The "all in one" client idea seems to have potential to get GOG some greater numbers, so I don't blame them for looking for more ways to enhance that. However I also don't blame people for thinking it's sketchy when a lot of those games have DRM on them.

As long as you can use the website to purchase and download DRM free offline installers though, that's the essential thing IMO. Galaxy being optional makes all the Galaxy concerns a lot of noise without form, for the moment. Though I agree there is more and more reason to express concern about possible changes to that.

Sounds like I hit a nerve, good. In order to change mediocrity to the better, one must accept reality first. All I'm seeing are rants, including mine and also the usual preaching to the choir.

If you're up to the task then stand up. Like a real b̶a̶b̶y̶ man you choose to instead of aiming your babyrage at me. But I know you can't, because a real man would accept reality first before the act. And unfortunately, you're not even close to even that. Or otherwise you wouldn't aim your silly, petty toxicity at me instead of actually reading the thread and what people have to say or even more importantly, contribute.

I can even tell that you're worse than that, you wait until enough people rally against a n̶o̶n̶e̶x̶i̶s̶t̶e̶n̶t̶ common enemy. If people actually would care about what GOG is doing, they already would've present solutions. I see many good analyses and even some contructive criticisms, but only some may actually matter for GOG.

At any case, this is the internet. And there always will be someone who can out holier-than-thou you, my little friend :>!

If you missed what I have written, let me say it in simplier terms. I also wish the best for GOG and its staff, as many do.

Oh, back in the day I'm absolutely sure they believed firmly in their DRM-free principle. But around the time when the FCK DRM site went up, which was fairly recently? I'm not so sure.

Really, this is what it all comes down to, that right there difference between "old GOG" and "new GOG", and the issue of trust. This is the heart of the matter:

At one time GOG's DRM-free principle was not (just) a business policy, but an ethical stance. We're not selling it because DRM is wrong, not just because it's out gimmick. That's why their commitment to it was reliable. Now they are going to be making money off of DRMed games. Even though some may argue untill they are blue in the mouth that technically nothing about how GOG.com operates changes, the fallout is twofold:

1. They may not be breaking the rule of selling DRMed games here, but they are clearly breaking their ethical commitment. They are doing somethign they themselves used to brand as wrong. That makes them look entirely untrustworthy and unethical. That's bad from both a moral and business standpoint.

2. Since DRM-free is now not an ethical stance but just a business strategy, it can change or be entirely abolished as business requires. As long as we believed in GOG team's ethical stance on the issue we had reason to believe in the permanence of the policy itself. That is no longer the case.

Add to that their reluctance in marketing it as their USP does not make it look like they even take it as an important business policy. So yes, technically nothing changed on GOG.com right now. But there is abslutely no reason to think it won't. There is no reason to be sure we won't wake up to DRM-free policy being discontinued tomorrow. It's not paranoia, it's simple logic.

If that's "value" nowadays, then I'm probably too old to understand it.

But then I'm the guy who prefers small local stores over supermarket franchises. Even if it's less convenient and sometimes more expensive. At least I know the people who get my money - they're essentially my neighbours.

Translated to GOG that means if they want to be a supermarket, well I'll still buy the stuff I can't get elsewhere. But they're not my neighbours any more. They'll get my money out of necessity, not because I feel they are worth it.

Obviously, you are not the target audience then.

------

Disclaimer: I do not work for GOG.com, nor am I paid by GOG.com. All views expressed in this post are my own, and do not represent the views of GOG.com or it's employees. My views are expressed as a fan, gamer, and fellow GOG user... that is all. Thank you.

We had our differences "Elsweyr", but this deserves to be printed and mailed to GOG HQ. You really nailed it.
Obviously. I'm not sure GOG understands "target audience". Seem like their target audience is now Steam and EGS users. Well - those people use Steam and EGS, and GOG has literally nothing to offer to sway them.

But again, "Not insulting people." Inb4 you are "sorry" WE misunderstood you.

If that was the case then GOG sales would not have been the best on record... obviously there is correlation, that from the introduction of Galaxy and to an extent Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk GOG has grown a lot picking up many "Steam and EGS" users. There are people out that prefer DRM Free, but will buy games with DRM if they have too. There are those that prefer buying older games that actually work on Windows 10. It's not black and white.

