Lord_Kane: I say let GOG fall, let newer start ups do right where GOG has failed, GOG is never going to change, that has become apparent through out the years, with all these failed promises, like fixing the forums, no more rep, etc. etc.

Linko64: Discord is pretty active, we don't have a forum admittedly (nor do we have a billion-dollar group attached us)

As for everything else...well, in all honesty, you've been pretty dismissive of everything involving the site/service. No buzz etc is just untrue, there's been little marketing till recently (hi) which has seen big strides. As for sales, sure. But a good portion of the titles are pretty damn cheap.

I'll forgive some of the comments as you genuinely seem confused between the difference between something being quite well funded and attached to a multi-million dollar company and a small company doing their thing. I'm not going to sit here and pretend there's no sale, but I'm also not going to pretend that $5 for Duke Nukem 3D is a large amount either.

The goal is to support DRM-Free, preserve titles lost in the void and try and support as many OS as we can while providing the best quality possible. Thankfully, you as the consumer have options! Which is exactly the ideal of DRM-Free!

The process of signing games is long, very long. There are so many variables that go into it (which is partly why I'm surprised Hitman came here in this form). I know it seems easy on the outside looking in, but it's really not. I've seen it from multiple perspectives and the only time it gets easier is when big wads of cash are exchanged haha...or I guess...NFTS!?!!

I've said this multiple times, no one wants GOG to sink. That would be a huge step back from DRM-Free video games AND preservation. Options, consumer options at a core ideal that needs to be protected. If having options really bothers you, then at that point you have to question do you prize DRM-Free? or just the brand offering it? It's a vicious cycle...WWE vicious, not like blood and biting

kblazer883: Why would people buy their stock if they are getting to the point of not buying the games they distribute? People don't have to buy their stock to change the company. If you don't buy their stuff because of their practices they eventually go the way of the dodo. That would be unfortunate, but it is also a self-inflicted wound on GOG's part.

Ancient-Red-Dragon: To call it "a couple missteps" is quite the vast understatement, which greatly downplays the problems, tremendously more so than they should be.

Cavalary: GOG didn't have a billion dollar group attached to it when it started either. CDPR had barely managed to avoid going under while working on The Witcher, didn't they? Now they're a major player, but when GOG was launched and during the early years, when GOG held to its principles, they were well known and quite powerful in Poland, but not so much internationally.

If I'm dismissive.... Admittedly, mainly did so earlier, before more dedicated people took over (not counting you and SlackR84, as actual employees), but I was trying to correct those who were suspicious of ZP...
But about marketing, I first learned of GOG from a newspaper from here. That was shocking, a digital game store in a newspaper from here. I mean, I didn't see news about Steam in one back then... And when I mentioned it to a friend, she said she knew and a few of her other friends were talking about it excitedly, at a time when "piracy" was still the rule around here and legal purchases quite odd. ZP, on the other hand... Well, strikes me that despite being around for years and having some industry veterans behind, even basically one-man effort and very niche Fireflower seems better known.

Still, about being dismissive. Well, you know, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. On the one hand, directly on topic, I was very excited about GOG as a beacon of light in this rotten industry in their early years, finally something worth supporting, promoting them however I could, and then got utterly betrayed, so that's one thing that makes me wary of any others making promises of having values. On the other, ZP already went back on their word given to me directly, after all, about Paysafecard as payment option, since I was told specifically that it'll be added and then it was decided that it wasn't feasible after all, and no similar alternative (something just as easily bought with cash around here and not requiring registration or accounts or other personal/payment information) was offered. So what if someday flat pricing will no longer be feasible, as in GOG's case? Or even DRM-free? Even more so since I never saw ZP actually make a point about flat pricing as a value, and it was a long time until DRM-free was listed again on the site. I mean, as we now see in case of GOG, even when it's claimed as the core value and always listed prominently that may eventually stop being the case, so how does it look when it seems that the designers just forgot all about it for months and months?

Problem is that those who care for some values and for a direction stop buying while those who don't still do, making GOG management see profit in catering to the generic masses and dismissing the original userbase even more.

Sabin_Stargem: Is the current management of GOG the founders of the business, or did the old guard get replaced at some point?

7PCGamer: hmm.. i believe gog's strategy is to sell drm free games at a significant premium. my guess is as long as they don't outgrow costs relative to the market, this business should be self sustainable.but growth is a different problem altogether.. have you checked cdpr's financial statements.. would be interesting to know actual numbers.