With gog galaxy 2.0 they are pushing connecting with other platforms instead of having the client mainly focusing on gog fans. I don't care about steam or other clients and was hoping the client continues to focus on gog related things. Anyone feel gog is losing their focus on their fans?

Maybe not their fans but some of the ones who got them going(word of mouth advertising/supporting the site/etc) by going more towards a client and cutting some core concepts like "One price for all"(fair price policy), only selling non-cut/censored games(Quake 1/2 have no music iirc due to legal issues, and some countries cannot buy some games due to regional restrictions), etc.

Then there's the cr*p "curation system" which they refuse to give info on(yet they give tons of info on Galaxy 2.0 when asked) which rejects some good games due to controversial content/not being the right genre while calling the reason for doing so "too niche" each time(as if that explains anything)., while also accepting more and more indie games(some which look worse than some things that passed steam's greenlight) & VNs.

There's likely more to touch on but this should suffice and I should let others who are better speakers explain these points further and add to them.

It certainly looks that way.

2.0 is a cool concept but convincing the masses is going to be tricky, as with every attempt to change how people do things by default.

Little disappointed the lack of communication from GoG to its users (especially on the forums) has stepped back. Curation system still causes all kinds of confusion, which in turn lets people plant their theories. Things like competitions and what not always a miss.

Hoping GoG 2.0 doesn't mean a change in identity e.g. fewer PC classics added per year, less focus on the DRM message.

This is rather hilarious to me, seeing how developing Galaxy in the first place was GOG deciding to completely shift focus away from their original user base (or "fans" if you want to use that term).

'Fans'? GOG is a digital distributor. They're doing what they feel they need to do to be innovative and bring in more revenue and customers. Galaxy 2.0 isn't removing anything Galaxy already offered. It's adding more functionality, and if it works out it may bring in a lot of new customers that use the other platforms.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there were forks here before they became the DRM free brigade. Some of us use Steam, Origin etc and could certainly do with a program to bring it all together. Don't like it? Don't use it.

Obviously they feel Galaxy 2.0 will bring more users into the ecosystem / GOG store. With that said...

... GOG is making a play for a larger share of the market and that larger market isn't playing 10+ year old games.

I want to stay optimistic, but I don't feel confident that GOG is going to be able to chase the audience they want and stay true to their original mission.

Time will tell I guess.

GoG need to work on their relationship with developers and publishers. Developers leave by "mutual agreement." Why? Do they sign on for a 6 month deal and if selling DRM free does not live up to their sales goals they can go home and take their ball with them? There do seem to be some stable relationships but too many are tenuous. Sign on devs with strong ties and keep the games they sell up to date.

What 'something else'?

I don't know(I am not their financial guy)....I DO know how money/finances work in basic, though. If you have finite money and focus/money/manpower somewhere then other depts have to be cut back if money/income doesn't increase at /near the same time.

They already have a team that's been dedicated to Galaxy for years. So I still don't see your point. Sure, even if they move resources from one team to Galaxy 2.0 development, it doesn't mean they're going to drop focus on anything we'd necessarily notice. It may also be the case that they'd move people from an aspect of GOG that's not financially viable. If you understand finances, you'll understand a company can't afford to keep throwing money and resources towards something that doesn't provide a useful return.

No.

IMHO the problem isn't resource allocation. GOG has resources (albeit few profits). IMO the developing problem is deeper...

GOG's ambition

GOG's ambition would seemingly be to no longer be solely the best place for good old games... it's to rival Steam.

In order to do so, GOG needs more customers. In order to do that, they create Galaxy 2.0 to siphen customers from rival platforms. But in growing their customer base this way -- poaching from rival markets where old games and DRM-free content aren't priorities -- GOG will seemingly be forced to make changes. ie. Why add more old games when most gamers aren't playing games more than 5+ years old (or niche games for that matter)? Galaxy 2.0 is GOG trying to battle into the "major leagues" of digital delivery without falling back on the dreaded "exclusives"... and where that might work, I don't know whether GOG's ambition can live alongside their original mission.

Steam has a full catalog across mainstream to niche because for many years they have been a monopoly... ubiquitous with digital game delivery. Everyone goes to Steam. GOG doesn't have that luxury.