Don't worry, I won't start the "It's all GOG's fault"-shit. GOG is great! They sell abandoned games that get patches on other stores and they don't do shit about it. That's awesome and quite a unique feature! As a customer, I'll definitely support that and buy my games exclusively on GOG. Every publisher should understand that keeping your games updated isn't necessary. Maybe that's what GOG should fight for, instead of readjusting their definition of DRM-free all the time.

Again: It doesn't matter whose fault it is. Of course it's the publisher's fault. GOG can't send their Special Forces Patch-Division to raid the dev's studio, extract the patch with deadly force and update the GOG version of a game. But then there's another, very sad fact: GOG doesn't even give a crap that their customers pay for abandoned products. They just keep on selling those games. They're leaving it to us to do the research wether a game is up to date or abandoned

The only right answer to publishers would be "Patch your game or we'll have to pull it from the store!" Selling them, as if nothing was wrong, is quite a punch in the face. And that's on GOG alone!
I don't know any reputable company pulling shit like this. Forget that we're talking about GOG for a second and just look at the facts: You're entering a store, see a product you like, pay for it, go back home, unpack your product and then realize that it's not the same product that other stores are selling. It's missing stuff. The store that sold you the product didn't mention any of this and charged you the same amount (or even more) for the product as other stores. Would you buy there again? Would you recommend your friends to buy there? Shit, no! You'd drop a negative review on Google and rage on social media, because they shamelessly tried to rip you off!

Another reason why GOG has almost no marketshare is because the vast majority of GOG customers who prefer GOG as their #1 storefront will still go right ahead and buy the game on Steam anyway if it won't be getting a simultaneous release on GOG on day one of its first release date.

Therefore, the publisher & developers (rightly so) think to themselves:

"We are going to receive the same amount of sales from GOG customers for this game anyway, regardless of whether we release it only on Steam and then the GOG customers will buy it on Steam because they have no other choice, or alternatively, if we release it on both Steam and GOG simultaneously.

Therefore, why should we bother releasing it on GOG at all? That would just cost us more time & energy, in exchange for us receiving the same amount of revenue as if we did not."

As for your point about where is Days Gone: another possibility is that Sony is delaying the release of that on GOG solely so that they can scoop up some double-dipper sales, from the few GOG customers who are so hardcore that they will buy the game on Steam because it wasn't released on GOG on day one, and then re-buy the same game again on GOG when it is finally released on GOG months and/or years later.

Then again, the scenario you presented could be accurate, and maybe Sony just won't bother with GOG at all any more. Most likely the double-dipper contingent is not very large, because most people who already have the game on Steam are not going to bother to re-buy it on GOG, even if they prefer GOG over Steam.

Your phrasing is slightly off

Games that release via GoG, Day one with upfront announcement of GoG release see about 8% sales via GoG.

This is not however 8% extra, as you rightly say the majority of GoG users will just buy on Steam if there is no choice. There are only a small percentage of PC gamers like me that flat out refuse to use Steam.

Games that sell after release via GoG or get a stealth day 1 release, do far worse, around 2% from GoG.

And that's the painful reality.


8% is actually a pretty decent market share, most companies would bend backward for an extra 8%. That would be worth the extra dev and support costs.

But in terms of bottom line, releasing via GoG is only an extra 2% (of the PC market sales) into the coffers.

It depends what important to a company, customer satisfaction and the long term rewards it can give or pure profit.

Companies like THQ, Devolver a GoG release is about giving their customers a choice, for companies like Square-Enix GoG is about eeking every last penny out of a games long tail.

Uhm... no. No, thanks. I'd much rather have the option to buy a DRM-free version of the game, even if it does not have the newest update. I agree that GOG versions should be just as up-to-date as on other stores, but I'm not nearly as obsessed with updates as some people. Unless it's something actually crucial to the game functioning properly, but that's a very different conversation.

Same here! I buy a game "as is", not for what it could become in the future. Some games even get gameplay changes, intended to improve multiplayer, that make the single player part worse.

Games don't have trading cards here - let's remove GOG altogether! (sarcasm, just saying)

For me DRM matters


Games, just like books or DVD or CD are shared resource. Yes there are a few exceptions where a game or such belongs to 1 person, if its birthday present, but for the majority of the media in the house family members can dip into the pool as they want.

The box of 30 switch carts, 1 kid plays a game there are 29 games left for everyone else to use
50 Xbox games, play 1 and 49 others available

Even better is the GoG library 905 games, I play 1 and there are still 905 game available to play

Steam however. I have 98 Steam games. If 1 is in use ALL 98 are locked.
Steam's "light" DRM suddenly becomes very heavy if you just want your kids to play your games.

Also DRM is a blank cheque. The restrictions Valve places on use now are not the same as when I first used steam 15 years back.

No. No, I would not. I'm not a self-entitled social media addict. If they shamelessly tried to rip me off, I'd file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau or some such organization. Wal-Mart got rightfully sued when they were selling censored versions of popular CDs without even so much as notifying buyers. And also, I did recommend some hardware that frequently changed designs and kept the same product name and box, even when the box image did not accurately represent the hardware inside any more, so you might get a different product even if you shop at different stores in the same chain (e.g. cheap networking hardware). I just made sure to also say what to expect.

