^ Truth.
Valve has a LOT more say over pricing then they let on. They work with the publishers to make sure retail is not undercut on a regular basis, but other than that, Valve is largely in control. Just think, if a $50 game can go down to $20 on a sale, that means that the publisher is at MOST getting $19 of that $50.

didn't I already make this thread?

As much as I like GoG, Steam is hardly 'feeling the heat.' The two aren't even close in terms of market share. People really need to get that Steam chip off of their shoulder. Stop obsessing over them because they aren't going anywhere.
In regards to Valve having control over pricing, I wonder about that. Recently the indie developer Playbrains released a minor graphical DLC for their $10 game Madballs, the cost was $0.99. More surprisingly they asked Valve to equalize the price across currencies such that people in Europe didn't have to pay one euro (too lazy to find the euro symbol on my keyboard) and people in the UK didn't have to pay one pound. Granted, maybe the case is that Valve didn't feel like quibbling over such a low price but if an extremely small indie developer was able to ask Valve to set the price of their DLC as low as possible and request that it be equalized across currencies (which is rarely done on Steam) you have to wonder why other publishers can't do the same.

It's not a chip on anyone's shoulder, it's just interesting that they now have 2 titles added yesterday that GoG has had for months now, and priced the same. Something like I think it was last year they had a promotion on the very same games that were available in Gog. Steam might not any competition on the "flavor on the week", hyped to death new games, but exactly how great are they doing on the rest of their offering?

Steam isn't feeling any heat from ANYONE right now in terms of digital distribution. While Impulse, Gamersgate and Direvt2drive might be having a pointless little pissing match over who is in second place, they all admit they are so far behind that it doesn't really matter.
And since the majority of Steam's business is in new games or bundle deals, they aren't feeling any heat from GoG, either. All it comes down to is what people want to buy. If they've heard from enough of their users that those users want older games, that's why they're making an increased push to get them. I also wouldn't be surprised if the publishers are bringing it up. Maybe Kalypso brings up some old stuff in their catalog when Steam is working with them for Tropico 3, for example.

Despite my beefs with them, Steam is and has been my primary delivery system, but I only buy games for $20 or less primarily. I believe the most expensive of my 135 games was L4D on sale for $25. I like GOG, and I have a LOT of issues with Steam, but I still have a lot of faith in them, and I am willing to give them time.
Impulse has many of my "wishlist" features-wise, but for some reason I am wary of them. I cannot explain it, but there is something that worries/bothers me about them. I only buy from Stardock when it's a blockbuster deal, like the Corporate/Political Machine at $2 each.
I like playing mnay older games, but GOG has a LOT of games I would not evne CONSIDAR playing. Outside a few exceptions, I have no interest in any games older than 1999 or so. I do expect certain a certain technological complexity, and thankfully GOG does have a lot of 2000's games well worth playing, Empire Earth, Imperial Glory, and Beyond Good and Evil to name a few.
One last thing about Steam, I LOVE Steam achievements, and the community overlay. I never thought I would like achievements, but they really do add to a game, and the way Steam does it DEFINITELY trumps the way Xbawks does it.

Most likely still better than GoG since they simply have more 'eyeballs' on their virtual storefront. A lot of people either do not know about GoG and/or prefer the convenience of having all of their titles from one service.
I just don't think Steam listing older titles is a direct relation to anything GoG is doing. They figure, hey we have this massive service that tons of people make use of, some of the people that make use of our service are interested in buying older titles... so let's put said older titles on our service. Unlike retail it doesn't really cost them any overhead to stock the titles they simply have to broker a deal with the current rights holder who are fairly receptive to have their titles up on as many services as possible.
GoG is a great niche, but that is all it will ever be by its own definition -- Good Old Games. And while it is true that with each successive year more and more titles qualify as 'old' the number of true 'classics' dwindles. Even some of Steam's most vocal critics here buy games from them -- probably because, as gamers, most of us can't just exist on older titles alone.

Just because Steam has significantly greater marketshare than any of their competitors (individually) it doesn't mean they can just sit back and not respond to other services offering the same games at lower prices. The various other services, when taken in aggregate, would pose a significant threat if Steam didn't stay competitive on prices. Even if there's limited overlap in catalogs with each competing service, if in all those cases the competing services have lower prices then many people would get the games through those competing services instead of Steam, with the overall result being a significant decrease in sales for Steam. Basically it would be death by a thousand cuts.

In what way does it differ? The only game I have with steam achievements is Lucidity and I only got 10 minutes play from it before my laptop overheated (never buy a HP DV series, piece of shit) but from what I could gather, it was identical to the 360/GFWL method. You fulfil the requirements for getting "achievement 1", it pops up a box that says "achievement unlocked: achievement 1" and then you keep on playing like normal and your profile says you've unlocked achievement 1. About the only difference I noticed was the steam one not having a gamerscore. Pretty much the same again with PS3 trophies

Xbawks has the gamerscore which completely ruins the whole point, as well as the annoying amount of achievements per game, and the terrible habit of popping up the "finish the game" achievement during the ned cutscene, aka, the ultimate spoiler. Also, we all know consoles suck and are for mainstream sheep, so inherently, anything PC > anything Console.
;)

I agree. GOG is only ever going to be a niche. I find their sales VERY dissapointing. I know, the price is already low, but the thing is, many of the games ON gog I am only interested in for "fire sale" price.
Take Madballs on Steam as an example. I was vaguely interested, was very impressed with the sheer volume of updates the developer has been delivering, but it took the $2 pricetag for me to finally pull the trigger. I am a deal-oriented customer. Not because I can't afford to spend more, but because getting a great product for cheap is part of the experience for me.

Ahh okay, that makes sense then...

Steam isn't feeling the heat. They're huge. And now that I own multiple games through Steam, I want to see them remain successful so that I can continue to use their service.
I do like GOG better though and I do worry for GOG. If Steam continues to stock older titles that were previously only available on GOG, then GOG will lose their niche appeal. Of course, the features here are still directed towards older games and hidden gems, but as Steam's library increases, GOG won't be the only retro store in town. What GOG does have that Steam doesn't (and what will keep me coming back to GOG) is DRM free software that I can easily backup, older games given XP and Vista support, and a classy community devoted to good old games. I hope there is room for both services because I like each one for different reasons.

this is like assuming Walmart is feeling the heat from some relatively small retailer just because they start stocking some new items they previously lacked

see and I made it to be ironic..