fuck up and lose it myself. But that's me...

Right. But it is still very wild west compared to one-size-fits-all consoles, and it always will be. That's the nature of PCs. Unless you have some identical build from the same manufacturer there's always differences. If you go to fire up a console game and it doesn't work, that will be the same for everybody. But each different PC build may have trouble with any given software. Case in point, when i first was playing FO3 I had all these graphical glitches on my GeForce card. Replaced it with a same generation ATI card and everything worked beautifully. Point is, there is always bound to be some combinations of hardware and software that are problematic. That isn't going away. Add client software on top of that and you simply have one more potential point of failure.

Hmm, my guess would be that percentage is quite a bit less than 50%, though I haven't taken a poll or anything. DRM free is sort of the whole point of GOG, after all. And again, I could give a shit about ideologies, I do care about additional headaches and overhead I have to deal with when I wanna play a game. I just want to play, not solve problems or wait for unnecessary downloads...

Well on this we agree, absoiutely each person has their own perspective and should game in the way that works best for them. I'm not trying to say anybody *should* do this or that, just where I picture the market going, long-term.

GOG isn't going to compete with Steam on MP, consoles will. What of anything you just mentioned there would be easier on a PC vs a standard-issue console? The only thing I see are some titles that aren't available on consoles. Thats still the easiest, best bet for somebody who just wants to "come home, log in and start playing with their friends". Eh, whatever on that, I'm not a MP gamer so I'll have to take your word for this part.

Well for sure, agreed. And even though it surprises me that so many people are cool with Steam, well shit, to each his own. BUT... the fact that so many games today are packaged where you don't have a CHOICE is what sucks. And that's the part I see going away eventually. As I think we've proved in this conversation, if nothing else, people want choices and make different choices based on their own individual circumstances. That's why the one-size-fits-all approach of "requires Steam" will change at some point going forward, when devs/publishers realize the lost sales once people find more palletable solutions, which could be consoles, DRM-free, GOG, and whatever else people come up with. It's called the free market, and it always catches up eventually. If there is a need, that is even somewhat common, someone will find a way to fill it. One-size-fits-all PC gaming is not the future, I'd never buy that. One size fits all is for consoles. "Requires Steam" will largely go away at some point in the near future, and not just cuz it got replaced by some better Steam-like service somebody else creates. The PC market demands flexibility, and I think GOG's success is proof of that.

i dont fully understand DRM since it's tons of reading, i dislike, Steam always require connection to the net and gog doesn't, so if nets down, i still got something to play

GoG has been in existence for how long now? 6-7 years? And how much of a percentage do you think it has of the digital market as a whole? 10% and that's being really generous. That's also assuming that every single person who buys on GoG (DRM-Free) does not buy on Steam which we no is not true. Yes DRM-Free is growing but it's growing relative to what it was before. It's not growing relative to Steam because Steam has not lost market share at all since GoG has been in existence (in fact it's userbase has only grown). Publishers see this too. If GoG has a sizeable marketshare don't you think there would be more publishers on board here? Hell, even some the publishers that are here still won't dare to put their newer titles for sale on GoG (Bethesda, WB even Paradox).

DRM-Free is a minority, niche whatever you want to call it. And it will continue to be as long as people (gamers) see no stronger alternative to what is already there. It's like asking someone who is an Apple fanboy to not use iphones anymore. It's never going to happen, unless Apple disappears.

Easily.

I don't buy on Steam any more. I use Smart Steam Emulator to use the games I've already bought.

Not using Steam does severely limit what you can play, a limitation I grudgingly accept in order to have full usage of the licenses I've bought.

It is worth noting, while a fugly mess, the windows Store is starting to sell modern games. While DRM'ed and using the gawd awful UWP application, their usage policy is many time more fair than Steam.

I remember it was 15% a few years back as far as I've heard.
And as far as I've understood, it was related to PC games : because of course, when you say 'digital market as a whole', while I suppose we are still talking about videogames, do we take into consideration µtransactions in f2p games ? ios/android games ? religious subscriptions to the cult of Blizzard ? Console games ?

Because yes, if you take into account markets gog is not positionned on (yet ? ;), the comparisons doesn't hold much sense because the major players won't be much more than 15%, and gog couldn't dream to reach the 10% market share in the next 5 years.

but exactly that is the proof that gog is doing well, publishers that 1-2 years ago were a big no-go now are on gog. and more will come, don't you worry.
nobody can deny that gog has grown over the years. and it'll grow some more, attracting attention of both new publishers and newer games.
and, in time, a minority/niche growing gets to a point when it's no more a minority/niche. What's the new name for it? I don't care, call it whatever you want.

Linux is a small minority. According to the "very accurate" (which it isn't) steam numbers, linux is used by only ~0.85% of steam users, yet according to this there are more games (2387) for this minority that there is games here on GOG, which only have [url=https://www.gog.com/games?sort=bestselling&page=1]1578 Drm-free games. So if one believe the numbers, a game will get a Linux build before a GOG release

SSe is great, use it quite a lot, especially now that I'm using Linux, what I do is download my game on steam for windows (using wine) see if it works, and then move it to where I want it and apply SSE to make it work without steam.

Sick of the auto updates on Steam to the point I am not really buying stuff from them unless its some must have game like Blood Bowl 2.
There are so many games out there that its becoming easier to skip on Steam. I already wont buy a game from Ubisoft due to thier forced client use.