Thats not misinterpreting when paraphrasing to not be so wordy on saying the same thing

Besides it is anti consumer when they do it to legit games that was announced to come out a set time on other platforms prior to them getting involved a easy to look up case is the metro game debacle .. among afew others that caused stores to change policies for EGS basically bribing them to break prior announcements and promises .. Besides timed exclusives even on pc storefronts are inherently anti-consumer period .. even if not as bad as full on exclusivity in anti0consumer practices

for me that is not anticonsumer
they delay the game then what? i can wait , i usually do that anyway , it better than to get a half made product

Also saying trollish is rich when trolling is intentional and I have done nothing to be trolling the other statement part of ''Acting like everyone is supposed to be here for one thing and you're the arbiter of what that is simply stupid, childish'' that I can admit reading back on my replies can come off as seemingly like that.. when that was not my intent to come off that way as sounding like a arbiter but rather state its odd to only care about newer games and not older ones and thus makes no sense why one would patron such a place for newer games.. That was all nothing more nothing less
For you that may not be ... but it is actually a anti-consumer practice not as bad as other anti consumer pratices but still it is a Anti consumer produce a mostly ignorable one if its not a extreme wait time before not exclusive .. As people without FOMO can indeed wait and I often do wait a year or more for most games but it doesn't change what most see and know as a Anti-consumer practice

DRM FREE. I could swear we've been over this.

wait no dividends?

this company is not what i would call a "grow stock* more penny stock at this moment.
and i think it's insanely over valued at 180 (really)

And? Their is other drm free storefronts that focus way way more on newer games then GOG does now thus the weirdness of coming here for newer drm free games

While I occasionally buy an old game, out of the 200 games I have on GOG, only about 10% of them are old games. I use GOG due to DRM free, and it being a curated store that has introduced to me some great indie games.

That's news to me. And to most other people here. I imagine your definition of "DRM free" does not align with mine or theirs.

Your obsession with asserting the blatantly false is rather peculiar.

This is atleast fair as you as far as I can tell haven't been a regular being like'' retro junk'' in commenting on indie game news announcements here like others I see when indie devs go the retro artstyle and the like matter.. Whatever the case what do you see as old games? Asking as I have found some see even the early to mid 2000 games as old games and retro when to me early to mid 90's I'd call old .. and anything newer as sorta old and oldish.. with anything from 2015 up as new for sure
Eh I can't recall what the storefront is but it was brought up in a thread here awhile back after the devotion debacle.. I never used the site mentioned so the name escapes me at the moment but Eh don't believe me or not .. just don't call me a liar as you just did in the later bit of your reply

Except their efforts are not failing, those are planned losses, its their investment into growing the store. Like it has been shown earlier, features do not bring customers to a store, if it did, then GOG would have grown in market share everytime they added a new feature, but they didn't grow at all, staying at ~$40 million in sales revenue each year for many years now, and that is for both first and third party games together, mean while Epic has been making $250+ million each year, far outpacing GOG's revenue.

Also it is not out of the realm of a normal operating loss, it's actually pretty low for the company of it's revenue size (talking about Epic Games revenue from all sources, not just the store) when getting into a new business venture, those are really marketing expenses.
Simply put, Epic made a competitive offering to dev/pubs, and the dev/pubs chose to take that competitive offering. That's the nature of competition. We even do it as customers, we look at the competitive offerings of different stores and made a decision based on what ever criteria we each have.

Epic did not strong arm, in any fashion especially not in mafia style fashion, any dev/pub to be exclusive to the store. I don't even know where you got that from? Did you just make that up?

They also did not admit on social media to wanting to be a monopoly, again, no idea where you are getting that idea from. Are you making that up as well?

Can you name such a store? Because what I see on GOG is mostly new games that come to the store, showing their focus is on newer games and less about old games. I doubt I would have bought 200 games on GOG, with only about 10% of them being old games, if their focus really was on old games and not new games.
Nearly all the old games I have bought came from the 80's and 90's, some early 2000s like Freespace 2 which released in 2001.

If I recall right it was Darqs dev that mentioned where they was only after those willing to ''play ball '' with going timed exclusive and basically they said''he'd be ruined '' if he didn't take the deal.. Though its been awhile

And that still doesn't excuse the fact some games was announced and still said as a release date on steam soon but then pulled as a exclusive when the deal was made with em

And yes they did during the Apple mess around the time of what the court decided atleast thats how it read to many varies things that was said about the matter

As for the name as I admitted I forgot it

Also you want to assume I am a liar rather then just say''I doubt your claims '' on matters I can see that I put in qutation marks but just blatantly saying I making crude up has poisoned the well for honest discussions between us now on my end for you putting ''no idea where you are getting that idea from. Are you making that up as well?''

Well, you're the one here making assertions no one agrees with, it would be nice if you could provide something of substance to back them up. Not that existance of this other store would change the fact that GOG has not beeen focused on old games for years and even changed its name to make that perfectly clear.

Also, I did not call you a liar. I said you are asserting something blatantly false, but I have no way of knowing whether you are doing so intentionally, or whether you actually believe it despite how clearly false it is.

Never mind my prior reply hadn't soon till now oddly
To me the phrasingof ''your obsession with asserting the blatantly false is rather peculiar.'' came off as fancily saying I was a liar or to try hiding you was .. Sorry bout that then on that misunderstanding then for my one remark on seeing that as you saying I was a liar
'

I mean, that's one way to dress it up, but then again based on Sweeney's comments Epic expected to be able to buy their way into the market and quickly dominate. And you are correct, $500M is not a whole lot of money for Epic, but $500M is a lot of money to invest any new company and not turn a profit after 3 whole years. If Epic was publicly traded, I'm sure that the shareholders wouldn't view Epic's $500M waste in as positive of a light as you do.

So? As long as GOG is keeping the lights on and the customers are happy, who cares what GOG's revenue is compared to any store? Also, GOG's "killer feature" IS DRM-free games, and THAT has carried GOG to where it is today. So I don't see where "features don't matter" when GOG's DRM-free feature has attracted a substantial user base.

This I don't agree with. Epic often targets smaller devs who are financially vulnerable. So of course they'll leap at the deal because they are less financially stable than an AAA company. Of course, the deal restricts the devs' ability to advertise on lots of stores which hinders their ability to grow their brand through broad advertising on many storefronts.

Sweeney literally said that he wants there to be only one universal app store for all platforms (including PC, consoles, and mobile) at last month's Global Conference for Mobile Application Ecosystem Fairness. I'm sure he had EGS in mind when he made that statement. Sweeney wants to be a monopolist. Enough said.

As a general note, this is a discussion about GOG, and using GOG's latest financial report as a way to promote EGS is off-topic. You are comparing apples and oranges because two stores cater to different types of users.

Well it looks like GoG suffers a heavy reputation loss. Not only due the CP77 release,
but also due the Hitman DRM fallout (which was in this case justified) outside of the usual
raging.

That just shows in the numbers, so what happend? A already barebone TEAM got axxed even more.
Which means Galaxy 2.0 will stay in Beta for how long then???

Let alone that this niche store, if even more niche now. Before 2020 GoG gained a reasonable
amount of ppl, who started to be feed up with DRM and mandatory launchers and all the BS
of the industry (i presume) after CDPR showing they fall in the same pattern. I assume further
ppl just shrugged and don t see the advantages anymore.

Lets hope CDPR and with taht GoG can bounce back and some developers get their
hands on Galaxy again so the issues will be ironed out.