There are not just GOG users and Steam users and EGS users. The overlap is significant for many different reasons...
That was not insult whatsoever... so no. That was a fact.

------

Disclaimer: I do not work for GOG.com, nor am I paid by GOG.com. All views expressed in this post are my own, and do not represent the views of GOG.com or it's employees. My views are expressed as a fan, gamer, and fellow GOG user... that is all. Thank you.

Yeah nothing insulting at all about saying "We don't care about you"

If I acted in my volunteer role the way you are here, I'd be out on my ass.

I fear thoses games do not bring a lot of money. They primarely bring new customers.

Nope, today plenty of games using Denuvo are not cracked. RDR2 for example... You can have a look here. It is all about the budget and time devs are willing to spend on DRM.

Lobbying is very expensive. It would require CD Projekt Red to create a game as popular as Fortnite to have money to burn on lobbying.

The all-in-one launcher philosophy is a way to make GOG a better product and to differentiate itself from all other services... only time will tell if it will be successful. We are going to see an explosion of gaming subscribtion services in the next few years. Stadia, Microsoft, EA, Nvidia, Amazon are only the first ones. Galaxy could become a really good option where on one side you can curate all your subscritions (the true end-game DRM) within 1 software, and on the other side you can buy the same games DRM free on GOG.

Too many users here seems to misunderstand something simple: GOG will always sell games without DRM as it is the core USP the brand, while Galaxy is a 'store-agnostic' software to curate all games and attract potential new store-agnostic gamers. There is nothing wrong about that... GOG ≠ Galaxy.

Also Galaxy is optional... you will always be able to download the installers via the store if you want the true 'hardcore' DRM free experience.

So, we have collectively made our point clear in all manners of expression, albeit in written form. We (or vast majority, at least) have expressed our extreme displeasure concerning this new turn of events.

Since this is apparently a money thing, let's focus on that. Most of the people in this thread have hundreds of games on GOG, i.e. we've invested a lot in supporting GOG. We've done so mainly because of the DRM-free ideal.

We see this ideal being bent to suit a corporate goal.

Have we "served our purpose" in supporting GOG's growth and are, therefore, expendable? Will we get an official response concerning our protest?

You aren't a man, you accept anything and don't do anything about it. Shilling for a company is something no one should be doing.

So you think I'm being dishonest? What a strange way to reply to a personal statement... Please believe me that I WILL stop buying from GOG if they just become just another DRM store. Why fragment my DRM'd library when I can just use Steam?

One can hope... I don't have visibility into CDPR's business plan so I don't know what they are thinking. This is such a significant deviation from their previous plans that it raises questions about the future of DRM-free in GOG's store.

So what's the unique value proposition here? What if Steam was to offer a similar all-in-one launcher feature tomorrow? They could easily do so since all of the APIs are open enough for GOG to do it, and they have the industry connections to make any special integrations happen. How would GOG selling games from another store help GOG's interests then if their launcher is no longer anything special? Also, why hasn't Steam done launcher integrations like this already? Maybe because Steam doesn't want to promote competitors?

I believe that I have addressed that it doesn't matter if it's Galaxy-only and/or can be disabled. The fact that Galaxy offers a game from *any* store disincentivizes DRM-free releases directly on GOG because devs could argue that "it's already sold on Galaxy" if it's on any store promoted through Galaxy.

If the goal is only 10%-20%, there are far better ways to do that which I previously outlined. Also, I would question whether doing Epic's launcher development and tech support while taking a small financial cut would even make GOG break even at only 10%-20%. Also, I would be surprised if GOG was able to convince 10%-20% of Steam's users to completely leave Steam just by selling Epic's games or offering an integrated launcher.

So by extension, Steam has more money and could do a better job with an all-in-one launcher than GOG can do with Galaxy? I am still not seeing the unique value proposition here, and the point that I'm making is that GOG betting so heavily on Galaxy's integration features seems like a misguided decision. Also, if you assume that Galaxy's integrations are not unique, then that just leaves the fact that GOG is now selling Epic's DRM'd games and taking over portions of their launcher development and tech support. This decision by GOG does not make sense to me because it appears to hurt GOG's business instead of help it.

"Obviously, you are not the target audience then. " is very different from "this feature is not intended for you"

Back to Social Media school

And I work for a much more media savvy company than GOG