And the "solution" to that is GOG aggressively Marketing "sign up for a free Epic Games account, get tons of free games", etc. Either the Galaxy-Epic audience is large enough to make it worthwhile (GOG is risking losing out on proper GOG releases) or it isn't (GOG are being dumb diluting their core brand value for literally "only a handful of sales"). Take your pick...

And where did you see that Gog ever said that they were planning to do that ?

EDIT: They said they were going to give Epic users the possibility to purchases Epic store games via Galaxy, not that they were going to actively push their customers toward the Epic store.

"Hey everyone, we just introduced a brand new feature and are not going to market it or mention our related partner!" Come on dude...

Again see my edit, the new feature is to allow Epic users to purchase games from Epic store via Galaxy.

It's not about those who are on Galaxy currently using Epic. It's about those on Epic who currently aren't using Galaxy. It's about those who are Steam but maybe not GOG who may buy from Epic if they didn't have to deal with Epic shitty launcher for most things... a let me tell you there are a lot of those people.

------

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.

Do you have any comment on this earlier post? (particularly the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs and the two posts below it):-
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/news_gog_galaxy_to_start_selling_epic_games/post564

Galaxy integration seems great as a minor feature, but GOG now seems to be basing its entire future business model on whether a server admin working for your main competitor flips a switch or not, and your only contingency plan is "They wouldn't do that, would they?". It ain't "a few old DRM-Free forum relics" who aren't thinking this through clearly to its logical conclusion.

Edit: And if they are "on Steam but maybe not GOG" then how can they use Galaxy without a GOG account?

Edit 2: And how are they going to avoid "dealing with Epic's shitty launcher" if they have to download and use it anyway for the games they might be interested in that you haven't "curated"?... A LOT of people own Epic Games freebies more than the paid games, and since you're unlikely to "curate" these to purchase on Galaxy, the people you're trying to help avoid it are probably already using it.

Not particularly. I mean at this point we are kind of just rephrasing past arguments to make them seem further relevant to our own points. This entire discussion has been laid out over and over and now death has come... it's practically dead at this point. There is very little new info to be gained here.

We all have a choice to make. Come tomorrow this feature will still exist. I can assure you those holding out for this being a hoax is misguided. It's real. And it will probably exist next week too, and so and so on. It's unlikely GOG is going to change course now. The fact is the same GOG.com experience we have now will still exist along with this Galaxy feature. Galaxy will be optional, all games will still be released DRM free on GOG.com and offline installers will still get put on the site. People need to decide if the idea of DRM Free and the "good fight" against the evil of DRM is more important then actually playing, buying and downloading DRM Free games

That is the choice each and everyone of us will need to make. I think most people are going to realize, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but at some point that irrational fear really did rule the day. And the clouds will clear and the GOG we love will still be here, flawed, and not perfect but still the best DRM Free store there is. I don't know what 2 years from now will look like, I do know in the here an now GOG needs more users and sales, I do know that lack of users and sales is going to prevent games from coming here DRM Free as potentially as much as Epic may or may not prevent games from coming here in the future.

These are questions that you are not going to have answered until GOG tries it and sees what works, and it for sure will not be answered by any of us here arguing over it. If it doesn't work out as well as GOG hopes, my gut tells me they will drop it pretty quickly.

Because there are many Steam users that are at-least aware of GOG and if not, they are aware of Galaxy as it has gotten a lot of exposure but they may not be regular GOG users or use GOG at all. They may be interested in Epic though because there are new games you can only get at Epic, but dislike Epic and / or dislike the launcher. These people would likely be much more willing to go through Galaxy and GOG to play these games. And there are a lot of gamers out there like this. I see them all the time on reddit and places like /r/PCGaming.

------

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.

You know what, nevermind, I'll respond to this. They would only do that if they perceive Galaxy to be a threat, which means what GOG is doing is working. So it unlikely, Steam is way to big to feel threaten by this... Galaxy would have to take some serious market share. And besides that it's not really in Steam's interest to do so.

