It does though since the galaxy store is the gog.com store...
It does though since the galaxy store is the same as the gog.com store...

That's how it already works for all games using Steam or other store integration, you need to have the respective clients running to install or play them. While I still don't think it was a particular good idea, if you don't use Epic integration it shouldn't change anything.

Now if Gog start selling Epic games on the website or even if you don't use Epic integration then it would be a different story altogether.

FCK-DRM campaign always felt kinda cheesy, this has just made it look even worse. Odd times man, odd times

Maybe not, but it's so bizzare and out of nowhere, that at this point waking up to "surprise, all the offline installers are gone and everything is Galaxy only from now on" no longer sounds unrealistic.

Wrong. It is going to make developers less likely to release games here DRM-free, if they know they can access the GOG userbase by releasing games on Epic(fail). It is also completely counteractive to promoting DRM-free and growing the DRM-free userbase.

This affects everyone, including those that don't use Galaxy.

We can only hope that it's only limited to Galaxy. The ambiguous "new store" language that's repeated in the announcement implied to me that this could possibly extend to a brand new GOG store overhaul and not just be limited to Galaxy. If that happens then there is absolutely no reason for any dev to release new games on GOG proper, and I could actually see Epic and others blocking DRM-free releases on GOG because, "Well, we've already released it on GOG through our store". So at that point GOG becomes a key reseller for Epic and others. I would really hate to see this happen.

This can backfire really badly.
A few observations.

1) The main reason for this that I can see is to give a boost to Goglaxy (yes, Ive spelt it this way deliberately) client and reinforce it to be the one client to maintain all others. If this takes off - we can possibly see Origin and Uplay "substores" as well. The main problems here are that:

2) GOG technically sells games with DRM (this realistically should be all the damning evidence wee need).

3) This will likely make little money because GOG will have to take a cut from Epic's already small shop profit. Additionally, GOG is (or at least was) targeted at people who are against DRM. The core audience will not buy these games. People who don't care about DRM however, will probably buy it directly from Epic instead, because why not.

4) It will make "native" releases of games on GOG less likely, because "you can technically buy it on GOG, so why bother".

5) The only benefit that I can see would be an option to buy DRM free games that were never released on GOG for whatever reason (like Axiom Verge for example).

I would rather have those games sold via GOG so I can have an offline installer otherwise I would prefer this wasn't a thing. What's next is GOG going to actually start selling games with DRM that require you to load them via GOG Galaxy even to play single player? It's like they are trying to be more like Steam with the fact they sell games drm free being one of the last holdouts. Soon we may even be forced to use Galaxy even to download the offline installers at this rate (though I do anyway since I have no other real choice if I want to make sure the files are hash verified upon download since GOG Downloader is well and truely dead). I really don't care for Epic as a platform and I am sure not going to be bribed by all of their game giveaways which I'm sure are now going to show up on Galaxy now too. Who knows maybe Epic will end up buying GOG like they've bought up so many other things lately and then we will have no choice but to use them for everything. Yeah I'm being sarcastic but honestly not by much if you really look at what Epic has been doing in the last few months let alone the last year or so.

Everyone should be able to agree on this :) Frankly there should be a separate thread dedicated to reminding people about this.

We need "digital receipts" too :P

Customers that enabled the Epic integration, which is not enabled by default, already knows about the Epic store, and, if they enable integration, they even already have an account there. So Devs will only gain access the portion of the Gog user base that was already part of the Epic store user base to begin with.
Then show me where the Epic games are on the Gog store then ? As the close beta has started if it's the same "store" it should be there then ?

That is what is going to happen. Epic games will be sold on the store is confirmed and you need the client to install them.

IIMHO I think it's probably just to try to push the whole idea of having Galaxy as an universal client for PC gaming, Steam probably didn't give a damn so they turned to Epic. I don't think, at least I hope not, that they will start to sell "keys" for Epic games on the main Gog store but that it's more for Epic customers to be able to use Galaxy as an alternative client.

But then there is the whole "curated list" and support being handled by Gog, but it's probably again just another instance of Gog patented commutation skills, I hope they will clarify soon.

The fact that GOG staff have posted this news ONLY on the galaxy client forum, and not on the general forum, shows that they have no intention of negotiating for proper DRM-free games.

What does that say about a store that's supposed to be DRM-free?

Very bad move, GOG.

) ;

I have always been one to scoff at those who say that GOG is in trouble because they have always seemed to be doing well with The Witcher, Cyberpunk preorders, and the older games for which they've secured re-releases. (Such as old games from EA, Ubi, ActiBlizz, Bethesda, etc.) However, this stealth announcement is starting to make me wonder if the naysayers really were right after all.

The whole support thing bothers me too. Why should GOG's staff be supporting problems caused by games from Epic's store? Isn't that what Epic's tech support is for? Is Epic planning on paying CDPR a monthly consulting fee for providing tech support? (I personally doubt it.)