B-b-but I was the one telling you that there are hundreds of thousands out there who care enough about GOG to buy their games here - yet they choose not to frequent the forums.

Whether any of these people care about DRM or not, isn't known to any of us.

Btw: I'm pretty sure there were quite a few amongst these hundreds of thousands who also received GOG's latest survey, so they could make themselves heard, if they chose to do so.

Apart from that: there are many more people who don't care about GOG and/or DRM. Naturally those won't get vocal about it. Why should they, if they don't care?

Again - I fail to see what this proves in regard to the topic at hand.
Could you quote the relevant passages?

Assuming you're not trolling:-

"Ultimately it was gamers' needs and desires that determined the direction of the site. We have DRM-free classic PC games which are hard, or sometimes impossible, to find at retail or online. We would do everything to make a game available at GOG.com without DRM. The DRM-free aspect of GOG.com is one of our main features and we're really proud of it."

^ He's hardly saying "Here at GOG no-one gives a sh*t about DRM-Free gaming outside of few fossiled relics on the forums as BreOl72 likes to think. GOG users are mostly here for free pizza and top hats. One guy signed up for skiing lessons, another from Australia wanted us to ship him a pet goat. At GOG we always try to accommodate our diverse customer needs!".

Going by that second paragraph, I have to assume that you're trolling.

So, that passage is either from 2008 or from 2014, right?

A lot has changed since then.

I think his point is, you constantly try and reduce the "DRM in 2023" argument to some cynical "only a few people on the GOG forums care about it now" suggestions one minute then back-pedal with "no-one knows" the next, when it's clearly more than that. I've seen plenty of people on Reddit, tech forums, etc, say "If they drop offline installers / DRM-Free I'm gone" that I don't recognize from the GOG forum at all. At the end of the day, GOG = DRM-Free has actually been successful as a branding campaign as every PC gamer who knows the store knows what it means (even if they are Steam users).

For single player games, I don't think much has changed at all for many people. The kind of people who are happy with Denuvo, online-only multi-player Fortnite or MS GamePass subscriptions are the ones already using them without "waiting" for them to come here. So yes, GOG really is still niche based and dropping DRM-Free won't change that. As someone said above, people demanding Elden Ring be brought here "if only GOG embrace more DRM" need to ask themselves why uPlay, Origin, MS Store, etc, don't have them, and understand the answer isn't 'being held back by DRM-Free".

Well, let's just say: you wouldn't recognize me on other forums either.
Not everyone is using the same nick everywhere, and not everyone will "out" themselves as "that and that guy from the GOG forum".
I made my point in regard to that in another thread already.
To recap: there are people who would gladly change to GOG, IF GOG would offer them the same games (DRM-free or not) and amenities, that they are used to from Steam, etc.

Exactly. Nothing has changed for many people (whether they make a noise in the GOG forums or not). See the comments for one of 2022's biggest releases here (Skyrim). If people here didn't care about DRM-Free, then what were they waiting a decade for vs buying it on Steam?...

Then those small number of "I want GOG to be exactly like the worst of Steam but not Steam" people need to drop unrealistic expectations and start dealing with reality, as 1. GOG does not have the finances to start making "GOG Decks" or throwing Epic-level of money at publishers, etc, whilst 2. all the 'we want Steam features' low hanging fruit has already been picked and it turns out to be mostly ignored anyway.

No.

I like GOG being the place where Complete Editions and DRM-FREE games go with offline-installers, freed from their DRM-shackles and client-app-crap shackles.

While I wish more companies would drop their games here on Day 1 - eh, this (GOG) is the place for DRM-FREE games w/ Complete Editions, a lot of times. This is where games go, to be preserved.

Sometimes, it's annoying trying to do the "Complete Editions" dance as games come out and then try to chase their 45 DLC's and 3 expansions altogether - and a lot of times, GOG has already solved it when their version drops here in its Complete Form b/c it's coming here "late to the party."

As shown over and over again by the real wordl events, such statement from "the publisher" will have a credibility level that could be placed somewhere between an e-mail form wealthy Nigerian prince, 99 carat gold 'Rulax' watch from flea market in China and one in-the-lifetime, incredible and personal offer to purchase The Brooklyn Bridge.
Actuall, I'll rather go for a watch. At least it can be used as a door stopper or something...

