This is so obvious that I am appalled that someone could even argue the point. Yet here we are.

Same, I'd be prepared to pay more for any imagined "lost sales" due to the game being drm-free. Genuine ownership is added value.

It baffles me that more big game developers don't have a game plan for this: How to reach previously untapped demographics once the existing targeted groups have mostly bought the game already. If it is properly included in the design, it doesn't even have to be costly.

I'd take it a step further: I'd even be prepared to pay a recurring maintenance cost to GOG to keep my drm-free game collection here updated.

CDPR could want to gain usage statistics that may help them to develop their next game, but even if they somehow wouldn't want that, the upper management of the CDP Group may have who knows what plans for the future that could involve getting the Galaxy client installed on as many computers as possible.

+1 for not killing the messenger of bad news.

Only if you try to deliberately misunderstand the analogy, the point clearly was that there is a car from the 50's on sale in less than perfect condition and unless you are prepared to pay an extraordinary amount of money to faithfully reproduce all the missing parts, you simply may not be able to restore it to its original glory and will have to settle for less.

Not only that, but many are even declaring that they are going to jump to the "enemy" side by going back to Steam, as if that wouldn't automatically render their DRM-free righteousness totally hollow in the eyes of anyone who is going to rather stop adding new games to their collection than support the service that made online activation for games widely tolerated by the masses.

That analogy works better with DRM'ed single player games, but when they come with multiplayer support that lacks parts that are necessary for them to be considered DRM-free compatible, the analogy is more like the single player side's mate being terminally ill and you would demand that in order for the the single player side to get to come to our DRM-free oasis to be cured from its minor ailment, it would first have to divorce its multiplayer mate and send it back to the DRM'ed wasteland to wither die alone there.

While asking the developers to remove "wrongly" implemented multiplayer support isn't nearly as harsh thing to do, one could easily argue that we are likely still going to end up with many "couples" running back to the DRM'ed wasteland and warning everyone they meet about the crazy cultist in the DRM-free oasis, so whenever we can at least cure the single player side, allowing its multiplayer mate to come with it seems like a far better option than trying to force them apart.

Clearly a more on point question would be about what are the chances of GOG getting new games released here with that attitude and with new releases I mean more recent games, not old classics that were made before some marketing geniuses started to convince the executives to waste a portion of the development budget on pre-order exclusives.

GOG probably should make survey on how many of us are willing to buy DRM-free compatible multiplayer support as a DLC, because there is going to be many who would think of having to pay extra for the GOG version as once again being treated as second class customers despite how well they understand that DRM-free compatible multiplayer support may require a lot more effort to enable than getting rid of single player DRM.

I would gladly do that if it also meant that anytime a maintenance update breaks compatibility with the previous OS version, the latest version that still worked with that OS would be marked as that and would then be moved to the extras, as many of us would likely prefer to not store every version we have downloaded or even downloading every version in the first place just in case our next retroPC project would not be able to run the latest version of this or that game.

And in cases like the Ultima Underworld games and Strike Commander, if I could get the GOG versions of those games to run on my 486 without using any hacking tools or burning discs from the CD-images, it shouldn't be too hard for GOG to also figure out how to dump those games to disk and then let us choose during the installation if we want that or to to mount a CD-image with DOSBox...

Even though you mentioned you probably won't reply (for whatever reason), you wrote a lot and clearly care a lot, so I thought I would at least respond to you. The point here is not to "win" a discussion online, it's to engage and get something out of it. If neither of us are doing that though, then it's safe to stop writing long posts for the hell of it :)

Like I might have mentioned a few times now, revenue doesn't care about costs and alleged misguided attempts at growth and its expenditure. Forget about profit margins for a minute, I'm talking about precariously small revenue streams that puts them completely at risk and at the mercy of their parent company and stakeholders. This is the crux of the matter - not whether the single-digit margins are positive or negative. A few percentage of a low stream is - let's do the math here - still fck all.

