I mean sorta yes and sorta no

"IN THEORY" MS could unilaterally require UWP executables only in future windows version which would be the only way the Windows store could ever actually 'compete'.

But that sorta negates the entire premise of the blog since that exploits MS position as a monopoly on the OS level. Aka this isn't actually 'competing' with steam. Its leveraging their monoploy to do so.

Its kinda hard to say GOG is using a 'blue ocean' strategy when GOG has basically done everything it can to copy steam at this point. They renamed themselves from "Good Old Games" for a reason. That was the abandonment of their Blue Ocean strategy.

Why create GOG Galaxy, the Galaxy API, 'In development' if you're not competing with steam. Its literally copying features from steam.

They are basically full on 'trying' to compete with Steam at this point.

Discord? Really?

The same business that relies on constant data-mining of its "users" as the main monetization method?

Perhaps.

Personally I'd rather see GOG do a double-take on their more recent decisions and get back to "customers first" mindframe that made it what it is today.

Start pushing developers to support GOG releases as well as Steam's. Retain support of stand-alone installers, and stop with the constant push of Galaxy. Stop derping around with your store page and make it look like an experimental project from some undergraduate-level design class. Keep aggressivelypushing publishers and developers for more titles, both old and new.

For that matter, GOG might consider adding a monthly poll for a "community curation" titles to acquire. Wishlists are all nice and well, but having some sort of "we will get the stuff you want" commitment behind it would not only set it aside from other stores, but keep the core base even more loyal.

GOG has earned a lot of goodwill early on. DRM-free, lightweight site, ease of purchase and use, and dedication toward good customer service. Ironically, it seems they are hell-bent on getting away from that approach nowadays, though, despite it being the real reason why the service catapulted to being second only to the evil-eye monolith of Steam.


tl;dr: The best approach to "competing" with Steam is probably still the same that made CD Projekt a success against bootleg sellers back in '90s - focus on customers.

Lars need to STFU and get working on my copy of DQ2 I paid for... something like five years ago.

I don't disagree about that stuff. Galaxy was an obvious response to those who want cloud saves, achievements, auto-updates, etc, "just like Steam". Personally though, I still view GOG's "USP" (Unique Selling Point) as DRM-Free rather than classic games. As someone mentioned above, if they had stuck to selling just 90's games, at some point most "old school" customers will end up owning all that they want. They also wouldn't be any further along in filling in the "gaps", ie, they probably still wouldn't have NOLF 1-2, Dune, Diablo, etc, even if old games was their sole focus for reasons beyond their control.

But looking through my collection, in addition to the "Golden Oldies", there's also a ton of games made in 2010 or newer (eg, Dex, Divinity Original Sin, Don't Starve, etc), that I only bought here because they were DRM-Free and had offline installers. If GOG had dropped DRM-Free and the choice was Steamworks / CEG DRM or "GOGWorks DRM", I probably wouldn't have bothered (for the same reason I don't even look at Denuvo games either). I'm fairly sure GOG know the value of DRM-Free to their brand plus the "running theme" of how people feel in the forums. So as Steam-like as Galaxy is in everything except DRM, I also can't see them dropping DRM-Free. It would be branding suicide (like Coca-Cola dropping the red/white marketing and replacing selling Cola with generic bottled water...)

Edit: The other issue is "unique old games" were already under attack from 2 fronts as soon as it become apparent they're still popular. 1. Other combined publisher / stores "locking in" their old content to their own stores (eg, Blizzard's Diablo, Microsoft's Age of Empires, Valve's Half-Life, etc) to which the only real alternative to buy elsewhere isn't other digital stores but old 2nd hand discs on Ebay. 2. Remasters of old games end up on Steam anyway. However, had those old games not been remastered, we may have seen many titles like Baldur's Gate, Day of The Tentacle, Full Throttle, Grim Fandango, etc, as possible GOG exclusives (same as, eg, Sam & Max Hit The Road still is). Instead those original titles end up actually being removed from GOG).

Have hope that when it's finally done, we won't need to wait too much for GOG keys. Lars mentioned that he wishes to release DQII on GOG, but, in opposite to steam version, which is guaranteed at this moment, he can't confirm for 100% if (and when) GOG will release his game here.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the DRM ( or lack thereof ) advantage of GOG is no longer a significant factor to me, as I rarely have the time and motivation to finish a game more than once. Even if we think of Steam as a glorified game rental service, that's still not such a bad deal, as long as you know what to expect, and better yet when you buy games at suitable discounts.

