When CD Projekt went public, a number of investors bought the company aiming to make the company bigger and get profit from it. Inverstors are usually people who don´t care what the companies they buy are about. They want to profit in the short, middle and/or long term. That´s not really a bad thing in itself. But when investors buy a number of companies and many of them are different, the investors who have become owners (by buying a portion of the company with the stocks), need to find somebody to manage each company they now own. And they do it because they usually don´t know anything about the product their companies develop or sell and because they can´t manage every company they own. And here is where everything really goes to shit.

When the owner or the investors of a big company are not interested in ruling said company, they hire a person (or several people) who is given the position of CEO. According to the wikipedia, a CEO is a person who is in charge of managing a company. The CEO of a corporation or company typically reports to the board of directors (usually owners or investors) and is charged with maximizing the value of the business. Which may include maximizing the share price, market share, revenues or another element. In the non-profit and government sector, CEOs typically aim at achieving outcomes related to the organization's mission.

A CEO aims to get max profit while managing the company. Which might be a short term position. And so, usually, to retain that CEO position for as long as possible, the CEO seeks to maximise inmediate profit to justify before the investors, his/her hiring. Long term profits and company viability be damned.

For the CEOs, it is not only about earning their big salaries (with probably yearly big money incentives based on inmediate companie´s moneymoney profits). It´s also a matter of short term survival. The CEO not only needs to fulfill profit objectives (or even better, surpass profit predictions by as much as possible), the CEO also knows that there would be other people aiming to be the CEO themselves, lurking nearby and trying to convince the investors to make changes in the management. So, the CEO would do anything and everything in his/her hands, to try to convince the investors, that he/she is the best person to grant the most profits. And since the income balance is usually yearly, it is only logical that the CEO will seek max profits in the very short term. Why would the CEO care about the long term profits or company survival, if he/she will lose his position sooner rather than later and the company belongs to other people?

So, in GOG´s case, we have a person (or a number of people) managing a company he/she don´t give a shit about. And to get as much profit as possible, the CEO is trying to copy the business model of the biggest and most successful company in the market. Which is... Exactly; Steam.

Principles? To hell with that, inmediate moneymoney profits is what matters at the end of the year. And if that inmediate big profits hurt GOG, someone else will take care of that problem (or not) in the future. And if GOG dissapears next year, the CEO would not give a shit, and will probably find some other company to work for. And in the meantime, his/her bank account will have lots of beautiful numbers.

The only way the company will change its course right now, is if for some reason GOG losses benefits and stock value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer

This kind of shortsighness affects the majority of the occidental companies and governments.And that´s why, asian companies and countries (specially China, Japan and India) are taking over the world.

With all due respect. You haven´t understood anything. In fact, I doubt you have read all the thing. And if you did, tell me where you got lost and I will try to explain better.

Well, one could argue that an IPO is the biggest mistake one can make, because you go from only needing to listen internally to suddenly being hounded by sharks who sold their mother for profit on a loss.

Maybe check some facts first?

The founders and biggest shareholders of the company are also in the management and board and have in practice near absolute control over the company(*). And have been in control of it for a very long time. This includes the CEO position. So no - the CEO is not a disposable short-term hire lusting for nothing but more salary. The salary is small in comparison with the share value(**). You can find this kind of information easily on the web. See for example:
https://www.cdprojekt.com/en/investors/shareholders/
https://www.cdprojekt.com/en/capital-group/board-of-directors/

(*) Assuming this hasnt changed recently.

(**) Edit: For CDP CEO. I dont know about GOG CEO if it has one.

What whoever is in charge of GOG fails to realize is it's not good enough to get more games on your store at the expense of forgoing the DRM stance the company once held. They also need to invest a substantial amount of income then to compete with Steam's store front. The amount of features steam offers makes galaxy looks embarassing. You are not going to increase your userbase by offering what the competition offers, but worse! GOG survives because it filled niche. Pissing off that niche is counterintutive to the longevity of your business. It doesn't take a masters degree to figure this out.

That is what we call "Projection".

It wasn't a "mistake." That makes it sounds like they didn't know what they were putting on the store (yet they did) and that they did it by accident (yet they didn't).

I'm tired of these people who read one Wikipedia article and think they've discovered something nobody else knows.

In the other thread some maniac wrote me a 50 line poem about how everthing is about money.

Jesus Christ, people. Grow the heck up.

GOG management is doing a bad job and if we don't call them out on it with balls to the wall outrage the message will not be heard amidst this cacophony of idiocy.

You got proof to back that assertion up or are you merely fear mongering like the rest?

Clearly you don't understand the phrase.

That is projection as well! (yes I know the phrase)

TL;DR

If they were gonna say screw it and start selling DRM'd games they'd probably sell out for something a lot more interesting and profitable than a 5 year old Hitman game that was given away for free on Epic already.

I don't think it's about one game. I think it's about selling games with just a part of it DRM-free.

For example, they can't get Bethesda to allow them to put the new Doom and Quake remasters on here DRM-free, but they have the originals. If Hitman 2016 is the new standard, they hypothetically could have the remasters with DRM playable only through Galaxy while the offline installers are only for the original games.

It's extremely shortsighted if you ask me, just like their handling of the CP2077 launch was shortsighted. But this is what I think this is foreshadowing.