Indeed, my whole point is that the old guard would not only prefer GOG to operate as a non-profit or a charity, but *wants* it to do so. This is evidenced by several posts above already, including yours. But this is ridiculous - hell I could ask Valve to make them subsidise my game purchases and provide their services for free for me. What do I care that they would be taking a hit or doing it for no gain. And Valve's not even a publicly traded company! It should be easy for them. I don't need to tell old grown men how feasible this is.

It is the same with the notion that a few DRMed games taint the whole store to a degree that they deserve not to exist. Classifying something as inherently so, based on a tiny minority portion screams like an excuse to me. After all, you call GOG a DRMed, tainted store for having ~0.1% of games with some elements of optional DRM. Thus, we could also call STeam a DRM-free store, as it has more than 0.1% of games that are DRM-free. Of course this is completely non-sensical and silly.

That's why I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It is your right however and I guess GOG in a way owes you a little due to your decade long contribution. For you maybe, it's time to move on, and you don't actually lose anything by venturing out to other places where it's 100% DRM-free despite a very limited catalogue. What do you care? You got all the games you could ever want anyways, probably.

But then in the same token, even you must see GOG is free to continue being a DRM-free store, even if in some cases there is optional DRM available for some features in a handful of games. They could not make a living despite the old guard with the status quo, so let them try to survive a bit better.

TLDR - they tried it your way, didn't work, let's try something else eh?

Actually I see display banners on a daily basis, mostly when checking my social media but just browsing around. I think their digital marketing budgets are actually quite high, several thousands of euros per month in Europe alone. Whoever is doing it for them is pretty terrible at their job however - I don't need to see multiple copies of the same ad on the same page at the same time, nor do I need to be targeted with prospecting banners meant to introduce me to the store. Bit of a waste to be honest in my case, though I was notified of a great sale not too long ago that I missed.

So GOG does try to grow, and "DRM-free" featured somewhere on those ads too. They must still consider it a selling point, and rightfully so. After all, without DRM-free, GOG has very little to offer compared to Steam. Just helps run some older games out of the gate, maybe. They need their niche offerings and selling points, and you're right, if they somehow get rid of them, then they will disappear into oblivion in the face of giants like Steam. But as far as I know, they are still going to hold on to that niche and offer their games DRM-free.

Not supposedly. Actually. See figures I presented above. Numbers don't lie.

That's the whole premise though:
If the old guard is crucial for GOG, then they should be the reason it is successful. But. If the old guard is not crucial for GOG, then they should not be the reason it is successful.

Clearly, as GOG is not successful, we can deduce the old guard is not crucial and can be gambled with for their support.

The question is - will the influx of new buyers compensate for the exodus of the old guard?

Again, you and me both know there probably isn't such a user. But like I said, it is inconsequential to the point being made. That being - the old guard tried and failed, they are losers in this struggle. Despite all their buying and posting and vocality, GOG is barely alive. They failed, so this anecdotal demonstration serves little purpose.

Considering how little DRM there is on GOG, this is complete speculation and not founded in reasonable deduction. You're not only guessing, you're imagining the worst case scenario without any sensible reason.

Well, you mentioned the sunk cost fallacy, this is it. That's one reason you might want to work with them - not to completely give up, turn cynical and maybe influence future direction.

Would you even regret your words and actions if GOG went under? The old guard spends hours here on a daily basis, buys games weekly, and probably spreads word of mouth when they can. I.e, they are attached to GOG. Is it really in their interest to shun GOG?

The old guard keeps talking about the good old days, when GOG engaged and listened to you. Now you turn around and present ultimatums - when is it your turn to engage and listen?

We don't negotiate with DRM terrorists.
We destroy them.

(disclaimer: I just skimmed the comments, have to leave the computer soon :p)
I'm not sure there are enough people willing to pay a DRM-free premium nowadays, unless perhaps it's a high-quality AAA title released the same day as on Steam. I feel like quite a few bestsellers are older AAA games released here at an initial deep discount so people are willing to double-dip.

