Exactly. GOG started small. They were an obscure store, specializing in old games. But they had a huge advantage: DRM-free. This combination (old games + DRM-free) pulled in enough people to let them grow. The same can happen with other DRM-free stores. With more users, their catalogue will grow too.

A great idea in theory maybe.
And it might even work if they could fool us enough.
But in reality, we would not want to risk new ownership ... as new management implies.
I kind of feel we are safe with GOG, so long as the original, presumably altruistic, people still run the show. Safe as can be expected anyway in this volatile world.

In reality, GOG only need to declare a specific and acceptable direction, backing that up with action, to win many back. An apology and some excuses would also help greatly. The important thing, is that they see the light and admit to the error of their recent ways.

We are not privy to all the ins and outs, all the facts etc, nor are we big business managers.

GOG could well and truly be between a Rock and a Hard Place, and some compromise is inevitable for survival.

Generally, customers, especially old ones, don't like change, don't accept compromise is necessary ... which is due to their vested interest and fears chiefly ... and some would say bias.

GOG I imagine have a plan and a long term goal. Generally they involve bumps along the road, and unhappiness for some. What the end game will be, and whether we like it is pretty open right now. Many cannot tolerate the thought of DRM at GOG (or more as some would say), but at some point we may need to consider what is better ... a store with a mix of DRM and DRM-Free, or no GOG store at all.

Of course, if GOG were to just turn into another Humble Store, then who would want that. So GOG would still need to be primary as far as DRM-Free is concerned.

I think it is beyond possibility now for GOG to downsize and survive. GOG need clout to ensure their ongoing future. So long as GOG keep selling great DRM-Free games, customers will keep coming, even if DRM ones are also in the mix ... so long as they clearly differentiate between the two.

It would be a sad day if DRM is openly supported here, but perhaps better than losing the DRM-Free portion of GOG altogether.

This is not the worst suggestion, but most people don't have enough disposable income and know how to even consider it.

I'm talking about ZP not generating interest, or even allowing for a community. GOG did that darn well in their early years, it created a buzz, gathered a community, the users heavily promoted them and a few even helped out with getting games, extras, translations, and that carried a lot of weight in their negotiations with publishers and impact on the industry. ZP seems to have founders with much better industry connections, but that's all they have, there's no buzz, no excitement, no community. It's not about fewer games and no newer or AAA titles, I'm fine with that. (But GOG did initially have nearly all the catalog 50% off twice a year, so you could basically expect to get anything on GOG for no more than $5, and the "gem" promos, with one game 40-60% off every other week. ZP has nothing.)

Ancient-Red-Dragon answered the GOG-shaped hole part to some extent. If they seemed to have such a good start but then were changed by the industry anyway, what hope would others have, and what interest would publishers and indie devs have to make deals with them? It makes it hard to trust that another such attempt would a) actually have an impact, b) last long enough to matter, and c) stick to its principles if it will last. Perhaps strangely enough, it seems to me that the only way to make room for real competition on this niche would be for GOG to return to its values, refill that hole. The farther they move from it, the less likely it is that anyone else will be trusted to be what they used to be.

And yeah, that was what I was saying, have CDP's separate store allow for whatever they want and leave GOG to its original principles, using CDP's negotiating power to try to get as many games initially released on their separate store moved to GOG, respecting all of its original principles, after a number of years. And yes, if that wouldn't have worked at all and GOG would have went under in spite of all those efforts, and while being left on its own, without its infrastructure and staff leeched for CDP's purposes (but quite the contrary, some CDP resources used to prop up GOG, if they'd actually be serious about wanting to change something in the industry), then better have them die heroes than live long enough to become villains, as they say.

They have a discord.....also there is buzz and excitement(there and elsewhere), albeit in smaller more subdued ways.

ZP might not have sales, but the prices are usually decent.....and also more importantly: the games are(and remain) DRM-Free

One should do their best to never become too attached(like with family/friends) to a business

In the business world, eventual greed/etc is more the rule than the exception, and there's no guarantee your favorite site/store company will remain as you want it to be. Imo, the best thing to do is to enjoy new game sites/stores as they come along while hoping they stay true to DRM-free/etc as long as possible, while also being ready to find/jump to the next site/store if need be.

Discord is pretty active, we don't have a forum admittedly (nor do we have a billion-dollar group attached us)

As for everything else...well, in all honesty, you've been pretty dismissive of everything involving the site/service. No buzz etc is just untrue, there's been little marketing till recently (hi) which has seen big strides. As for sales, sure. But a good portion of the titles are pretty damn cheap.

I'll forgive some of the comments as you genuinely seem confused between the difference between something being quite well funded and attached to a multi-million dollar company and a small company doing their thing. I'm not going to sit here and pretend there's no sale, but I'm also not going to pretend that $5 for Duke Nukem 3D is a large amount either.

