I love how you state your belief as a quasi scientifically proven fact, that GOG's statement is not only worded ambiguous and unclear (which it really isn't) and therefore easy to misinterpret, but that it also has been deliberately fabricated in that cryptic way.

I don't know, what about the words "with an increasing share paid to developers, our cut gets smaller" is ambiguous and unclear or cryptically and misinterpretable.

GOG's share was previously allegedly 30%, the devs' share was allegedly 70%.
Now the devs' share is over 70% ("with an increasing share paid to developers") and GOG's share is accordingly lower than the previous 30% ("our cut gets smaller")

And no matter what you might wish - GOG is not obliged to publicize, at what percentage exactly the profit is split - that's business internals, and therefore of no interest to any of us.

If Studios/dev released on GoG before anywhere else it would drive them to become the norm is what i assume you're are trying to say?

You could, a shocker here, just state your point clearer. Pepsi Coke

Well,it is a business and is it really your concern? I couldn't care less if they took 100%.

Not quite. The concept of the chicken and egg is part of the old age question: What came first, the chicken or the egg? In business, looking at the chicken and egg concept is basically asking the question, does variety attract a mass market or does a mass market create variety?

Take VR for example: the majority of people don't want to invest into it because there aren't enough good games and it's expensive, publishers don't want to create to many big and complex games because there's not enough players and hardware manufacturers can't lower their prices because not enough hardware sold, making the parts to make these things still expensive.

In the case of GOG, publishers (even after their games sold enough to even consider having a DRM-Free version) won't bother more or less with with GOG due to their smaller audience, but the audience can't grow without more games and variety.

*insert "I read it on the internet, so it must be true!" joke*

Whether true or not, I would never ever use reddit as an official source for anything.

There's plenty of games on the service as it is, older classics. The problem is they don't really market the strong points all that well, that's the key to growing here

Old school gaming is a niche market, especially on PC. Most people who have limited time to game will prefer newer titles than old ones that they played in the past.

Point to me the last new release on GoG that wasn't indie/niche. Darksiders 3? Which is hardly a big brand. Gotta play to the strengths.

What? Do you have any reading deficiencies? My last replies are about making GOG grow by having more more recent titles to make, to attract bigger Japanese and Western developers. I don't need any reminder that GOG is mainly old titles or indie games, I have close to 100 games in my library that I have been buying in the past few months. Concentrating on older titles and indie games will not make this site grow fast enough to make GOG stay in business.

Shocked you've not got a tooth deficiency with that guide of an attuide pal. You seem to be posting from the perspective of 'but what if' than any level of realism. 30% cut was standard across stores until Epic/Discord came in. For someone very confident in their posts, you seem to lack some pretty well-known point mate. Anyway, get your self a cuppa and calm doon.

Can GOG grow their userbase even if they don't get exclusives? Seems like GOG has been in the biz only 4 years less than Steam, ie almost as long as Steam, yet has like 1-2% of Steam's income. (could be wrong)

Even for the "minimal effort" part, GOG (at least still) provides e.g. standalone offline installers, which IS always extra effort compared to what Valve does for its games. Me and many others consider that an extra service worth something.

So yeah, mechmouse's comment applies to maybe 99% of GOG releases. Maybe not GWENT (I don't think it has a standalone installer anymore; it used to).

They have to make a new installer for every new version. Plus the patch installers they often provide as well. Those not only have to be created and tested, but also uploaded to the CDN and linked to the game. There is some effort involved, hard to say how much it is in the end.

To me it is worth "more" because I get to own the game. More means worth more than zero which is what I spend on Steam & co. If I buy an individual game depends on the the game and the price. Buying with DRM is for me simply out of the equation, so I don't care if a $20 game here is $10 on Steam... it's either worth that twenty bucks or not.

Likewise I would never buy digital movies or TV serials on Amazon. I use Netflix which is flat-prices and I treat it like a library fee. But paying for individual stuff and then not owning it (like download and watch when and where I want) is not happening. I seriously wish there was GOM (Good Old Movies) where you could buy all those classics like 2001, Alien(s), Bladerunner... simply as 4k mp4 download, maybe with some added bonuses as well (artbooks, soundtracks...). I would probably spend a lot of money on a platform like that...

This is understandable as value to you the consumer but I don't consider this relevant in an argument about how much value GOG adds for it's cut of the sale.