I know GOG essentially started that way (whether paying $6 instead of $5, or - and this still seems to be the case, I thought there was bundle discount for this here - $30 for all the King's Quest games whereas that bundle was $20 on Steam), but I'm not sure if that's still a feasible strategy, as in making enough to continue to pay all the staff they've added on as the years have gone by.

I think this is potentially a good way forward for GOG, if they still have the technical people aboard to do so. I've already suggested these ideas, but GOG-made patches as DLC, or maybe a Kickstarter-like page where people can pay forward for a specific title to be patched and if the required amount is reached GOG can get started on that.

as an aside, maybe selling ISOs as cheap DLC (I'm sure there are legal issues)

I think you're giving some good alternative points.

This would be a hilarious post if it wasn't sad. This sums up the discourse old users provide in this place. Deaf,self aggrandizing,perspectives of manchildren.

This isn't so much to respond to your post directly as it is to make the general point:

I haven't changed. My reasons for buying games here have always been to get what I consider big releases DRM-free and to try and support DRM-free gaming as a whole (this latter reason now makes me feel stupid since GOG just pours money into their proprietary client and then justify its non-optional uses in topics such as this one). But, contrary to me staying the same, GOG has changed over the years, as evidenced by their (re)defining of DRM-free in this topic as well as evidenced by the concerns of users in the boycott topic which I assume you are alluding to via the phrase "ultimatums" (if I have read this incorrectly, I apologize).

To put it another way, if GOG keeps going in the direction of DRM, they could stay in business for infinity for all I care but they would have essentially "went under" for my own perspective. Additional food for thought: if anyone is going to take the "iTs A bUsInEsS" sort of mentality to try and justify GOG's actions, then there is no room within that line of thinking to imply that a customer is to "engage and listen." You want business dealings, okay, that includes customers leaving and taking their own business elsewhere when a store changes things no longer to their liking. Developers and publishers can design their games how they want? Customers can go to other stores how they want.
Go to the GOG reddit then or any other social media avenue, where it will all just contain discussion of how awesome Galaxy is. Leave those of us who care about DRM-free in peace, this is one of the only places on the entire damn internet where we can currently congregate and talk about this stuff.

Turning bug fixes into a subscription service on a DRM-Free site? Are you two sitting in the same room with a gas leak or something?... How about "I'd rather developers do some basic QA on their buggy as hell games before releasing them, then they wouldn't need to spam 30-40x patches in the first place?"...

And a GOG bug-fix subscription service wouldn't solve the issue that half the reason some GOG versions of games are having more and more OS compatibility issues is specific to GOG because of Galaxy integration. Eg, they broke Fallout New Vegas (designed for XP) ability to run on XP by adding galaxy.dll (that uses code that needs W7 or newer). Meanwhile the disc version of FO:NV still works fine on XP even today. In fact the fix was hilariously to overwrite the file that calls the Galaxy .dll with the Steam version...

Whether you use XP or not today, the point is expect the same thing when Galaxy drops support for W7, then W8, then W10, etc, in years to come and new galaxy.dll's compiled using potential future W11, W12, W13, etc, exclusive toolkits that are injected into updates of older games ends up breaking game compatibility with W7, W8, etc. And the disc / "abandonware" versions will still work on older OS's fine due to having no 3rd party dependencies. For game preservation purposes, it's been completely the wrong approach all along if maximum long-term OS compatibility is the goal.

Edit: GOG also broke the ability to run DOS games under DOSBox a while back by removing several games .exe's simply because the game was pre-packaged with ScummVM. Now I use and love ScummVM but it's always nice to have a choice / the original files as insurance against future unknowns / compatibility with future emulators. And yet again, those with 30 year old disk / "abandonware" / pre-2015 old GOG installer versions had the better OS compatibility than shiny new 1 day old updated GOG installers. So although I love GOG for what they've done for older gaming, I certainly wouldn't "subscribe" to a service that regularly makes OS compatibility worse for inexplicable reasons...

I think getting stuff to run on newer OSes is more important for preservation than getting stuff to work on aging OSes (assuming you care about the application more than the OS), because you cannot fix the version of an OS in time indefinitely (unless the company/community maintaining the OS decides to do so, but they usually don't).

