The thing you are forgetting though is for CDP, GOG is really a side project. The bread and butter is CDPR, and GOG is useful to that goal because it allows them to sell their games without a middleman earning more profit and because it allows them to do things like gwent and offer online services and monetization through Galaxy. 3rd party sales are secondary to all of that.

If this allows them to earn enough income to match the 88/12 for games that come to GOG from EGS eventually, while earning some money before they officially come here as well for doing very little and help cover store cost that probably enough for them. Just my opinion of course.

I doubt that's the case. Yes GOG has to say "Yes" to the EGS-DRM'ed games that it will sell. But I suspect that EGS didn't give GOG the ability to choose whatever EGS games they wanted to put on GOG.

Probably EGS did their own "curation" to determine which scraps to give GOG, and on the other hand, which high quality titles to reserve for EGS only...and then offered GOG a selection of games to say yes or no to, but a selection which wasn't anywhere close to being EGS' full catalogue.

I disagree with that. Where's the proof for that assertion? Many devs have said GOG takes 30%, and so have many media outlets, and I've never seen any credible sources that say they didn't.

Maybe they don't take 30% (and instead takes more) in extremely rare cares where the GOG devs themselves actually worked on the game, but how often does that happen? Once every 5 years? It's so rare that it's not worth mentioning.

If there is any case of a dev from who GOG took less than 30%, then which dev would be that exactly? If they can't be cited, then it's probably because it didn't happen.

It would certainly be nice to believe this is true. As profitable as CP2077 was for 2020-2021, it's not regular annual income on the scale of Fortnite Seasons + Unreal Engine licensing (Witcher 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> CP2077 are typically 4-5 years apart with a surge of sales on release then a smaller income for the following years). From what I've seen a lot of CDPR money tends to stay CDPR (to mostly fund +5 years of in-house AAA development for the next CDPR game rather than get spent on 3rd party devs on GOG). I mean, it wouldn't cost that much to polish GOG.com website, ie, upgrade these forums, allow editable reviews, etc, yet here we are...

I'm simply going on the basis that scrapping Far Price Package was done on the grounds of "because Epic have lowered their cut and publishers are pressuring other stores to drop below 30%"), and am assuming that GOG followed through. I don't have the details you're looking for as such agreements are not made public. You're right that for games where GOG does more work, the cut is certainly higher (up to 50%). My main point was though, I don't think even a new discounted GOG cut though is anywhere near as low as 88/12 and if it were cut from 70/30 would probably be somewhere in the 75-80/20-25 range, and I don't believe there's *any* major store capable of a genuine 88/12 cut that isn't subsidised. Epic "Fortnite money" Store aside, the only other store that matches 88/12 is Microsoft who similarly thrown subsidy money at their store from Azure web services, Office / Windows licensing, etc, trying to turn it into "Desktop Play Store" after failing in the mobile sector.

I got the impression that that's the case because last October GOG announced it on their official Twitter account. Maybe I am wrong and this was because the EGS store integration wasn't official or still in BETA more like. I distinctly remember that the statement read that GOG would not only offer a hand-picked selection but also EPIC exclusives in their announcement. On the official download page it says that in some cases one would need an EPIC account and external client software to run their games.

Not normally a Galaxy user I registered and connected to EGS from within the client. Sadly the store wouldn't display so it was impossible for me to check and see whether the whole catalogue is available, a selection, DRM or DRM free.

Considering that those of us who insist on DRM-free offline installers, sans clients, are constantly told we are nothing but an insignificant minority, let's give that case the benefit of the doubt. If people are fine with using Galaxy, why would any developer/publisher who already releases on Epic, make a DRM-free release for GOG.com specifically?

I still have yet to see ANY convincing reasoning from you folks as to why a developer/publisher who can theoretically reach MOST of GOG's audience through "the new app in the store on GOG Galaxy 2.0 the mother of all clients", would then later down the line release a true DRM-free version via GOG.com for FEW of GOG's audience.

Developers/publishers could easily make a few extra bucks now by releasing on GOG.com but don't. What specifically will change in the future? They will try out Galaxy themselves and be amazed at how it is all they ever wanted in gaming and social features, so they'll generously throw non-Galaxy users a bone while still in their Galaxy love-drunk stupor?

It made no sense then and it makes no sense now. Show me how it will make sense in the future. Please.

That supossed census majoriy of Galaxy users use the offline installers as well, but not always, or not necessarily install the game with them. They use Galaxy instead, specially in modern games with pretty big sizes.

A lot of people use both methods indistinctly because in the end the game will run without the client if needed.

I know it because I am one of those users. Therefore, the importance of the offline installers is clear for GOG, for the users, and for the publishers if they want to publish here.

I thing a lot of you are facing the matter in the wrong way.

you are kind of answering your own questiion here

That's because there aren't any, not any geniuine, honest ones at least. There will eventually be a day someone will ask a dev why there's no GOG version of a game, and they will reply with "But our game is on GOG, just download the Galaxy client and..."

It's just another greedy, short sighted idea from the galaxy brains in charge of Nu-GOG, and anyone who doesn't see the potential for it to backfire spectacularly is either lying to themselves, or is a GOG shill.

if you need support then...
asking GOG: sorry, we only sell the game for Epic. you need to contact the Epic support
asking Epic: sorry, if you purchase a game at GOG, then you need to contact the GOG support

Article taken from a user's post in a separate topic:
https://www.gamefront.com/games/gamingtoday/article/classic-star-trek-games-could-be-re-released-on-gog-galaxy-soon

See, this is the type of brand confusion I worry about, assuming this is meaning is that the games are going to be released on GOG.com (not "GOG Galaxy" exclusively). The more that the "GOG Galaxy" brand, ecosystem, universe is pushed, the less likely it is that developers/publishers are even aware of GOG.com and DRM-free offline installers.

Actually, haven't we already seen it among users here, where newbies are wondering where to get the real installers (i.e. what are branded as the offline "backup" installers). I maintain that Galaxy would not have the alleged presence it does without all the fancy tricks and constant inundation to where people don't even know it is indeed "optional".