No.
Exclusive titles are just wrong. Even if you could argue for pub's/devs to release their own game on their own platform only, nothing is stopping one corporation from buying up the rights of smaller ventures. Like we've seen with China's epic. That's not competitive at all.

I'm in favor of GOG fixing their broken site instead, and becoming comparable to the standard steam DRM has set.
Minus all the DRM and hostage-taking tricks and traps.

Making sure their website works with more than just Chrome. I can't use newsletter discounts because the redeem page isn't working in Pale Moon for example.
-
Fixing the search in the forum. Making sure every game has its own dedicated forum, with sub-forums. Otherwise, people will go to steam DRM's forum to find info and help about games.
-
Adding to and improving the filters when searching for games.
-
Adding three-layered genre/mechanic tags for finding similar games, like GOG-labels (which suck), Dev labels, and user labels.
-
Cleaning up and responding to game wishlists and feature-wishlists.
-
Overhauling the front-page to make it usable. With shortcuts to all the most important parts of the rest of the site.
-
Being more transparent with what cut they take, and maybe lower it to 25% for AAA games, get a leg up on steam DRM's 30%. Offering lower and lower takes for AA, A, triple-i, ii, and indie games.
-
Lessening their curation while stile remaining careful about asset-flips, abandoned games, high risk EA games, etc.
-

And more, I'm sure.
Also, most important of all, remain DRM-free, and keep offline installers and patches up to date and keep Paysafecard ,)

What GOG could do to increase it's popularity is to return to the principles, that made them popular in the first place. Most importantly:

1. return to being a 100% DRM-free store! I don't want to have to check for every game whether it has some DRM or other nefarious stuff on it. I can do that on other stores as well, that are 'DRM-agnostic'. I want a store that doesn't allow DRM in the first place so that I can trust that the games they sell are clean.

2. start communicating with their customers honestly and openly again. That is something they abolished completely. Instead, we only get marketing slogans and ridiculous, transparent lies.

There are lots of other points that can be improved. Time4Tea made a list here. But the two I mentioned above are the two that are most important for me.

A major step forward would be to drop this curation model and turn the shop full indie, adding whatever seems promising and have us vote for titles for removal instead of asking hundreds of times for particular games. Or, otherwise, keep that wish list for old games which aren't to be had on Steam or anywhere else for that matter, where adaption is needed to make it run on modern machines. The latter is something I highly value and makes GOG stand out. Hardly ever was there a problem to have a game run out-of-the-box so to speak, where it isn't for the developers fault, that is. You don't get that on Steam, they sell as is, whether it runs or no is up to luck - KOTOR - to name one.

What I would rather wish for is patches working on all platforms so we could apply a Steam one for our GOG library. I don't see a reason as to why this shouldn't be possible. Some games on sale here contains files for Steam as well as Galaxy. Would make it easier for developers who couldn't care less to support their games over here, add patch notes, answer to questions and what have you ... to simply release their bloody patches and we can still enjoy new content. Dito DLC.

There is no reason to patch out copy protection as it may have been the case in the old days with Starforce and other copy protection schemes around that could seriously f* with ones' system. Where patches had to be written for several different versions to be in line with copy protection and on top of that also international versus U.S., U.K. etc.

1. I do not like exclusives.
2. GOG is way to small to be interesting for an exclusive title.

Considering that Cyberpunk 2077 sold at least as much, if not more copies on GOG than on any other platform (which I think should definitely be the case with The Witcher games) I'd say that exclusive titles are not necessary.

AC, GTA IV/V, Battle vs. Chess and other such games and series show what people are willing to accept in order to play them. Buy on Steam, download, install game, install third-party client, register on their website, give away all your data, phone number for authentication purposes, register on yet another website your in-game account, unlock the game and after all this is said and done, you are welcome to play ... When there are people willing to accept the above as there are, would you really think someone would hesitate to open an account to buy an exclusive if there was one?

