I agree to an extent. As callous as it may sound, the business between GOG and devs/publishers is just that - business. If GOG is offering 60/40 by way of example as opposed to 70/30 as the likes of Valve do, there may be a good reason for it. My gut feeling tells me that indie devs are having more success selling games at full price here as opposed to other platforms where buyers wait for sales, otherwise most devs would just go and tell GOG to fuck themselves when offered such a revenue share. Either that, or the revenue share model is just a myth.

At the end of the day though, most people don't buy games solely to help developers. They are buying games because they want to play games. Rewarding developers is a nice side effect and all, and it's great that it's helping them to make a living, but we don't go into supermarkets and buy vegetables to help farmers, we buy vegetables because we want to eat. Gamers should not be in the business of having to justify a developer's existence.

That being said, DRM-free distribution of games is still very nascent, and it's a development that is absolutely necessary. If it doesn't take hold, PC gaming will gradually move more and more towards a rental model, which will inevitably eventually result in it dying out. For better or worse, GOG is pretty much the public figurehead of this change, and if it fails, it reflects very badly on DRM-freedom as a whole.

In this respect, gamers have a vested interest in ensuring that GOG goes about its business properly. If it failed due to some factor that isn't even related to DRM, it really would be a great shame.

I posted a thread called "Superbrothers: Sword & Sworcery EP not coming to GOG!" in which I posted the following:

I tweeted Capy Games:

@CAPYGAMES Would you ever consider selling Superbrothers: Sword & Sworcery EP on GOG.com?

They responded:

@Barry_Woodward We considered it, and talked to them, but unfortunately it's not going to happen.

I then tweeted Nathan Vella (President of Capy Games):

@Barry_Woodward What was the sticking point between Capy and GOG that prevented Superbrothers: Sword & Sworcery EP from being released there?

He replied:

@Barry_Woodward That's between us and GOG. Nothing bad, no harsh feelings, love the service & big fan of the folks that run it.

TheEnigmaticT's reponse to this was:

I'll admit, I enjoyed it quite a lot when I got it in the HIB; just because we couldn't come to an agreement on the business side of things doesn't mean it's not a good game.

Well, that is happening.

Quite a few games have been rejected by the devs or GOG. Considering the slow release schedule, GOG has a lot less offers around than GG or Steam And out of those few, even we get a lot of "Thanks, but no thanks" from devs that sell their games on other DD services.

I think that GOG releasing so few games per week on purpose. Customers can't buy a infinite amount of games per week because of lack of money and time. I think that GOG try to release less, but better games and get more money per game - quality over quantity.

On other hand GamersGate is trying to release as many games as they can - you can find there even really obscure and bad games. Steam is middle ground.

I don't say that GOG model is worse or better. For example I like that on GG I can buy games that are unavailable on other sites.

Well, "quality" can be debated. But that still doesn't affect my point. GOG talks to fewer people than the other DD stores but gets more "no thank you" from the devs. Usually we hear that a DD store has refused a game, not the other way around.

It is very rare for a developer to refuse another possible venue of income.

Lines "We considered it, and talked to them, but unfortunately it's not going to happen." sounds more like devs contacted GOG and they got refused because GOG didn't want to agree on their terms.

And how do lines like

""We'd be on their service if they could match everyone's standard 70/30 rev share.""

sound?

I find it a bit ironic that companies who put their products into the Humble Bundle would have issues with selling the same games later on GOG. People could be cheap asses and make them all split as little as 1 cent, or still $1 to have the games on steam, but maybe a company taking a bit more of a cut to sell the game isn't ok.

That aside, I will keep buying games from here even after complaints about distribution cuts. As a consumer, I would be a fool to not seek out what I feel are the best deals for the products I want. Price factors into that, and with digital purchases, ease of use for the product now and later on. I have paid more in the past for DRM free purchases, I also very rarely pay full price for a game on launch anymore unless its something cheap like $10 with a decent pre-order bonus. If that makes me a cheap bastard, so be it. However with all the sources for games now a days I can wait it out for prices to drop. Its not like it was a few years ago where your only choice is full price launch games that stay high for months at a time, or $5 less for dirty used copy at Gamestop.

Would it be nice if GOG gave more money to publishers/developers? Absolutely. However I feel it is right to assume any game for sale here is done under terms that keep both sides happy. GOG doesn't have sales as frequent as steam, but I don't recall the Humble Store ever having a sale on games before. (If I'm wrong I apologize for that.) So when a game comes to GOG I know I'll play now, I'll get it here, or wait for a sale later on to get it then.

I can't say who contacted who from this line. My point is that we can say that "GOG got rejected by devs" only if it was GOG that asked devs if they want to be on GOG and then devs did say "No, your terms are bad".

Oh come on, all we know is that someone doesn't want to do business with GOG because they want the 70/30 share which is standard for the MOBILE INDUSTRY. We don't know anything else, we don't know whether they even tried to do business with GOG or just assumed that they have a worse policy than that. The fact alone that 70/30 is not an established industry standard outside the mobile industry tells us that whoever said that doesn't seem to know a lot about the industry himself. So really, screw that. Unless someone meaningful who has some serious experience publicly states that he thinks that GOG is mistreating its partners you've really got nothing to go on here. Not to mention that it's not like GOG is exploiting anybody - either they sign a deal with GOG or don't, GOG has absolutely no monopoly. It's depressing how a vague statement by one anonymous guy can be enough to make you guys get... I don't even get your state really. Are you guys upset, angry, sad?

Perfect, so we even know that the statement came from an asshole. Another reason not to care about his statement.

You know the saying "There's nothing worse than a backseat driver"? The same principle applies here.
Let GOG conduct their business the way they think is best, they know way more about it than we do, after all.

We need to organize a big tea-party where the representatives of Ubisoft and Hasbro sit down and play a game of D&D (with GOG as the DM) while discussing the contract details of getting the Gold Box on GOG.

"Rocks fall, veryone dies. All IP possesion go to the GM for preservation"?