Yep, GOG are destined to eventually fail unless they can diversify enough.

In the beginning they had a lot to offer and a lot to keep drawing on. After over 15 years that would have dwindled a lot, and so we get fewer moments of great releases, even though the number of old games increase each year.

In a way they have effectively caught up, and now it is a slow measured thing.

GOG would rely on a constant influx of new customers, who will be excited like we were as new customers.

And keeping us older customers happy, would be quite a challenge now.

And Galaxy is one of those measures, though what it offers does not appeal to all of us. It also attracts those who don't care so much about DRM-Free, but are more interested in services etc.

In the end though, I cannot help but feel that GOG are in an ultimate no win scenario, at least as far as keeping everyone satisfied, especially customers that came for old games and DRM-Free. But the type of customer at GOG has changed a lot now, with probably the majority buying from other stores as well as GOG, so not as concerned or caring about the situation as much, and probably prepared to pay higher prices for what they want.

I kind of get the feeling that GOG has been transitioning for a while now, to more expensive games on average.

And we should always remember, that most game providers are not releasing their games at GOG because they have to, to survive. Profits from sales at GOG, would be like extra pocket change for most of them. Sure, there would be smaller concerns who don't make enough from Steam alone, that rely on every cent they can get, but they are not the ones likely to keep GOG afloat ... though no doubt every bit helps.

I suspect, that smaller game providers, are possibly more prominent at GOG too, rather than lost in the huge wash at Steam.

I wish we could get more indies in the, say, 500-800 vote range on the Community Wishlist, but it's possible by the time they reach that number the devs might not be interested anymore or too busy with their current games.

Agreed, new customers are what will keep the store alive in the long run. But focusing on the client is the wrong path IMO.

The limiting factor in success is the selection of games. Unfortunately, low hanging fruit AA/AAA older games seem to have run dry and there are still great difficulties making inroads with unsigned publishers because of market share and how the PC mass market seem apathetic towards DRM besides the most egregious ones like Denuvo and Enigma.

The only silver lining in this is that they can do more efficient bulk curation with current publishers behind and unsigned publishers. I've noticed a more of these in recent months.

Looks like Sony backtracked on the PSN mandate after all. And such requirements on a DRM-Free copy would be a big NO.

That one is supposed to have at least two layers of DRM. Quite a shame though.

something else I need to try to remember is how long the "special" releases might take to prepare, especially if GOG is going after more titles in a similar to state to Alpha Protocol. Likewise with needing to save enough money for "minimum guarantees".

He did say "good games", not "every game".

Naturally there is no clear definition for a "good game".

I like that we're getting more smaller or indie titles here on GOG. I know GOG has made it a point that they don't let a lot of shovel-ware like steam does. But I think it would be nice if GOG would use a little easier for smaller games to be sold here.

That said, my biggest complate with this service is still that what games we are getting are not getting updated like they are on steam. I've been enjoying SpaceBourne 2, but the offline download has been broken for a while. Saw a post from the dev over on steam that says that, for some reason, GOG's back end is having trouble pushing the update.

I can only speak for myself and not "most GOG's customers", but I was drawn to GOG mainly due to their DRM-free releases, not that they are selling MS-DOS era "abandonware".

It was the news of DRM-free The Witcher 2 (and the first Witcher) game that made me take GOG seriously, before it it was more like "Oh ok, a site where I can legally buy "abandonware" MS-DOS games, cool I guess...". My excitement was hindered also by the fact that back then it seemed most of the notable old classics GOG was offering I already had as retail versions, I still have a collection of hundreds of retail PC games (which is closer and closer of being thrown to trash), so buying them from GOG mainly meant buying them a second time in order to get a digital version without copy protection.

So yeah, it is the "2-15 years old AAA games" that I wish the most to appear on GOG. The "recent" releases I've mostly been excited about were e.g. God of War, Robocop, Uncharted, Days Gone, Heavy Rain, Baldur's Gate 3 etc. Then again my interest towards indie games has gone up somewhat as it does seem their production values seem to generally have gone up too, and they are more willing to take risks with their game designs, which sometimes hits a jackpot.

Then again I am unsure what "old games" means nowadays. Is e.g. Heavy Rain considered an old classic (a 14 year old game)?


Also, I can't really say GOG has become "lame" in my eyes over the years. Yes its game selection is very limited when it comes to especially those semi-new AAA releases (and many interesting indie games don't come here either, I'm hoping for Kingmakers to come here too at some point)... but I feel it is still the best option when it comes to DRM-free stores. Even if the store died somewhere in the future, I'd still have all my GOG games. Can't say the same for my Steam or Epic games.

Does anyone consider any game involving the misanthropic weirdo David Cage a classic?

But here, I'll offer a valid substitute. Super Mario Galaxy 2.

I, for one, consider a game from 14 years ago as "old", yes.

Whether it's also a "classic" is another question.
A question, which will get answered different by different people.

I do wish more point 'n click classics were released to GOG. Such as the Discworld games

Eh. I find the release schedule for this year has been decent enough. Sure, there are plenty of games I'm never going to be interested in as is the usual case, but there have been enough that struck my fancy; big and small. All the while, I keep piling onto my backlog as I make the occasional additions from my wishlist.

More importantly, I like seeing how GOG has been more open to letting more casual/puzzle games come to the store. :) Not everything has to offer the biggest bangs and brightest bling.

I am saying, and very obviously so, or at least I thought it was obvious, that GoG cant just:

1. Publish any game they want because some gaming companies simply arent interested in GoG, or arent interested in selling certain titles on GOG. For example TES5 Skyrim was unavailable on GoG, until quite recently, even while any previous TES title was available. And there was nothing GOG could do about it before Microsoft decided they would allow Skyrim to be sold on GOG after all.

2. Cant create games that dont exist in the first place. I.e. they simply only sell games, but dont actually create games on their own.

So the OPs question assumes GoG would have powers it obviously doesnt have, and thats what I pointed out.

And no of course GoG doesnt just publish anything thats offered to GoG. But I would assume any resonably decent title will be published, because why would GoG do otherwise ? I dont see how this angle is of any relevance. Unless somebody knows a counterexample.

I know GOG has all of my favorite gaming titles, except for Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, which of course was a MMORPG and is unavailable from any source.

They might do otherwise due to relationship issue(s).

There are those who have abused GOG and us for instance.
Not everyone who provides to GOG does so with good intentions.
But GOG would also be all about compromise ... they'd have to be, to survive in this DRM focused world.
Yep, weakens their stance on DRM-Free for one thing. Misdirects many customers to not bother backing their games up, for another. And until a game is backed up locally, it isn't truly DRM-Free.

But no doubt it can be a big draw card to those who want a client, who may be the majority of GOG's customers now. So I can kind of understand why they went that route. I just don't agree with the way they did it, and continue to do it. And it's not just about customers and Galaxy either, it is also about Galaxy and game providers.

Offline Installers and backing up have now been relegated to the back set.