The agreement wherein gog enters into a contract with the publisher (who happens to also be the dev in this case), and gog agrees to package and promote the game, on the the assumption that it can get enough money from sales to cover its own expenses before the erratic publisher decides to pull the game. I'm pretty sure there is more than $20 involved in such a deal. Given that the current retail price appears to be $10, $3 of revenue will require a lot of sales to cover expenses. Assuming that it remains at $3. I would certainly hope that gog cares, since it affects their bottom line, as well as the potential treatment of gog customers after the sale. However, it does affect the quality, or lack thereof, of after-sale support for customers. In this case, you get the double-whammy of a developer and a publisher who treats gog as an afterthought. "gog needs me more than I need them". See the "games that treat gog customers as second-class citizens" thread for a list of other publishers and developers who apparently agree with that sentiment.

The entire political side of the argument is a strawman, and doesn't deserve any further reply.

So, like pretty much every new game these days? I think your previous paragraph was a better reason.

There is a reason why I come here for not-new games. :)

BTW: I'm always reminded of these :P

John Cleese on Stupidity

Why incompetent people think they're amazing

And neither of you are wrong. XD
Until he tries to sue GOG for withholding sales or something like that, because the game doesn't sell as well as he expects, so he pretends that GOG is just lying and keeping 100% on some deals. Plus, the game needs updates, making the point moot, because GOG would therefore being selling a defective product that they know they'll have to pull before it's stable. No, not a strawman, but the whole point. The guy's opportunistically using gog's famous political controversies to drum up support. I see no evidence that GOG's decision is actually political, rather than him being a legitimate threat to GOG if they ever bothered actually drawing up a contract with the guy. Trouble follows the guy, and GOG has enough on it's plate right now without someone stirring the pot. Imagine if the guy ended up having an official presence here, this would be even worse than it already is.

And my reputation of being right of center precedes me, so keep that in mind. I looked the guy up, myself, and he fundamentally acts like the very people he claims are targeting him. I mean, where have we even heard that expression before? It's like when the national socialists of germany went after the communists...

Notice how none of your posts contain anything about the game Grimoire, and are 100% irrelevant?

It's only way the dev himself is irrelevant is if GOG were to have a middle-man between them and the dev. GOG actually has to communicate with this guy and come to an agreement with him to sell his game, and the guy is so unhinged that even that has become an issue.

May I ask how? Besides, given the behavior of developers when it comes to this site, we are an afterthought. If for some reason they want to be "seen", it wouldn't do much for them to be vocal on these forums compared to elsewhere. And having a "controversial" figure aboard may get more publicity for this site. Meanwhile regardless there are many GOG users who want this game and are not able to get it here, for reasons that could be called dubious.

If people are trying to get this thread killed, drag tinyE in here.

Nobody explained what Aeon of Sands was or why it got rejected from GOG as well.

Grimoire is still being patched for "micro-issues" for the past 15+ months, which is good but makes for a disjointed game experience. Waiting for Grimoire V2 to be stable with a reliable defintions of what stats + skills actually DO in game before buying it.

The issue is, if he was affiliated with GOG, the controversy that he brings would more than likely be his opposition to some presumption about GOG, not GOG saying "yeah, we'll even host Alex Jones 'cause we're for free speech." Instead, it'd be fodder for someone like Kotaku to write more hit pieces. It'd be trivial to blast him and GOG at the same time, or even just side with him for once and blast GOG, which gives them incredible amounts of money, but then the board is in an uproar, because they're worried about their stock in the game falling apart due to the negative press coverage. And the people that just hate gog would then have more fodder to throw at people for why they should use steam, epic, etc instead.

Because virtually no one has actually played it, just like Grimoire. It's yet another example of a game that doesn't sell on Steam, patterned after games of 20 years ago, which no one buys, gets rejected, and the usual people talk about how great the sales would be here "because GoG". I checked Steamspy the day it was mentioned here. The day prior it had a maximum "1" concurrent player on Steam.

Let me check how it did yesterday...hey look...interest is growing: Peak concurrent players yesterday: 2. At least Grimoire had 11.

What "presumption" about GOG, though? And, wouldn't it be valuable to correct whatever negative presumption about GOG there is? Currently, there exist presumptions that GOG or at least the curation team is being run by "SJW" and that this is directly why the curation system is the way it is. The board of investors is likely not aware of these presumptions, but the presumptions are affecting many purchasers' decisions in the meantime. In addition, there is mainstream backlash against a lot of alleged "SJW"-ness...so, if anything, bringing on someone like this dev may galvanize GOG. Personally, I don't care for politics, it's about the games for me. That is also how I would hope GOG spins it..."this game is here due to its merits as a game", not because of any perceived political messaging.
Sales on Steam are not indicative of sales here. GOG is a godsend for old-school RPG players, the other is a hive of DRM-infested "AAA" games. Different audiences. There are also a lot more games over there, so even some people who might otherwise be interested in it if they were to stumble across it, can't find it.

Are you naive? Of course it's an indication. Show me any non-CDPR game that is sold on both that has sold more here? When developers have leaked data, GoG sales tend to fall between 5-20% of Steam's. GoG knows this, but people who don't look at sales figures and want to make fallacious arguments to support their point have no problem making such unsupported claims to the contrary.

I am nuanced. The stores are in different positions to cater to different audiences. I am not sure where your data is coming from but I am hoping it factors in the percentage of users on the site, and is not just a raw comparison of "purchased on GOG" versus "purchased on Steam". Of course the store that has like 95% of the PC market has more sales in raw number, not a revelation. What percentage of GOG's audience appreciates old-school RPG versus that of Steam's audience? There may be more gamers in raw number on Steam (due to its massive, virtual monopoly of the market), but I would bank on a much higher percentage of GOG's userbase being interested in an old-school RPG. In other words, when you look at it from a more nuanced view, there are many examples of where it would make sense to bring a game to GOG over Steam.

That's utterly nonsensical and has literally no basis in reality

I mean just look at Thronebreaker, they had ot release it on Steam because it was DYING on GOG.

https://gamerant.com/the-witcher-3-gog-sales-410/

SO you might say "well gog sold better on the witcher3" but thts not what the article says. It says 50% of users were using Galaxy. Remember userbase is not purchases. However for the Witcher3 the ONLY way to get a steam copy was to buy it on steam. That means ALL USERS on steam must have bought it DIRECTLY on steam directly giving steam revenue, while Galaxy users were diluted between GOG and all other vendors GMG, Humble and other 3rd party stores since copies running on Galaxy could be purchased anywehre other than Steam.

So even CDProjekts own high profile IP titles sold better on Steam than GOG. You can get lots of old school RPG games on Steam. In fact, given how GOG seems to ironically think these games are 'niche' keeps rejecting said old-school RPG games. Thus Steam is in fact a better place if you're looking for "old school" games because GOG keeps rejecting them https://www.gog.com/

Try to find me an 'old school RPG' game on the front page of GOG. The only ones I even see are Ultima 8 and HOMM3. Again these came out on GOG years ago. So where are all these 'old school RPG's that I'm supposed to find on GOG? Because they'er apparently not here. At least they EXIST on steam.