"Over the current year to date it appears GOG has seen losses of about $2.21 million, which is pretty bad considering the 1.37 million they gained during the same period last year.

They've said that GOG "should focus more on its core business activity - which means offering a handpicked selection of games with its unique DRM- free philosophy" and so there's going to be some changes to the GOG team, with some moving over instead to CD PROJEKT RED. Additionally, they've "initiated reorganization of GOG’s operations" to focus on the "core business" and they're hoping this will "improve its financial effectiveness in 2022"."

If I were on the GOG team, I would start polishing up my CV :(

I hope restructuring means ditching the short sighted, greedy, higher up muppets that keep making the moronic decisions and not reducing the workforce under them.

how do you know the low level workers are good?

Is the GOG Galaxy client DRM? I just assumed it was a central hub launcher that allowed you to connect to your library to download your games without having to visit the GOG website, the biggest appeal being that it is also connected to other major launchers which allows you to consolidate all of your games in "one launcher" so to speak. It is a little weird since achievements are not unified but this is just an unfortunate consequence of separate launchers by separate companies that cant be mitigated.

In terms of DRM impact, you can still play your games offline, mod as much as you want, and still "own" your game enough that should GOG's servers shut down, you can still install and play the game with offline installers. This is the full benefits of DRM-free imo although I could be missing something.

What's changed in practise though when people still complain about gimped versions post Galaxy? "Part of this single player game requires Galaxy in order to work properly" (just like DRM...) has simply resulted in a stream of buggy releases of 2019-2021 releases like Deus Ex: MD, to buggy games directly caused by coding for the Galaxy API that have been abandoned in a still buggy state through to complete train-wrecks like Hitman missing half the game content and still being priced similar to the "full" Steam version and its subsequent removal from the store?...)

The only outcome I've seen there is an unnecessary division of the GOG community with unnecessary fake online / "needs" a client restrictions of single player content. And isn't the sheer size of this list a clear admission that most developers even in 2021 still don't actually want Galaxy achievements in their GOG release? I'm seeing a huge gap between what people want to believe a Galaxy centric approach has "achieved" for GOG (simply because they like using it) vs observable reality that it's just swapped one set of problems for another and ended up a huge distraction away from improving the website (for all users), not just some of them.

I don't but they're hardly likely to make the big business decisions that keep sabotaging this company.

I do think GOG should focus on identifying and mitigating its major pain points from its users. Although we dont want GOG to become steam, there are some good practices GOG could adopt to become more competitive.

1) Create spaces for community building/outreach
What Steam seems to do so well compared to the other two major launchers is community building. Not directly but users are able to do things that bring attention to Steam such as make guides for games, post photos of achievements or funny in-game moments, stream the game in question, etc.

This should be a low cost thing that will unfortunately take time since it requires current users to "buy-in." Users should be the ones creating guides for games, posting content on their achievements, etc to make the community thrive for a particular game. Although GOG has a foundation with separate forums for separate games, its still inadequate because the forums only allow posts for general comments and questions. Creating a decent base for users to start making content for their favorite games would increase GOG's profile. Its also why I think achievements (and the fact GOG is missing them for many games) is an issue. Achievements and achievement hunting is one way for gamers to further delve into and explore a game and GOG takes that away by refusing to implement them.

If you as a gamer are stuck on a particular part of a game or getting some achievement and search in Google, 9 times out of 10 you are connecting to a thread or guide on Steam that delves into the issue. This just gives Steam more visibility. Since GOG is DRM-free and the home of the Witcher series, if someone searches about challenges in the Witcher, mods, etc the goal should be that GOG should pop up.

2) Increase number of games
This is always going to be the main determinant for a user. Doesnt matter how "amazing" the website is, if it doesnt have enough games users will start looking elsewhere. GOG does seem to have a great collection of games but should always consider bolstering more. Regarding this aspect, GOG might want to consider forgoing AAA-releases (apart from CDPR). In terms of AAA, I think the big competition is between Epic and Steam with Epic using exclusives to bridge the gap and retain a competitive advantage. This is a money game and a game GOG will NOT win if they enter. Steam already has a big advantage with a bigger user base (due to first mover advantage) and Epic is losing tons of money to bridge the gap (being backed by Unreal Engine and Fortnite money). It is a game for Epic to win imo and GOG should not compete.

Rather, GOG should compete in non-major games. Indie game developers may be more open to DRM so they can maximize sales and the fact GOG curates as opposed to dumping every game on its storefront ensures a level of quality the gamer can expect.

I have a couple counterpoints to what you say here.

