No, or why do they still exist? GOG needs customers who buy games.

Better to ignore GOG. Valve has that power, but people who buy at Steam buy everything, even region locks and DRM. So, no need for Valve.
Reversed question: will Bethesda have the power to introduce activations here? You say GOG has no power to prevent that.

Thats not true. GOG does everything to become another Steam clone. Don't you know their (old) principals anymore?

Well, this has become redundant.

If I lost my principles I might boycott GOG, too.

You need to stop looking at everything so black and white and listen to what geizterfahr has said.

GOG's core deal is selling people games without the bullshit, and to try to get as many games as they can to us in that state. Some publishers are paranoid, some are greedy, some are just clueless imbeciles and you have to meet them half way if you want to parley. You sometimes have to bend some of your lesser "principles" in order to push the real main goal of your service, which for GOG, has always has been, DRM Free.

This is going to mean compromises like regional pricing. Yes, this sucks, but do you know what sucks even more? Never getting a goddamn DRM free version of a game in the first place! If it's too expensive at launch, wait for sales! it's not that hard to do and it's surely not hard to see why this was a necessary evil.

Then there's the region lock, it's stupid and insulting to the gamers and you have every right to be pissed off about it but don't you or anyone dare to blame GOG for this, this is not cowtowing to a publisher's whim, it's simply federal law. There. Is. No. Choice.

As for turning into a Steam clone? Really? I've been a GOG user longer than you have and without Galaxy installed it feels pretty much the same here now as it did five years ago. Offering up an optional client that has features many modern gamers want is "abandoning principles" now? You see no logic or value in using tactics to get as many people interested in trying your service as possible?

Pray tell, what is your principles? XD

Galaxy isn't optional anymore. Medieval is one of first titels that need it, at least for MP. New games will follow.

Regional pricing has been solved well, but region locks not. There was a time where all these things were unthinkable.
Sometimes patches doesn't come to GOG or they come very late, you can be glad if you get a Linux version that is already at Steam available. There should be more pressure to developers and publishers.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about oO

No, because it'll be GOG's end. See GMG and Gamersgate. They sell Steam keys now, because no one wanted their crap. And we know that no one wants non-optional Galaxy - see Witcher 3 release, where new users complained that they have to have Galaxy running (which wasn't true, but it proves my point)

GOG has this power. They always had it. DRM will kill their business. DRM'd Quake will only result in "Why can't I have this on Steam? I don't want another stupid client running in the background!!!!!" See Witcher 3 ;)

I know their old principles. Good Old Games, One World One Price, DRM free (with serial key multiplayer if it still lives). GOG dropped "Good Old Games", which brought us (through growth and a higher market share) Lucas Arts' classics, Bethesda's/id's classics, SSI Gold Box, System Shock and many, many more great classics. They dropped "One World One Price", which brought us lots of Indies (which is a funny thing, but that's another topic) and some semi-old AAA-ish games. DRM free! For the first time! And that's it... They didn't drop their third principle: DRM free. They just expanded their "If old serial key multiplyer still works, we'll give you a serial key" stance to "If the game has account based multiplayer, we'll give you Galaxy multiplayer". Where's the problem? Where's the difference to serial keys?

Without Galaxy, we probably wouldn't have Medieval here at all. And if we would have it here, it would be either completely without multiplayer (crippled version), or with multiplayer through a third party (account + serial key required) as it was with Age of Wonders 3 and other games in the past.

Seriously? I prefer multiplayer through GOG (Galaxy required) over multiplayer through a third party (create another account you don't want). And I definitely prefer DRM free singleplayer with account based multiplayer (that I won't touch anyway) over nothing at all!

Cut out the multiplayer drama... Every new game comes with tacked on multiplayer nowadays. Even pure singleplayer games have some sort of useless multiplayer. And most multiplayer parts are built with the publisher's own back-end or Steamworks stuff. There's a simple choice for GOG: Forget about all these games, or push Galaxy multiplayer and get at least the singleplayer DRM free. Multiplayer without accounts and/or serial keys is dead. Say thanks to cheaters (you can't ban someone who isn't identifiable), Steamworks (multiplayer without back-end development costs) and the dead of LAN (because publishers prefered DRM - but we lost this battle 10 years ago already).

GOG didn't have to make this choice when they were Good Old Games, because old games had LAN or dead servers. The few games that still had multiplayer came with serial keys - and this even 4 years before you joined (or: from day 1)! But back then, GOG was still a niche store with a small community. A community that knew which battles are worth it and which battles are long lost. No one ever really complained about serial keys for multiplayer. No we have account based multiplayer through Galaxy - for newer games that don't come with serial keys anymore. GOG always was about DRM free singleplayr and always offered the option to play DRM'd multiplayer if it was still possible and if you want to.

Hmm, shouldn't that go in reverse? Indies and newer games started becoming more frequent after GOG dropped the Good Old Games part, while LucasArts, Bethesda, SSI, System Shock, etc. appeared after GOG introduced regional pricing.

Well... These games don't have regional prices, so I think they're more a result of GOG's growing market share - which probably came due to selling Indies and newer AA+ games (at regional prices). You have to sell new games first to sell new games at regional prices ;P

I am making a joke based on the ambiguity of the title of this thread. It could be read as, "I am boycotting GOG, because I have lost my principles."

Ha. Ha.

I know, hence the smiley. I try to continue the joke. Like after you give whatever reason I would say "yeah damn gog offering a game I cannot resist buying. For that I will boycott GoG"

First: all politicians think alike here so voting somebody else (which hardly never happens) would change nothing. Second: I was not talking about GOG to help us in the fight I was talking about developers and publishers who have the money and the lawyers to fight this war and who want to sell their stuff here. Thinking that we, the citizens could change anything is nothing more than naive and blind trust in the so called democracy. Do you think that we the citizens wanted millions of refugees in our country leading to the fact that people who live here a long time have to give up part of their homes to keep them sheltered? Here in Germany it's all in the news and the citizens can do nothing but to shake their head. They can also go on the street - wouldn't change a thing and never has.
And without games they don't have any.

Many people doesn't interest that. If Galaxy would be non-optional or DRM is coming they say "so what, that's the same like Steam, that's ok".

You can give away this key or lend it and you don't need GOG. And you don't need such a stupid client.
A solution would be to sell MP-Features separately if you need a Key or Galaxy (like a DLC). So if you only want SP/DRM-free you get a discount.

Why does GOG still exist? Even without Bethesda/id all the time?

Has GOG really gained market share that much? It's a serious question. What AAA new releases have showed up as a result of all these 'sacrifices'? Yes more publishers have come on board but they haven't brought their newer games here. I talking about Shadows of Mordor, Cities Skylines, the Batman Arkham series, Skyrim and Fallout 3, etc. I'm very curious to know how other publishers, especially bigger ones view GoG's place in the marketplace and how significant (if any) it is when Steam dwarfs everything so much that is easy to be lost in it's shadow. I'd make the argument that Humble is more of a known entity among the casual PC Gamer than GoG.