You know, this I would be completely on-board with. It makes it no less ridiculous though that they won't release Tomb Raider or Rayman Legends DRM-free. Both released in 2013, so they're more than 2 years old now, and in "game time," that is an eternity. They can't realistically be thinking they will be getting substantial sales of these games in their original DRM form. If they only understood that throwing it on GOG, or even their own platform, completely DRM-free would generate renewed interest and revenue from people like me, but as it stands they won't earn a penny from me.

I could be wrong but I think part of it (maybe for indies as well as AAA) continues to be patching - afaik sending patches out to people is still a bit of a pain for devs because GOG wants to test and such; it's still not as convenient as Steam. Hopefully, with the new rollback option on Galaxy, GOG won't take as long because they won't need to test - devs will push a patch and if it works, great; if not, people will be allowed to roll back. (Or maybe I'm being naive)

Honestly I'm okay with publishers waiting until most of the major patches have been finished before bringing a game to GOG (6 months - 1 year later), but I understand if others don't feel that way.

And how much penny you can offer them? People are overestimating the effect of selling titles as DRM free. 'If it's only one or two penny, you may keep it for yourself, as it won't bring us money at all' - says Square Enix.

Ah yes, fortunately that's a super easy question to answer. Basically, big publishers will start putting new releases on GOG once they establish a business relationship with GOG and the two companies are able to negotiate terms and conditions of partnership which both meet GOG's criterion for selling a game on their distribution platform and also meet the publisher's terms and conditions under which they are willing to sell the game. Both companies in the transaction have needs, requirements, expectations and also finite resources, and if and when they are able to negotiate a contract that all of their mandatory requirements and needs can be met and they both have the necessary man power and financial resources to make it happen, then they may decide to enter into partnership. This is true for big publishers, small publishers, brand new games, 5 year old games, 20 year old games, pretty much any game made by any company ever.

That's basically it in a nutshell. Anything more in-depth than that can basically be factored out and minimized down to that ultimately.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that if a game is not here it is automatically because the publisher will only release it with DRM, even if it has DRM on other platforms like Steam. There are many variables involved with considering releasing a game on different platforms of which DRM is only one potential concern. There are many DRM-free games on Steam right now that are not on GOG indicating that DRM-free is not an obstacle the publishers of those games have with releasing their game on other platforms. There are many other reasons that game developers/publishers may not choose GOG as an initial platform for releasing their games, and in some cases in the past some publishers/developers have responded to the public with reasons they chose to go with Steam for the time being.

One reason was the Steam APIs provided them with features ready to use which they would have had to write by themselves if they were to release their game standalone not requiring the Steam APIs, including things like multiplayer services, achievements, online player interaction (instant messaging, voice chat, etc.), and other elements provided by Steam. At the time GOG did not have any such functionality available and while Galaxy intends to provide some of this functionality also, Galaxy is very much steeply in development and not a stable finished product. Some developers likely have interest in what Galaxy may offer some day but are likely waiting for it to reach an official released stable state before considering it, which is pretty reasonable. If game developers were to have to implement all of the features themselves directly instead of relying on an API like Steam for certain features it provides already, then they'd require more developers, more time to complete their game, and take on greater financial risk. For many, in particular many indie developers, but also many bigger shops too - they find using pre-existing services like Steam to be better for their bottom line than an uncertain future of implementing all the bits themselves and going Steam-free. Another factor is that maybe they do decide to use the Steam APIs and perhaps they could also use the Galaxy APIs to do the same things some day - it still requires more development effort to support more than one API, and that costs money, time and human resources - resources that they might not have or want to take risks for considering the increased amount of sales they might project to get from a platform like GOG.

It all comes down to business decisions that go way beyond DRM, although it is commonly viewed by the community as being all about being pro-DRM or anti-DRM. The industry is much more complicated than that, they care about their ability to make money and DRM is just a tool, not a guarantee. Some use it as a tool believing it helps them bring in more money, while others reject the notion, but either way DRM is only one possible consideration in choosing to provide a game on the GOG platform or not.