That was me... and that is my own personal view and it was a hypothetical. It does not reflect all GOG moderators or the actual view of GOG so please don't try to frame it as such.

Actually, Steam could not do this without breaking a lot of other stuff. I'm not sure you understand fully how many things out there from third party websites to games, etc... all depend on Steam's API. It would be really hard to single out Galaxy without breaking it for many other sites, and even if Steam tried to block GOG, GOG could easy get around this... it would not be hard. They would have to make fundamental changes to their API that would break it for many other sites and services.

Also, I have not verified this by looking at the code... but according to users on Reddit, Galaxy currently doesn't even use Steam's API to get this info because the API has issues:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/j364bt/gog_galaxy_20_on_twitter_since_gog_galaxy_20/g7cp6m2?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

------

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.

Oh you will always be
Doing it for free
Oh you will never be
Compensated monetarily
Community mod on gee oh gee

Cyberpunk 2077 will be the same, you can count on that! CDPR games have always been at the forefront of eroding gog's values. DRM-free is the last one left (sorta) standing, so it's only logical this one gets knocked over next. Feel free to point your fingers and laugh if I turn out to be wrong (I'll gladly be wrong on this), but as it stands, I'm 99% convinced Cyperpunk will require some Galaxy integration fuckery to run properly.

Call it a hunch.

-----
PART 2/?
-----

You know... We live in a crazy times... When majority of the world is comprised of "stupid people" (I would use some more powerful words here but I don't want to upset somebody) and close to "any shit flies".
With stuff like this, just WHERE do we even go now? :/

It's like:
Steam: +huge selection of games AND SOFTWARE +industry standard +industry pioneer +they invest in Linux dev +a whole lot of DRM-free games are actually out there +ludicrous cloud save space for most games (1 GIG????) +app itself can be made to run offline indefinitely with some "not for end user" tricks +achievements +trading cards +MODERATED FORUMS +moderately fast support +GREAT forum software +groups +free storage for user generated content (potentially unlimited) +many other great features
-steamstub DRM (easy to break) -steamworks (easy to emulate) -"steam bad" (yeah whatever, most people who say that usually cannot see positive sides NOR 'ultimate' bigger picture) -"but steam gets bigger chunk of money blah blah" (people who say that must be blind or something. These servers don't run on thin air, there is only <4 h of maintenance a week [less than 30m should your account be "magic" or you getting lucky], they offer a TON of services and functionality. Do you people realise even just how much STORAGE they utilise? It costs MONEY)
/?/purchased content ownership rights in legal loophole limbo

Origin: +EA games (is this even a plus /s) -software is bad at best -telemetry is unknown extent -close to nothing apart from EA games -even EA games have things like SecuROM (still at this age?) and activation limits (greedy company I guess) -the "you can only get PL/RU languages if you buy from PL/RU geoip while rest of the world gets ALL languages INCLUDING these" BS

Uplay: +Ubisoft games -terrible software -intrusive telemetry -intrusive app overhead -some always online singleplayer games -basically nothing apart from Ubisoft games -their TOS is some crazy shit (yes I have read it. I have also read Steam, Origin, Battle.net, GOG, and some others, including PayPal [that was one crazy pain in the ass])

EGS: +Some games (????) +You are supporting the-great-yellow-red country /s (not a plus, satire obviously)
-don't even get me started. Where do I even start?
-the new definition of evil predatory corp
-brainwashes people into thinking "this is ok"
-does things to your computer / data mining with no consent / privacy breaches that are not only TREMENDOUS privacy violation but these deeds are literally seen as HACKING by the book by many countries' laws
-bribes game publishers
-divides consumers
-creates ACTUAL monopoly (BIGGER THAN STEAM EVER WAS actually) disguised as false freedom of choice (unfortunatelly some people do actually fall for that)
-creates yet another market division that nobody needs, nobody deserves, and actually nobody wants
-their software and storefront is just s**t, inexcusable lack of functionality is also a thing
-money grabbing (devs, consumers, other companies, basically everybody)
-a literal embodiment of "hacking, sending data to china, blah blah" video meme (it really is like that)
-large amount of financial funding is from a country violating human rights, breaching IT security of other countires, etc
-most basically Tencent outpost (it has to be said already), yet another stub for predatory expansion and hostile takeovers