At face value, yes, more games here would seem to equal more money. However, consider that as it is now (curated catalog) people are constantly complaining about the difficulty of searching for games. Imagine if all curation was off and this site looked like itch.io. It isn't hard to believe that there could be lost sales just as a result of people not being able to find the games they actually want.

I would also like you to substitute "curation"(or equivalent phrases) in your comment here with "Galaxy, including social media features like achievements". It seems to me that vastly more resources go into Galaxy than curation. Achievements certainly aren't as important as DRM-free and iirc from other topics it was the push for achievements/needing to comply with the Galaxy client that caused us to miss out on Axiom Verge here.


Now this we agree on :) at least until further indication of GOG's direction, in the form of actions that commit to DRM-free gaming. Generally speaking, I also agree with the sentiment that GOG can't afford to waste resources if things are so dire. I appreciate other users generating ideas like trying movies again. But if things are really this bad, it needs to be clear focus on the primary (not "backup") offline installers and raising awareness of how DRM-free means effective ownership as opposed to data harvesting and other corporate practices that do not truly benefit the consumer.

This is the crap I've always been talking about in regards to the Boycott Squad: I get it, you have a different view of things, but the fact that you literally take every opportunity to throw shade at Galaxy and demand GOG shelf it shows you don't care about the service. You only care about YOUR experience. If people don't experience things the way YOU prefer, you think they shouldn't be allowed to experience it at all. It's pathetic.

Do I think GOG should pass development of Galaxy to CDPR? Absolutely. GOG, as a company, probably should focus on just figuring out the best ways to sell DRM-free games and develop communities around those games. However, the fact that y'all want them to cancel Galaxy because YOU don't like it is downright pathetic.

Very well said. The only risk I see with the current -very lazy- GOG management is the risk to convert it to another itch.io with tons of prototypes, demos, unfinished, abandonware, etc... (with the all due respect to itch.io which purpose is not a frontstore but a indie developers space)

DRM free & sustained support can be a very good & powerful filter instead of the charade of ,,curation,,

About communication, the day the lady holding the title gets replaced I'll start having hope on that matter. Several replacements are needed and that one is a visible one from here.

Thank you!

I don't get either why Galaxy should be the root of all of GOG's problems.
Galaxy is well regarded, as an optional client it does its job well enough. For those developers who want to implement onlibe multiplayer, it may be evan an incentive to not cut multiplayer for GOG-versions (although this area has to be improved). For those purists, who don't like Galaxy its easy enough to tailor your gaming experience as you wish, just ignore the client.

Because it has an inordinate amount of focus and if GOG is to use a strategy of stripping things down to the bare essentials to try and survive in the market (assuming things are as dire as folks seem to be saying), it is logical to go in a different direction instead of being hamstrung with so much devoted to Galaxy.

An example you give of a supposed benefit of Galaxy, being a means of multiplayer without it being cut out, is a perfect microcosm of why the client absolutely should be discontinued and cut: If GOG is to go to the essentials of DRM-free gaming, then a client requirement for multiplayer causes brand confusion and obscures the goal.

I dispute your claim that "for those purists, who don't like Galaxy, it's easy enough to tailor your gaming experience as you wish". The hell it is. Please explain how if I buy Cyberpunk, and don't use Galaxy, I am able to get the cosmetic content that is locked behind a Galaxy connection requirement (this is not the only example, btw).

If they had the right resources, it could become outright phenomenal. The problem is that they've had to put Galaxy on the backburner due to various things and that has made a lot of us feel neglected.

I understand caution, as NONE of us want it to become a required client, but the fact that there are people here who legitimately want them to cancel Galaxy just because they don't like it is downright ridiculous. Like I said, I think they definitely should pass development of Galaxy and Gwent over to studios with CDPR, as that'd free GOG to just focus on getting great games DRM-free and maybe we'd even get some much-needed site upgrades as well.

There's a difference between wanting better internal strategy and just outright wanting a product to be canceled because you don't like it. Unfortunately, a lot of criticism over Galaxy comes from the latter crowd. They not only have an extremely broad and inaccurate definition of DRM, but they also just want to ruin the experience for those of us who enjoy Galaxy, all because THEY don't enjoy Galaxy. That is unbelievably childish.

Galaxy is not a problem, it is what made most users gog.

Galaxy is only a problem for the small community of toxic users on this forum.

What they would have to do is ban those problematic users, who are the mimes who have boycotted them and the main culprits that a non-drm store is failing.

The majority of gog users hardly write here because of those users of whom there are thousands of complaints on social networks.