The goal is to support DRM-Free, preserve titles lost in the void and try and support as many OS as we can while providing the best quality possible. Thankfully, you as the consumer have options! Which is exactly the ideal of DRM-Free!

The process of signing games is long, very long. There are so many variables that go into it (which is partly why I'm surprised Hitman came here in this form). I know it seems easy on the outside looking in, but it's really not. I've seen it from multiple perspectives and the only time it gets easier is when big wads of cash are exchanged haha...or I guess...NFTS!?!!

I've said this multiple times, no one wants GOG to sink. That would be a huge step back from DRM-Free video games AND preservation. Options, consumer options at a core ideal that needs to be protected. If having options really bothers you, then at that point you have to question do you prize DRM-Free? or just the brand offering it? It's a vicious cycle...WWE vicious, not like blood and biting

This post(and especially this bit): well said
*Slow clap*

Very well said, I totally agree. Patronizing the flourish and growth of competition could trigger incidentally to GOG to make things way much better

hmm.. i believe gog's strategy is to sell drm free games at a significant premium. my guess is as long as they don't outgrow costs relative to the market, this business should be self sustainable.but growth is a different problem altogether.. have you checked cdpr's financial statements.. would be interesting to know actual numbers.

While that all seems fairly logical, you just don't know really, when you don't have all the facts etc at hand.

There are a good number who simply don't like Steam, regardless of the DRM aspect.
GOG also appear to have something going on with Epic, and who knows who else.
GOG are already competing with Steam, as are others like Epic and even Itch.io etc.

So while I tend to agree with what you surmise, I don't believe in counting the chickens just yet.

I tend to see GOG as doing a tightrope balancing act, trying to cross a chasm.

Agreed/well said


====

I believe there are threads that discuss those very things here in the forums.
This might be one

The current management is mostly still the old guard and the 2 founders (one of them joint-CEO) are also the biggest insider shareholders.

See for example:
https://www.cdprojekt.com/en/capital-group/board-of-directors/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD_Projekt
https://www.cdprojekt.com/en/investors/shareholders/
GOG is currently (H1 2021 / post CP2077) making losses. As it is my impression is that GOG in the past has only been profitable due to getting ~30% share of CDPR games. I do not believe this is due to necessity though but rather due to their expansive business strategy and such which causes high costs.

You can see actual numbers and my take on it here:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/boycotting_gog_2021/post2870
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/boycotting_gog_2021/post2924

Why would people buy their stock if they are getting to the point of not buying the games they distribute? People don't have to buy their stock to change the company. If you don't buy their stuff because of their practices they eventually go the way of the dodo. That would be unfortunate, but it is also a self-inflicted wound on GOG's part.

GOG didn't have a billion dollar group attached to it when it started either. CDPR had barely managed to avoid going under while working on The Witcher, didn't they? Now they're a major player, but when GOG was launched and during the early years, when GOG held to its principles, they were well known and quite powerful in Poland, but not so much internationally.

If I'm dismissive.... Admittedly, mainly did so earlier, before more dedicated people took over (not counting you and SlackR84, as actual employees), but I was trying to correct those who were suspicious of ZP...
But about marketing, I first learned of GOG from a newspaper from here. That was shocking, a digital game store in a newspaper from here. I mean, I didn't see news about Steam in one back then... And when I mentioned it to a friend, she said she knew and a few of her other friends were talking about it excitedly, at a time when "piracy" was still the rule around here and legal purchases quite odd. ZP, on the other hand... Well, strikes me that despite being around for years and having some industry veterans behind, even basically one-man effort and very niche Fireflower seems better known.

Still, about being dismissive. Well, you know, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. On the one hand, directly on topic, I was very excited about GOG as a beacon of light in this rotten industry in their early years, finally something worth supporting, promoting them however I could, and then got utterly betrayed, so that's one thing that makes me wary of any others making promises of having values. On the other, ZP already went back on their word given to me directly, after all, about Paysafecard as payment option, since I was told specifically that it'll be added and then it was decided that it wasn't feasible after all, and no similar alternative (something just as easily bought with cash around here and not requiring registration or accounts or other personal/payment information) was offered. So what if someday flat pricing will no longer be feasible, as in GOG's case? Or even DRM-free? Even more so since I never saw ZP actually make a point about flat pricing as a value, and it was a long time until DRM-free was listed again on the site. I mean, as we now see in case of GOG, even when it's claimed as the core value and always listed prominently that may eventually stop being the case, so how does it look when it seems that the designers just forgot all about it for months and months?
Problem is that those who care for some values and for a direction stop buying while those who don't still do, making GOG management see profit in catering to the generic masses and dismissing the original userbase even more.