GOG: +(still?) has DRM-free games +has some old games unobtainable on some other digital distribution conglomerates +great values
-execution of "great values" is getting sloppy
-DRM-free isn't certain in longterm
-close to no moderation of forums, basically community has to run errands and hunt down and manually report things if they want ANYTHING done
-crippled releases (no Linux / Mac ports, no achievements, cut game content, missing original language localisations, etc)
-it isn't entirely clear if purchased content is ACTUALLY owned by consumer (TOS gives maybe like 90% of confirmation, but it is written such that it gives SOME "margin of error" capabilities)
-no way on earth to directly report a post apart from "spam"
-game functionality is a "do as you please dear developer", so in reality most games lack feature X or Y (like cloud saves, achievements, etc)
-nobody really seems to know what the dev cut really is
-the API is TERRIBLE
-lack of PUBLIC (steam has that public) API documentation (so say I would like to consider releasing my game on GOG, I cannot even EVALUATE how much work it would take since the public documentation is missing!)
-forum software from dark ages
-staff ignoring community's requests for Linux support
-staff ignoring community's requests in general
-useless post voting system
-no dark theme on storefront (seriously, I don't feel like HAVING TO run Stylus all the time, or worse, doing it all myself by hand)
-not all historic builds are actually available to end consumers (some are hidden, visible with DB queries but undownloadable)
-inconsistent patch naming (sometimes 2 different versions have the EXACT same name)
-no access WHATSOEVER to "true" historic builds (useful for speedrunning) like "pre GOG release" (this problem is not existent on Steam or whatever was the original distribution platform)
-attempts to sneak in DRM with hoping consumers don't notice (and they sometimes don't for quite some time)
-insufficient QA in some places
-forum system doesn't actually tell you what max post length is and when you reached it (it either freezes or just stright out exits the form and reloads a page doing nothing)

Itch.io.:
+DRM-free by the book
+Often options to support dev more directly
-storefront is uninified and on some pages it looks like one-hundred-worldlines-away-where-things-didn't-progress-visually-in-15-years (which for me isn't a problem at all but some people could go "meh")
-small selection of games
-mostly indie games
-mostly unknown games of unknown quality
/?/as for the cut, I don't know (I have not researched yet. Gome nasai), so don't ask

It's like all of the sudden thing I was thinking about for YEARS surfaces:
that the best platform could be console emulators, because you get both physical media (assuming you actually own it) and get to play it offline FOREVER with NOBODY getting in your way :S
Yes, there is still DRM-free PC software / games... but the landscape is changing drastically and future is very uncertain...
People let shit fly... Corporations thus make more and more radical steps... Who knows where it may end.

-----
PART 3/?
-----
How exactly would that even be different from buying on Steam?
And let's say people would do that. It would absolutely KILL GOG sales (the "real" GOG sales).
Also given how many games on Steam are ACTUALLY really DRM-Free at that point GOG would be basically more of a proxy than a store of it's own.
Like Indiegala or some such place, the "you can sell your platforms' keys here, you can also sell your game DRM-free files here 'if you want to'".