Who says it's a small number?

Funny, you'd say that.
I guess you have no problem then, with the comparable small number of GOG users, to drop their unrealistic expectations in regard to the gaming industry, and start dealing with the reality of the market? Right?

1) exactly, that's why they need to open to a new client base.
2) who says the people who would be willing to switch to GOG would want a "GOG Deck"? Where's the logic in that argument?
Sooner or later, you guys always bring up stuff that has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but expect everyone to agree with you on base of that stuff. SMH
Wait until the right people notice this thread and click on your link. Then you'll find out how ignored that topic really is. ;)

Apart from that - the new clientele will use Galaxy as the standard...and the games that GOG will then have on offer (DRMed, of course) will include all these features, and they won't be ignored by most anymore.
If anything, their existence will make it easier for other people to join GOG instead of Steam.

Who says it isn't? Where's you're proof that the only thing holding 50m Steam flooding to GOG is for GOG to be a poor man's Steam?

That's back to front as continuing what GOG are doing requires no massive financial investment (that GOG doesn't have) whilst wanting to be exactly like Steam obviously does. You do understand that companies who run competing stores like Valve, EA, Epic & Microsoft are between 3-670x larger than CDPR, yes? Just making sure you have the basics nailed down here...

Which "amenities" are missing specifically? Everyone likes to say "the problem with GOG is that isn't an exact Steam clone" yet when asked to spell out exactly what's 'missing', many people actually reconsider what they want when it either contradicts something else or is so wildly unrealistic as to be completely divorced from reality when they're reminded of the financials. Beyond a certain baseline of Steam features (client, achievements, cloud saves) that GOG already has, most people want GOG to focus on what they can do, not overstretch and fall flat on their face trying to be an identical twin to other stores many times their size.

And as we saw with the Epic Games Store, a lot of Steam users claim they 'want' competition... until they get it... then it's 'low-key' the worst thing on Earth and no small amount of "all I want is all my games in one place thing" pant-p*ssing on Reddit. What non-GOG users entrenched in other stores claim is "holding them back" from using GOG is usually some exercise in pretending they 'want competition' more than they actually do in practice. And yes I have heard "lack of Steam Deck" brought up the past few months more often as to why "other stores that aren't Steam suck".

Look, I'll make it short. There's something on the telly, that I don't want to miss.
I will post two statements.
One will be my position on the issue - the other will be your (that's the general "vocal GOG user" your) position on the issue.
Then I'll ask you a question.
It won't be a "yes or no" question, but it should be answerable in one short sentence.
Ok?
Here we go:

I say: if GOG doesn't manage to open itself up to new markets, it will - rather sooner than later - cease to exist, because the DRM-free market alone isn't sustainable enough to keep the company afloat.

You say: if GOG dares to open up to a new DRMed market, it will - rather sooner than later - cease to exist, because "the GOG customers who made the company what it is today, won't tolerate this step", and also: "it will just be another "key seller" for Steam (btw, so far nobody has exlained to me, how that will come to pass), and nobody needs that."

Here's my question: if GOG will cease to exist anyway...then what does it matter which way they choose?

Aww, come now...not answering that question is not nice.
I didn't ask you, if you think the question is relevant.
I asked you, where the difference lies for any of us, IF any of the two statements will turn out to be the future.
Reminds me of that guy who fell from a high rise block.
At every floor he passed, he said: "so far, so well!"
Many stores existed at some point - until they closed shop.
Sorry, but what has the number of DRM-free games on the EGS to do with GOG?
If anything, we could argue that - if Epic (and Steam) is now poaching in GOG's territory - GOG's relevance for the DRM-free market gets smaller.

And now you start to act like Catte (GOG user)...imagining things and present them as "fact".
Nowhere did I claim that DRM-free has "gone out of fashion".

See, it is no fun, to "discuss" with people who do such things.

That's because it's a "begging the question" logical fallacy. The rest...

Is just amateur hour trolling considering that's been your argument the whole time ("I don't see GOG survive in the long run, if they don't open up for DRMed games. The number of DRM-free games on the market and the group of buyers interested in DRM-free games only, is simply too small"). It's like arguing with a child who claimed 'he never said' what he said...