Basically GOG used to be the no-brainer choice for me when buying new PC games, but nowadays the decision isn't as simple. I no longer put them on a pedestal, as some kind of saviour of good old video gaming. They're just another store/ distribution platform to me, and I compare them and their offers based on cold, hard facts. The result is, that Steam is often more appealing, especially for brand new games. I'd probably still prefer GOG for old(er) releases, as I trust them to be more experienced and competent with those. Besides, old releases generally don't need any critical updates. Just as an example, I bought Lords of the Fallen here yesterday. Was surprised to finally see it here, and I figured it's old enough that I won't have to worry about updates/patches. Could have bought it on Steam long ago, but while I'm OK with the Steam client, I prefer to avoid additional layers of DRM, such as Denuvo.

There's also another factor I almost forgot about: GOG doesn't do retail. I bought some Steam-bound retail games recently, and while it can be hit or miss, these games all had 90+% of the data on the game discs, so I only had to download some comparatively small portion from Steam. I do have a fairly decent connection these days, but for big games this can still be a major advantage -- obviously even more so for people with very slow or unreliable internet.

I completely agree with your decision to buy on Steam. It's up to personal preference. A bit of nitpicking. On one side you say that DRM is not a significant factor to you, on the other you prefer to avoid additional layers of it. This seems a bit contradictory. The same with comparing shops based on cold, hard facts, but trusting GOG to be more experience. Trust is not really a cold, hard fact, rather a soft fact. Often it comes down to soft facts.

Regarding the download time. That is indeed a hard fact, but not one that bothers me. In rural areas of Germany internet speed is quite slow and I understand people being frustrated at these locations, but I have a reasonably fast connection so that even Witcher 3 with 37 GB (largest game I own) takes less than two hours to transfer. I'm not sure they even sell it at retail with game data included and I don't even remember when I have used my optical disc drive last time.

All in all Steam is a nice shop. Nothing bad to say really about it.

DRM =/= DRM. For one thing, the Steam client itself can be seen as a form of DRM, and it does have some annoying aspects, but on the other hand it also has various practical advantages. Additional DRM layers such as Denuvo have zero advantage for the customer and, depending on implementation, could have significant negative side effects.

In the end it all comes down to what the individual customer is willing to tolerate. In example, I haven't bought a single game with micro-transactions, or any single-player games with mandatory online requirements. Lesser forms of DRM may affect how much I enjoy a game, so that lowers my interest in that particular game, and means I'll only buy it at a discount, or skip it entirely.

My trust in GOG regarding old games is based on the fact that they are more experienced in that field than Steam or any other major competitor. Old games used to be their main focus, so after all these years they know how to deal with all the common compatibility issues etc. Plus, when something goes wrong with a game, GOG generally has better customer support.

As for retail games, I'm OK with my internet speed, but I do have a monthly data cap, so a few dozen GB more or less per month make a significant difference. I did buy the retail version of Witcher 3 too, back when it was released, and it had ( almost ) all of the game data on the discs. ( Also came with some nice physical extras, such as a soundtrack, a small comicbook and some stickers. )

GOG is cursed to follow in Steam's footsteps once CDP went public in 2009. After that point investors aren't satisfied with GOG as a simple, DRM-free, old games webshop. Quite ironic since Valve is the one who's so far resist the temptation of going public.

Something missing, and almost always over looked, is Valve has a captive market.

Leaving Steam means leaving your library of games.

Unless you're willing to leave your games in the digital void, you will always be tied to Steam.

Very accurate comment here. Its true that because I rarely (never) replay my old games, lack of DRM means nothing. The only games I replayed were old console titles, with my PC games its always one and done.

As for GOG having more experience with older games I dont see how its true. They cant even bother to make Arcanum compatible with Win10 when the solution is quite simple. Their customer support is useless just like Steam's.

This part is really saddening.

GOG broke through on the convenience of access to older titles (no need for finding "abandonware" site that has a download, then spend an evening or several trying to get the game actually run on newer OS). To see them drop support of backward-compatibility instead of actually making that one of the major distinction between them and everybody else's half-assed "ports" without much effort put into them (looking at you, Steam-distributed oldies) while throwing money into derpy ventures like "FCM DRM" is just mind-boggling.

I'm not familiar with Arcanum case, since I still keep Win7 and don't plan on moving from there other than in switching to Linux altogether, but I ran into issues with a few games that, for the main part, did have "Windows 7" as supported platform. There are plenty of forum threads outlining potential "fixes" to compatibility issues.

GOG would probably end up with better name recognition (not to mention customer loyalty) if they bothered to keep maintaining system compatibility (and implement it forward) for the oldies they do sell.

They keep cranking up the prices while not investing anything to maintain these games and earn their money. Lets just pray that Microsoft doesnt release Win11 or that'll be the end.