Ah... Yes... Let's replace multiple entry points with OTP which are hard to hack standalone with one single point of failure.
Because kids these days like being EDGY so let's make our software EDGY to please them. What could possibly go wrong. Right? RIGHT? /s

Like people did for "free" EGS games?
Seriously. Do people really not realise?
Those games ARE NOT FREE. You are just not paying with MONEY.
You are paying with your DATA. And that is worth MUCH MORE than some 200$ for "yee free gemz".
People, wake up, please :S

By that definition almost all Steam games would be DRM-free :D

Should this be a marketing stunt I don't think consumers would take this so lightly this time.
Also it could result in direct opposite of consumer influx. People could start getting doubts (after all this could be used as "heh here is joke" [as a testing ground to see how people react and how much people put up with BS like this] and then some time later it could be FOR REAL). We ALREADY have them as evident with this thread.

You know what? I just realised something horrifying.
If this deal would be real, and then GOG would "succeed" at making that "launcher"... If then GOG would (through whatever means for whatever reason) get bought by EGS then essentially EGS would control it all.

That would be the day I would forcibly refund ALL my GOG purchases.
As really, DRM-free is the only reason to shop here for most people.
And I would have all legal rights to do so:
1.Gog basically stated somewhere (don't remember where) that they would provide "some time" to download files "should they go out of business", that could be extended to changing rules of entire platform (nuking offline installers).
2.They said around their page that Galaxy is optional (and they said so by the time of my purchases). So should they change it and remove my right to offline use my products obtained BEFORE their change then I could accuse them of false advertising and removing access to my guaranteed paid product (the right for offline installer being guaranteed during purchase that happened before the shift to no offline installers). That would void the contract.

Not greatly concerned right now, but yes I think they do care to a point. You don't sit in your throne room and ignore encroaching armies at your gates, because ignoring small problems lets them grow into big problems down the track. Steam is always actively doing things to ensure they remain the top contender in PC gaming. Altering their site structure / API just to toy with a small competitor is chickenfeed for them. In fact, it's the easiest and cheapest method of screwing with GOG because they've overreached on this one.

I think you underestimate big business. They didn't get to be a big name without having a sharp eye on even the smallest of competitors. They'll steal ideas, engage in strong-arm tactics, litigate, exclusify, etc to keep ahead. The cheapest technique is always the favourable one, GOG should know that going "all in" on a bet which involves integration without any guarantees of future compatibility is dangerous because it's just a snap of the fingers to counter and lose big in the process.

If a company ignores their competition they're doomed to fail. Steam is not ignoring GOG.

Interesting line of reasoning, but what would GOG's long-term goal(s) be in this case?

Let's theorize that GOG succeeds in getting Steam to perceive Galaxy 2.0 as a threat because of the integration feature. I believe that we all agree that Galaxy 2.0 integration has a definite cost to it, and that this deal with Epic will have a cost as well. What has GOG achieved here though?
- The ability to direct users to whatever service GOG decides and maybe make money by selling visibility in Galaxy to the highest bidder? That "advantage" could be completely lost the moment Valve decides to release their own version of the feature.
- The general acknowledgement of Steam that there's new competition in town? It's not like Steam doesn't already know about GOG, and GOG would still not take any users away from Steam since in this case both launchers now have the integration feature. Note that Steam released their library UI update not too long after Galaxy 2.0 was released, and Steam's library now looks more like Galaxy 2.0's (at least in my opinion). I am not sure of the motivation for the timing there, but if it was in response to Galaxy 2.0 then that means that GOG "getting Steam's attention" does not come with any significant benefits.
- Simply having better launcher than Steam? As mentioned by AB2012, if Steam decided to do launcher integration and then "boost Steam account security" by cutting off the Steam APIs used by Galaxy, then Galaxy's feature would suddenly be inferior to Steam's because Galaxy just lost Steam API support. I am sure that Epic would leap at the opportunity to have games from their launcher promoted by Steam, and Uplay and Origin already have a limited presence on Steam. So it's not like Steam wouldn't be able to do this type of integration (and even leave open the possibility of cutting GOG out of Steam's integrations entirely thus putting GOG at a further disadvantage).

Another case to be considered is if Steam passively copies the feature not because they think GOG is a threat but just because they like the feature. Has GOG gained anything in that scenario?