So do I. I was surprised that many people (including a CD Projekt guy) pronounce all three letters. What a waste of time...

I could be misremembering, but I thought they were pretty clear that it was a one off.

Well it would make sense as every other step was a way to make more money it is only natural to see that a large portion of their income would be lost due to piracy so they would try to stop that.

Second that.

GOG has made it pretty clear that they feel the best way to beat piracy - and they do mean beat piracy as in not lose sales to pirates so they are not and have never condoned piracy - is to compete against pirates by offering better service and less hassle than other DD and the pirates themselves. That's how they feel it is best to make more money in the face of piracy.

If anything, they need to be DRM-free more now that they are selling newer and indie games. Many if not most indies are available DRM-free so to be competitive GOG has to offer them DRM-free. Further GOG wants to differentiate itself from the rest of the market on newer games - no differentiation, no reason to buy from GOG, and again GOG couldn't compete.

The point was, they wouldn't necessarily be making more money that way, since then they'd really lose one of the main things that differentiate them from other services.

If e.g. Alan Wake GOG-version had any DRM in it, I would have most probably bought it from Steam instead (as long as the Steam price is not considerably higher for me than the GOG price), if I would buy it at all that is. I can speak only for myself, of course.

Also, don't forget that GOG arranged an official voting also about the introduction of newer games, and most voters apparently said "yes please". So, naturally they could arrange a similar voting about introducing DRM to their games, see what the results are, and act accordingly.

It seems to work for Steam so I'm pretty sure it works for GOG as well. I've seen a lot of people say they stopped pirating because of Sales -> Backlog. It's a vicious but beneficial circle :p

I agree, they could make a new site, although I don't really care. They can as well keep everything on the old site. Yes, my impression is that the core branding identity of GOG has suffered lately but it's their business and their decisions. They became more indifferentiable from GamersGate or Steam.

I am much more worried about the first G, the Good. All the time new action shooters or crazy puzzle solvers (both sometimes called rpg) are released. How boring is this? I want turn based strategy games.

sacrificing the meaning of your name is daft, you either find a new name or make another site, the only reason gog has used this site is to ride off of it's rep & publicity. Having no meaning just sucks.

All gog reminds me of now is this show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8VvGbHNBww though that probably isn't too far removed from gog's office now.

I don't see any problem with this. How many classics has been released this year? zero?

Take a look at the catalogue, sort it by "date added" and count them by yourself. You already own 'em all? If so, just be patience. Overreact as usual.

It;s totally opposite. Starting a new brand, rebranding the site etc are all bad (or expensive) choices.

And what the hell guys? Last week they released great old games, this week they will also.
Stop bitching please.

Yeah, they should be like "Steam" and "Origin" who are staying true to their name! Wait what?

No honestly: I really don't know what everyone is complaining about. That GOG are releasing new games doesn't mean that they'll stop releasing old ones - but it does mean that they have new means to grow which is a good thing for all its customers.

i don't mind newer or even brand-new games on GOG, but to be perfectly frank, they are not the reason i shop here. i can get new games in half a dozen other places, often cheaper, or on disc (which is a huge plus with games several GB large).

GOG will always mean Good Old Games to me. claiming that GOG no longer means "Good Old Games" is silly.

the problem with offering newer games is that it slows down the speed at which older games get released, and they've been released at a crawling pace to begin with! so, unless they make a habit of releasing 2-3 Good Old Games each week in addition to any newer games, it'll take longer and longer for more older games to show up here.

GOG managed to carve itself a nice little niche in the digital distribution market by focussing on older, hard-to-get titles (like EA classics). that was the site's identity, and the reason most of us came here in the first place. with the increasing focus on newer games, GOG is losing that identity, to an extent. the only thing making GOG stand out from the rest of the digital distribution scene is the DRM-free sales pitch, and let's face it: apart from a few sticks in the mud here, most gamers don't care about DRM either way (Steam: over 30 million active account; Origin: over 11 million user in under a year).

i just hope GOG do the right thing and don't forget that to many, especially long-time members, GOG still means "Good Old Games"...

They're a bad choice either way. The site's a mess now with indies mashed with old games and newish retail games, the new price points are all over the place, the games are poorly organised with little options. We're starting to see games that are overpriced (the whole digital distribution defense is rubbish, it's just allowing publishers to carry on getting away with ripping us off and the 'if you don't want it, don't buy it defense' is similarly stupid.)

I never browse through gamersgate apart from their sales section because it's a damn mess and gog is getting that way too, the only difference is they have less games at the moment.