That will probably be the worst year of GOG then.

and lower the entitlement of gamers everywhere.

oh dear.

so, here's the thing:

a) not every gamer is in your "fortunate" position to be able to pay full price for games.
b) not every gamer feels those games are "worth" the $60/40/20 they're asking for the full price.
c) sales aren't for you? that's fine. there's no need to be rude about it, like you're being here.

Quite possibly helping the industry - and improving the marketplace - in the long run. The Enigmatic T wasn't exactly wrong when he said he thinks the current discount model is not good for the industry.

did someone mention Insomnia Sale?

*starts eating cheap food to save for "rainy day" *

I think he had some fair points, but I still disagree with him. I know I've personally spent a fair bit of money on games that I'd likely never even glance at a second time if they weren't on sale. And I still buy the games I really want at full (release) or almost full price. So, in essence, I spent more on games due to sales than I would have otherwise. Totally anecdotal, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.

“A GOG sale is never late, nor is it early, it arrives precisely when it means to.”

We will hopefully have a Valentine's Day promo this week.

Seems likely, considering no weekly sale has popped up today, here is hoping I find something I want to buy on sale! :D

Well... there's a middle ground in there somewhere. It's beginning (to me) to feel like games are becoming a commodity - like paper towels or some other mundane household product - to a large degree because of the quick sales and huge price drops in a fairly short period of time. And that goes up against the "are games art?" bit of it, with art not normally considered a commodity. Making a commodity of creative effort like this just cheapens the whole thing. To my screwed-up way of thinking, anyway. I think that's backed up somewhat with the anecdotal bits about backlogs, and how "I'll probably never get around to playing this game because I have 487 other unplayed games I picked up from $1.79 bundles..."

I also tend to look at many of the titles in the catalog and think to myself they're a steal at the current price and no sale should be needed. Stalker, Mount and Blade series, Morrowind, and many others. Hell, if those aren't worth the standard asking price then I guess I don't understand the value of things these days. All three of those are as good today as they were at release, and a better value now that the mod community has had their way for several years. Morrowind at $15? Worth every penny, and then some.

I'm probably close to your own buying model. And I don't normally hold out for a sale on a particular game. Anyway, the current market can get off my lawn and all that. ; )

What about no sale, but instead a major GOG connect blowout? CD projekt red showing they love us so much they want us to break up with valve.

Valve is an abusive gold digging lover :)

I want this so badly, but I know better than to get my hopes up. Having all of their games be part of the last weekly sale is interesting timing though, since yesterday was their two-year anniversary.

Sure... there certainly is a huge downside to these massive sale trends, even for players themselves who seem to have increasing trouble to "commit" to a game and end up paying more than ever before regardless. But tossing money at companies who just bought out licenses sometime in the past might not improve the industry either.

Anyhow, nothing on sale on a Monday... everybody man the battle stations, I sense a sale on the radar.

Great idea. And also GOG please bring here Age of Mythology, Age of Empires and Rise of Nations to show us all your love.

It makes sense to me what you've said here. However I think you just underestimate the market share of collectors. Yeah, it would be great to operate on a simple market with straightforward correlations between game's value, its price and with gamers actually playing what they bought. But it's just not so simple. We live in a world of plethora, customers have nonsymmetrical resources - a lot of money and lack of free time. It results in buying collection of games just to have them. And their money counts exactly the same as yours.

I don't think it's something bad. For people, who really want to play what they buy it is great world of cheap games. For developers - it's a world of 100 buyers for every 5 gamers, who are actually going to finish the game. Looks like win-win. What's wrong in this model?