For better or for worse, the hardware is a constantly moving target and if the OS drivers don't keep up (which they won't for an OS that is not longer maintained), then it is a matter of time before the OS can no longer run on existing hardware.

Otherwise, I think continuous payment in time for updates is a logical continuation of the drm-free mindset, which more often than not is oriented toward game preservation.

Now, if you want long term game preservation, which means that it should run on Windows 20, Ubuntu 40.04 and whatever other OS of the day will pop up, that is long term work (whether it means making an emulation layer work or coaxing the dev or a third-party into providing an update) and expecting it to be unpaid is not sustainable.

I think the choice is false as the oldest game I can find here (Akalabeth: World of Doom, 1979) works perfectly on both old and new OS's alike, as do the bulk of my 20-30 year old discs when they haven't been deliberately butchered. What are you "subscribing" for exactly when nearly all the actual tweaking work for many games here is actually done for free by the modding community (ScummVM, DOSBox, NewDark, dgVoodoo2, etc)? Are you subscribing for GOG to package Doom 1-2 into DOSBox, when you can do that yourself and even have more and better quality options (GZDoom, Quakespasm, etc)? What about all the "updates internal installer structure, no changes to game files" changelogs that are just repackaging the same build over & over for Galaxy reasons that are completely useless to offline installers? I'm failing to see any "premium subscription" value there...

I didn't say anything about games naturally stop working due to hardware issues, I said we shouldn't deliberately break perfectly working ones by compiling for an client that offline installer users don't want, or worse deleting randomly DOS .exe's for no reason whatsoever...

And what do you think those who don't subscribe will do:-

1. Enjoy outdated buggy games or...

2. If it's DRM-Free on Steam / Epic / itch, etc, just buy it there where it gets patched for free or...

3. Simply Torrent the patches for the games they legally paid for?

Anyone seriously suggesting gating basic bug-fixes / patches behind a GOG Premium Patch Subscription / paying twice for each game really hasn't thought this through at all as the end result wil be fewer sales and driving people back to piracy, not to steal the games but the patch to get it working all whilst trying to hide more and more content online from regular customers... It's the exact opposite of being "a logical continuation of the drm-free mindset" as you can get...

Surely there is an anti-DRM subreddit (or you or somebody else could create one) or the Zoom discord or another forum. GOG forum is NOT the only place to talk about DRM-free.

Also I believe it's easy to create free forums if you really wanted to, one dedicated to DRM-free in general.

Bluntness/plain-speaking in response to a clearly antagonistic (albeit passive aggressive) comment != anger. More like "let's cut through the bs and talk facts." Also, I could have worded my comment more clearly though I thought it would be evident from context. Obviously, I did not mean that GOG forum is the sole place possible in all of physical reality where DRM-free gaming can be discussed.

What I was trying to get it was that this place is very rare to have so many similarly minded people who care about DRM-free gaming. This is why I hope GOG never "fixes" the forum or removes it.

You can't just go to any forum and find such a community, which I think is clearly proven via GOG reddit alone, as the attitudes towards DRM there seem to be much more permissive, in line with GOG's newer direction (arguably proving right those of us who point out the DRM creep, but I digress). Given it is hard to find such a community, I think advice to "start from scratch" is a bit dismissive.

You do have a very good point that similarly minded people can be found on the Zoom Discord, at least so I hear. I would point out too though that many of us do not care for the style of Discord which is vastly different from forums. In any case, I said "this [GOG forum] is one of the only places" for DRM-free discussion...the fact of one single other named alternative does not disprove my point but in fact reinforces it.

(underling mine)

Agreed.....I think this song says it well
"Corporate clout chasing for dollars, (controversy based) PR for free"
"I want my, I want my, I want my G-O-G"

Why can't it be about both? Why should those of us who like our games DRM free have to pay a premium for it in the first place? ;)

That said, i'd be ok with a small/fair markup for DRM free games, if it meant we got more games released (actually) DRM free(and also if there were sales for those of us who aren't as well off financially).