Look who's talking about logical fallacy.
Recognizing the facts as stated above, isn't "claiming DRM-free is out of fashion".
SMH

Who's talking about "losing interest"?
Fact is: most gamers don't care about DRM or DRM-free.
There's no "lost interest" involved.

Jesus dude, it's like you've got zero sense of self awareness...

From past experience with devs saying they'll add a Linux version or LAN/couch multiplayer support later, it often remains at the talk phase and doesn't happen.

I don't think it's bad intentions. I think that when they make those claims, they genuinely believe they'll get around to it.

Part of it is the dev can-do mindset. We all like to please our users and we always imagine things will get done in less than half the time it really takes (there is the idealized path to development and then there is the real-world path to development with technology often not cooperating).

Ultimately, I want to encourage developers who make ownership a priority, not an afterthought. They should build it into the game from day one.

In the grand scheme of thing, it's the simpler path even. The only reason why drm is considered easier now is all those stupid platform integrations that poped up everywhere where dominant platform owners worked like crazy to shoulder the overhead of persistent centralized networked services, in order to make it the path of least resistance for devs... and all those network service platforms that are maintained like services are financially propped up by things that are sold as goods with a single fixed payment.

When you stop a second to think about it, the dominant business model that those service operators (GOG, Steam, etc) subscribe to is a little insane. It is certainly not meant to be a viable long term solution.

https://www.gog.com/news/gog_2022_update_5_about_the_games_we_can_play_with_others Give him an inch and he'll take a mile. Games that require DRM are online-only until they are officially or unofficialy made to not be. Games with multiplayer that do not have local server capability are definetly a form of DRM. GOG could have stated that no such games would be available here, they did not and we all know why.

GOG has a niche, it should keep that niche. Once they go back on what they stated then hopefully GOG will die the death it will deserve but more than likely the users will not care and keep buying DRM infected games and if so what is the point of GOG?

I would wait for six months before buying.

Heck, if we got games after six months and not after six years (curreent state), that would be a major step forward.

This exact same topic with exact same proposal was made in the past and was pretty much debunked so I dont know why this is being brought up again.

From just a theoretical perspective, even assuming everything works perfectly (developers remove DRM, update offline installers to not contain DRM, etc.) its still confusing and goes against the principles of the store. The whole purpose of GOG is to sell DRM-free games. Customers are coming in with the assumption that the games are DRM-free so it would just add another layer of confusion.

Now, for the sad reality which is that developers wont honor their word. Developers see DRM as vital protection (or why would they bother shelling out money for a license?) and if GOG doesnt hold them accountable, they may never remove it. Look at how "effective" GOG is at getting parity in games that are both listed on Steam and GOG. Although it may have been removed (good job GOG /s), there was a great thread detailing missing content in GOG versions of the same game to the Steam version, ranging from relatively minor things like achievements to more major things like music or even patches. What makes you think developers will honor their word and address a major thing like removing DRM when it isnt standard industry practice? What is GOG going to do? Ban them from the store? After which they go to steam and just carry on business as usual?

If anything, it would be better for GOG to ask for them to release a DRM-free version in their store once the 6 months have passed. They get their first "big sales" by selling on steam and consoles and then maybe get some additional sales from fans who want to have a copy they can preserve or fans who know and waited for the DRM-free version.

...Except that sort of thing is exactly what GOG has already been doing, and the many years for which GOG has been doing that has proven that that approach doesn't work, and therefore, year after year, GOG always receives very few premium quality top tier games.

OP's proposal is a new approach towards correcting that problem. It certainly isn't going to correct itself if GOG keeps doing nothing other than to keep doing things in the same way as they always already have been.

Absolutely unequivocally no!

Points to consider, that no one will be able to refute:

Humble Bundle was once a DRM-free store and its biggest "AAA" release was probably Bioshock 1. It slid into becoming a Scheme key reseller (i.e. selling DRMed games) and hasn't gotten ANY of the subsequent Bioshock titles DRM-free since then, let alone other AAA type releases. Why do you think this was? Oh but don't worry Bioshock fans, you can just buy Scheme keys of the subsequent titles!

There are "AAA" games over a decade old that are STILL not on GOG, despite having their first entry on GOG (Assassin's Creed, Dead Space, Dragon Age Origins...). Clearly, it is not about "release window sales". This point also goes to show how difficult it is to get publishers to budge on the DRM issue. Hell, Rockstar gave away GTA V free on Epic, but with their precious DRM, of course. What makes you trust that publishers will hold up their end of the bargain?

We don't need to make GOG's job easier. They can up their negotiating skills instead of punting to the consumer. One thing that would help their negotiating position is to remove the DRMed "My Rewards" content from CDPR games as well as removing GWENT from the store. As it is, publishers can say "why should we remove DRM? Clearly you guys are okay with having DRM in GOG games".

Edit: clarity

But what would be the incentive for publishers?

They wouldn't earn more money, as anyone who has no issue with DRM will just buy the game on another platform, so publishers get their money either way. Those who do have an issue with DRM would not buy the initial release on GOG or any other platform. So that would leave the publishers with the additional work of supplying two GOG builds (one with DRM, one without) instead of one and no benefit to their bottom line.

Maybe it'd be better if GOG just closed up shop rather than do that, if that's what they need to do to stay afloat. Of course, I am talking about people's livelihoods/employment here so that might be insensitive of me to say, but there'd also be a PR nightmare if GOG totally allowed DRM and they might go under anyway. CDP might sell off GOG instead and let another company deal with the change and PR.

Also what reason do we have to believe that, if GOG allowed DRM, developers and publishers would want to bother with GOG's small market share / profit compared to Steam?

[s]I guess we just have to hope that GOG dies so all the forum posters will finally be at peace [/s]

Seeing how greedy can publishers be, the incentive would probably be more money for them as after 6 months, the DRM could be removed from the games in the form of those games' DLCs! "Buy this DLC to remove the game's DRM. It's also on sale!"

I don't know if that was a rhetorical question, but didn't Humble Bundle ownership change at some point, which probably changed their scope and operating methods as well.

Yes, IGN owns Humble Bundle.

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/humble-bundle-has-been-acquired-by-media-giant-ign