Some times I find it worth owning the game on both, chances are if you try hard enough you can get it on the other platform for free, if the game is great then a patch is not always needed, + I like having older versions of games.

The relevant thing is that the publisher (in the GOG case, not necessarily your case) loses a lot more (relative to what they need, not necessarily in absolute terms) due to not making a contract than GOG loses due to not making a contract. It works in this kinda manner elsewhere too. If you looked at my first post in this thread and read the link this kind of unequal relationship is also one of the basic premises of those laws. Similar if I want to buy sth from Amazon then that deal is way more important to me than it is to Amazon. Even if going to another shop just inconveniences me for 10 minutes.
The revenue split (which is determined by GOG) is evidence of the stronger position not the sole reason. I dont know how else you would define "stronger" position other than the side which has more influence on the contract.

Their "bargaining chips" are good PR due to selling DRM free and the expected money the publisher gets. I am not sure if this is what you mean here or if you mean sth else.

They are in a weaker position than Steam. They are not in a weaker position than the individual median publisher.
Look at the customer vs shop example above. If there is a big shop 'Amazon' and a smaller shop (with 10% of the size) 'Kangaruh' - if I buy from 'Kangaruh' I cant dictate any ToS with them. I am almost as much stuck with ToS from them than with 'Amazon's. Its logically similar with the GOG vs median publisher thing.

I am not saying anything about "that simple". I dont know how simple (or not) it is and I dont have the knowledge/expertise to even make a fair guess.


Edit: There are also plenty of forum stories of GOG simply saying 'No' to indies with lame reasons etc. And reading comments from indies about this etc clearly shows that GOG has the stronger position. Only reason they seem to reconsider in these cases is bad PR they get from customer complaints.

Deleted by request

Gog still guarantees(within reason) the current versions they have to work, as they have tested them a bit(iirc).

Well there are game pass/etc services for some PC/console games, but I can get why some might do it and not go the "other route" due to legal/moral concerns.

I just dislike those who'd do it with EVERY game(try then refund and do NO reseach beforehand) more than those who do it sparingly.

=========================================

If Galaxy ever went down for good and Gog stuck around, Gog could likely integrate the latest patches/updates in offline installers....this isn't certain but it's at least possible.

Also in a way i'm ok with Galaxy users getting "1st dibs" on updates as they can test them out first before I have to use them(if ever).

Not really, as they ip holders/etc dictate a ton more things then you'd think(they make the pics/exact text for the store pages and GOG cannot alter it, for example). Also their hesitance to not give GOG games that even Steam and others have(due to no major DRM in gog games) shows the IP holders hold the strings in many ways and likely dictate more for themselves at the bargaining table.

**By ip holders above, I mean the big companies like Bethesda/Activision/etc & also the smaller ones who are PRO drm)

Addition: Gog HAD a better position years back with older games before Steam/etc started selling older games as well. Now they are the small fish and the other stores have the advantage(as, for one, they offer DRM to be put into games which Gog does not).
=========================================

I get low rated on most everything I post that the ones doing so find, mainly as a small few(with bots most likely) dislike my stances on some things, some of the topics I post, that I can be critical of some(when I feel it is called for) instead of just blindly agreeing with everyone and saying nice words....etc.

Pay them no mind, and i'm sorry they low rated you as well, btw.

Low-ratings + me: No problem. Thought it was weird that rational non-inflammatory posts were getting low-rated, so I spoke out about it.


Back on topic:
As per InkPanther, the game the thread OP requested a refund for missing patches on GOG is Space Rangers HD. I happen to own Space Rangers HD on both Steam and GOG.

The Space Rangers HD devs seem to post and respond more on the steam forums, more specifically the Russian language steam forums than they seem to post on GOG.
Steam forums only show changelogs for the latest Space Rangers HD patch( 1.11.2019) , while ironically the GOG patch changelogs go back to at least 2 Dec 2015.

how is bethesda and activision pro DRM just aobut every fallout game apart from 4 and 76 is on GOG, activision maybe but blizzard who are part of activision released warcraft 1 and 2 and diablo here

Fair enough...I just thought you might want to know why it happened. :)

I think GOG likely posts longer changelogs as, unlike steam, GOG often offers some older versions/patches for older versions & the info is likely there for those yet to update to the newest versions.

========================================

I picked the names off the top of my head, to be fair, but in regards to those companies: As you said we don't get some of the newer games here...just older ones.....normally those dev/pubs give their newest stuff to the likes of steam/etc, where DRM is allowed.

With "median" (given the context I thought this would be clear) I meant publishers with "median" bargaining strength. So you pointing out publishers with particularly strong bargaining strength (whether this is true for your second "PRO drm" example I dont know and dont want to guess though) is exactly what I did not mean.
And if you dont know what the word "median" means - as you seem to have ignored it this may be the reason for your post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median

gog is terrible, everything is terrible, let's all die

Thanks for the added info/reply....that said:

Most IP holders would rather go to other storefronts, though, for the following reasons: Other stores give them a bigger cut/allow drm/have larger user bases(in the case of steam)/etc.

As a result of those incentives they are less likely to come to Gog/sell more & newer games on Gog....and because of those things GOG is at a weaker position to bargain with all but the following: Smaller devs/publishers, those few who want to sell to every store/customer they can(even if GOG doesn't have a big user base or allow DRM).

Due to all that GOG is at a disadvantage when it comes to bargaining with most ip holders/etc. I wish it weren't that way, but that's how it currently is.....we get the odd "bone" tossed our way by signed GOG partners while steam/etc get the first pick of new games and such.

Seems Legit... get's in Tfishell's black minivan with blacked out windows.

get cut in halves with a chainsaw

YAY... Now I'm a ghost!

Human or alien? o.0

No matter....at least now you'll match your avatar a bit more. ;D

Most games on GOG are also on Steam. And many games are on other platforms too. So I think your premise (choice of storefront) is wrong. More store fronts = more income. And GOG is often more expensive too which gives also more income per sale. And there are the (often to read in the forum but I dont know how many other people do that) customers buying the same game on multiple stores. So taking all this into account: Not selling game on GOG simply means less income. From a logical POV this is simply the most relevant perspective.
If they dont come to GOG it doesnt matter...
I dont see your logic here. You give no reason for the "Smaller" part. You just make that claim. And for the other part "those few who want to sell to every store" - its the exact opposite of what you say: If they want to sell everywhere it automatically puts them into a weaker position because they are dependent on all stores.