The question is why anyone would go exclusive when they can make money from selling it in 5 shops, 3 platforms, OS's and mobile devices plus their respective shop when it is possible? To me words like exclusive like Indie have lost all their meaning a long time ago. Seeing what was once PS or Nintendo exclusive is also released on PC, all it becomes is a waiting game until a port will be released or this dreaded 1-year period is over. All this exclusivity does is locking customers in to a shop/platform they may not even like very much.

That said, people will always be angry about something: Steam, Patches/Updates, DLC, Support, Epic exclusives ... What it amounts to is that in the end they still buy because they absolutely must own that one game, out of hundreds of thousands of games readily available ...

Maybe an exclusive would see new customers coming here. What stands to reason is whether they'd come again if this one game is all they want. Case in point being CP, which isn't, to see that one-time effect. For CDPR this may be good enough, their company, their game, their shop, but for other publishers/developers, this may not be good enough.

My conclusion is to forget about exclusives (stop pretending they exist ...) and have people learn not to buy into this myth. Give them patience so they will not buy day one, not pre-order, not fund projects by Molyneux and other have-beens. This would change many things for the better. It least it can't make things any worse that they are right now. ;-)

I think GOG should have de facto exclusives when they offer something that no one else does, such as making a previously unplayable game work on modern computers. It's only logical that they keep the fix for themselves. If someone else makes their own, then let them compete and may the best version win.

But enforcing exclusivity in contracts or restricting the CDPR games to their own store would be annoying and zero customer-friendly. We can't bitterly complain when Epic or Steam do it and then hope GOG will force its exclusives as well.

Please quote "many gamers" if you are referring to the infamous GOG excuse, or use an alternative term if you are not.

Your post is ambiguous and therefore inflammatory.

What's the use of quotation marks if you'd still read it as ambiguous without them? ;)
(I hope you were just kidding.)

Exactly

I think you highlight a point I have made on here in the past...that the real "exclusivity" in games that matters is between DRM-free games versus DRMed games. In other words, a game available on multiple storefronts/clients, but which is DRMed on all of them, is what I'd consider a "DRM-exclusive" game.

I do think GOG would've made strides to grow its marketshare if making Cyberpunk exclusive. Despite any other missteps, it was the most desired game in recent memory. They really messed up a year or two prior with Thronebreaker though, and I think that is partially why Cyberpunk wasn't made exclusive here.

Thronebreaker imo should have been a scaled-down version of The Witcher franchise; instead, it appears to me to be a vehicle to get people onto their DRMed game, GWENT. Had they instead made a truer RPG experience and kept it exclusive, I think it could've helped get more people to buy here and paved the way for Cyberpunk exclusivity.

Yes. Pretty much.
Many just want their game to be fully playable offline and without restrictions.

Also, to prove this point of view, many games in the past that were sold in CD's, but required online activation, won't let you open the game itself. Why? Because the site or company that produced the game doesn't exist anymore, making an original copy of the game unplayable without a c-word-rack to unravel online activation.

What will people say in X years when some of those "online -drm only- stores", close?
What will happen when servers that maintain many drm games, close?

Nothing is forever. A digital product, like a game, isn't either.
But, if something happens with the "owners" of the license we buy the games from, before the "end of the line", you think they will refund all of their clients? We know they probably won't. They wouldn't be able to, actually.

In other forums I've been in, I saw people combating this idea as ilogical, because of how gaming market works today. But it's actually very logical to understand that no company lasts forever, and so, no online drm will be able to maintain activation and ownership checks forever. Therefore, all DRM games or digital products are doomed to become unusable in the future.

Because their license only lasts until the company that create it lasts.

Epic Games Store just released their 2020 in review. Compare it to their last year's review and it just proves that big exclusives alone are not enough. Yes, your store becomes more popular, but there's barely any growth in user spending.

The value of any asset anyone can ever attain is eventually 0. This is simply life. You can have a mountain of gold, a mountain of Cyberpunk preorder cash, a yacht and house and whatnot... But nothing in this world lasts.
In the end, all is dust. Will we be there to see that day? Probably not but I know that the last human who inherits this planet won't have anyone to sell the stuff to that remains. Digital content will be long gone and forgotten then, too.