Also, I don't care for being on a constant update treadmill. Devs/Publishers: don't release until it's finished. I don't have the patience to restart every game from scratch when they make fundamental changes, either, sometimes for the worse. Should I blame gog for that sort of behavior, as well? I mean, there is precedent, such as Debian Linux, where changes are refused unless they are "critical".

Having more customers gives gog more clout, which indirectly benefits me, but sometimes the benefits aren't worth it. Much for the same reasons I don't make Linux recommendations to people, I won't sit and try to argue that you should be using gog instead of whatever you think is better. Go ahead and perpetuate the monopolies. If gog dies as a result of people like you fleeing, at least I'll still have my backlog. Plus there's other stuff to do, I guess. I'm sure I'll survive.

Yes, it matters to me, and to many others here. Would you mind being in prison if many aspects of your life would be more comfortable than they are now? No judgement here - not everybody is going to reply the same to this (very loose) analogy.

On the other hand, many of the things you've mentioned (in this topic) that Steam does better than GOG... don't matter to me. Different people are... different. I don't care for social features (or multiplayer). I've never had compatibility issues (that I couldn't fix myself) and I've never had to contact GOG support since I've bought my first game here.

Unless they have cousins/nephews/friends who can't make something due to annoyances with companies and copyrights and hear about them. I suppose the worst case is you approach each of them and ask and none want to proceed with it (with the Democrats pushing the current Trillions of dollars bills and coming election year, yeah i'm sure they have their hands full).

I didn't say anything about trademark. Besides those have to be renewed every 10-20 years to be valid. Trademark is more a branding, like Coke-a-Cola, usually sets of words or phrases that can only be attributed to a particular product. Fallout for example with games is obviously going to Bethesda, but a completely unrelated game with the word 'fallout' was sued trying to have a monopoly on the word. On the other spectrum, King games tried to Trademark 'Saga' and 'Candy' for their Candy Crush Saga. That didn't go so well.

Copyright should be the reproduction of a particular piece of art of book or music. It shouldn't be nearly as all-encompassing as it is. It's also why an item that is at least 25% different is not the same work of art.

And yet all of Disney's big features and block busters were based on public domain stories in the past. Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Pinocchio, Snow white, etc. Besides it's not Disney would have been stolen from (as you aren't just copying and posting their made movie), it would just be a different spin or approach with a theme to something that is already out there.

No Nintendo and Disney are just bullies in that regard, wielding the law like a hammer. They believe no one can do anything with anything of their likenesses and creations without you paying for it.

If you think so. It is sorta going off topic a little bit, though the original thought is still related to my comment regarding it all. In short i'd love to see copyright law changed and fix tons of problems. But that isn't going to happen right now.

I know what you're saying... on the other hand: the fact that GOG exists, and "survived" up until now, would've seemed unlikely in 2008. e.g. Square Enix releasing DRM-free games (admitting that they are*).

* DRM free on GOG or Steam might not seem that different from the end user's perspective - but for some companies (and their policy/"philosophy") it's a big thing.

Interestingly in 2016 I bought LAU DRM Free from Square-ENIXs own online digital store. They had most of their western pre 2013 back catalogue on there DRM free.

Then mid 2016, they quietly pulled them all and removed the ability to download them

If it prevents you from starting the game... i'd say yes.

Valve doesn't place any blanket restrictions on games. It's entirely up to the individual developers and publishers themselves. Steam in itself isn't a DRM either; the DRM is part of Steamworks and completely optional.

I don't know why this is such a common misconception here, because the Steam client itself is really no different than Galaxy or the GOG website. It's an account based service where you can buy software, and the client delivers that content to the user, much like Galaxy or the GOG website does.

Again, the DRM is a part of Steamworks, and not the Steam client itself. It's also completely optional and up to developer / publisher discretion on whether to use or not. Please search and look through the Steamworks Documentation to educate yourself on it.

Your 905 games on GOG are probably all on Steam also, or close to it, right? Well, those same games are very likely DRM-free on Steam also. A general rule of thumb is that if a game is on GOG and Steam it's going to be DRM-free on both. Some of those 98 games you have on Steam are very likely DRM free also.

Just because something isn't advertised as DRM-free doesn't mean it isn't. A lot of people don't even know they have DRM free games on Steam, because it's not advertised as such, or people (like we see on GOG a lot) are spreading misinformation that Steam itself is this horrible DRM, which is factually wrong.

If I buy something like The Witcher 3 on both GOG and Steam there's literally no difference between the two games except that GOG has an optional offline installer that is horribly inefficent. Both versions however are completely DRM free with no client dependencies whatsoever. That same thing applies to thousands of other games on Steam just like GOG. Steam in fact has more DRM free games than GOG does.

The offline installer is not really a big deal either. I won't deny that it isn't convenient (despite it being horribly inefficent), but anyone who is tech savvy in the slightest is not going to have any problem with thier DRM-free Steam games and backing them up or "installing" them on other machines.

Good post!
Stockholm Syndrome is widespread when it comes to digital goods. Imagine "family sharing" limitations for physical goods. A couch that electrically shocks to the second person that tries to sit in it... nah, that's just too silly.

About the blank cheque... non-optional updates? Original music removed/replaced? ... fuck that shit.