There are even many cases where developers have offered their games DRM-free to GOG and GOG has rejected their game for other reasons such as the game not being a match for the userbase or other factors. Even Hollywood has allegedly offered DRM-free movies to GOG for their Movies section (GOG executives have announced in videos over the last year or so) and GOG has at least so far turned them down because the movie industry does not have worldwide distribution rights for individual titles and GOG asked the community if they'd accept DRM-free movies with regional distribution and apparently got back a resounding "no fucking way!"

There are oh so many reasons... DRM is only one, although it is the most highly convenient one thrown around when someone isn't sure about the why's of a particular game.

Personally, I think other than dead silence, the best reason any publisher could give for one of their games on GOG is "Because, reasons." because anything other than "yes, we're going to do it as soon as possible!!!!!" with exactly 5 exclamation points are universally met with mass hatred and conspiracy theories from the community often surrounding the cult of DRM.

But look at that, we now have Morrowind! I'm excited about what is coming next, knowing the next surprise is right around the corner. Not too concerned about what we don't have, but excited about what we'll have next whatever it might be. Then again I own 1000+ games and am nowhere close to being bored too so... I digress. :)

I find it weird that big game companies like Square Enix, Activision, and Ubisoft not releasing their "newer" games here. It doesn't have to be a day 1 release, 3 years old game is still good enough. But something still holding them back from doing so. Of course we should not overestimate the power of DRM-free and GOG. Steam is still the market leader of PC gaming, so for big publishers, it's make sense for them to make Steam release their top priority. But, while I don't have any sales figure, releasing games here must be profitable. Small game studios like Frozenbyte, TaleWorlds, Frictional and small game publishers like Devolver Digital and Ghostlight are still updating their game library from time to time, some of them even go as far as releasing the game here on day 1. If releasing here is not profitable, why doing so ? So it must be profitable enough to warrant more release. That is why i find it weird. Smaller companies already take the step, why not bigger companies ?

Was Shovel Knight early access? If it was, I wonder if that could possibly play a part in the sales figures being skewed towards Steam.

Defender's Quest developer seemed to be more positive about GOG sales. After the first three months, GOG sales (8.5%) were second after Steam (58.6%), and he noted that in his opinion GOG is becoming an attractive alternative to Steam, and that its "star is rising". That was back in 2013, before Galaxy (as the lack of a Steam-like client was considered as the main handicap of GOG.com by some back then, and the main reason why the masses would rather have their games on Steam, not GOG).

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/186940/Defenders_Quest_By_the_Numbers_Part_2.php

I guess different developers/publishers have different view on the importance of GOG, for various reasons. Anyway, as said, I vote with my wallet, that's the language the publishers understand.

Oh the other hand, Shovel Knoght have 1% sales on GoG, compare to 37% sales on Steam.

Guess the majority of us are too old to enjoy platformers well. Sure there are GoGers with dexterous fingers who enjoy platformers, but it seems most of us do not have enough time to practice in platforming to be good enough to enjoy it.

Personally I don't care about getting modern AAA titles on GOG, I come here for the classics and the indies.

Exactly, GOG doesn't have the consumer base to match that of the Steam, Uplay, Origin and console market.
The bigger GOG gets the more AAA titles we'll see here.

Check the message to which I replied. :) It already used Shovel Knight as the example.

I'd say I care the most for the AAA classics. :) Games like Ultima Underworld, Descent 2, Freespace 2, Tie Fighter, The Longest Journey, Morrowind, Darksiders 1-2, Metro The Last Light etc.

I have less interest to classic indies like Hocus Pocus, Duke Nukem 1-2 or Jill of the Jungle. Awful games, I didn't like them even when they were new indie games.

Sorry you are right, should read more next time :D

Well, at least we have now established the two suitable examples depending on one's agenda:

If you want to argue that GOG is a good place to sell your games, refer to Defender's Quest (sales after the 3 first months).

If you want to argue that GOG is a poor place to sell your games, refer to Shovel Knight (sales after the first month).

This should make these sales and GOG's relevance arguments simpler and faster in the future, just mention either game and you're done. :)

Thanks for the figures, I wasn't familiar with them.

But even with those numbers, GOG sales are still much lower than those of Steam and while an indie studio might have justification to publish at GOG, I think in terms of new AAA games GOG sales would be a fraction of those on Steam (and probably many GOG customers would purchase at Steam due to the lack of alternative).

So still probably not very worthwhile to bother with GOG for pov of new AAA publishers.