Sure, around the time I joined GOG it stood for Good Old Games. However sometime around the time I joined they decided to say that it no longer stood for Good Old Games. I honestly don't know what they decided on what GOG stands for now. When I first joined the sales also brought free games or tiers if you will. So basically from what I remember the more you spent the more points you unlocked that could be used to get a free game. That no longer happens from what I have seen as of late. I never utilized it but there was GOG connect. I think it was probably something to entice more users to come to GOG? Of course the big one is the definition of DRM free. With games that have some sort of DRM to whatever degree that was allowed to come to the platform, that naturally angered some people. I personally don't use galaxy. Not because I see it as DRM or anything like that, I just don't see a need for it, at least for my purposes. I do however do see and agree that having some form of content being accessible if you use galaxy as a small form of DRM. That's about all I can think of at the moment. I have been drinking a little so forgive me if I missed anything lol.

Thanks. Just FYI, GOG dropped "Good Old Games" officially back in 2012. They just went with "GOG" instead of "Good Old Games" like I guess AT&T doesn't still mean "American Telephone and Telegraph". But I guess with "Good Old Games" being such a strong acronym and market position, and not really filling the void with anything, people never stopped thinking of them as "Good Old Games".

I agree the sales aren't as exciting or interesting nowadays. I think they should bring back Insomnia sales; the infamous "Keaning" incident is still remembered from one of those and it's been years.

Yeah Connect was a marketing tool to try to get Steam users invested here by basically "kickstarting" their GOG library. I guess it didn't pay off, so personally I can't blame them for dropping it.

I don't use Galaxy either. Galaxy has been around since 2014 or 2015 (I remember AvP Classic 2000 being given away to test multiplayer on), so DRM'd multiplayer isn't exactly new (especially if one counts CD-keys for multiplayer as DRM) and I don't recall much anger about that. However I guess DRM'd single-player content is relatively recent(?) and one of the main reasons for boycotting.

The main issue I see is GOG doesn't seem to really have a way to grow and gain influence and leverage, so that means not many AAA game releases because DRM-free (but I imagine GOG officially dropping DRM-free would be a PR nightmare and ruin their business) + why bother with GOG's 1-5% market share and little money + perhaps other reasons. (but that's nothing really new honestly)

I forgot about Hitman. That makes it even worse, since Hitman's been improving in sales since it was sold to IO (at least I think so, it's difficult to find actual numbers). I wouldn't be surprised if their executives expect everything to sell like Final Fantasy.

Its honestly even worse. Actually SE owned a ton of great IPs that they either dont know what to do with or expect far too high numbers compared to what they should expect.

Sleeping Dogs 2 was cancelled because Sleeping Dogs failed to meet sales expectations. It did only sell 1.5 million copies but it was a brand new IP and its advertising was pretty poor imo. It is a rare open world game that had great gunplay and melee combat and a good story.

SE's thief was pretty bad and Square hasnt dont stealth games well so I can see it being sold off.

They also didnt do anything with Legacy of Kain which seems like a missed opportunity given the vampire setting and Japan also liking vampires to an extent.

Just selling Tomb Raider, Deus Ex, and Hitman seems stupid to me given the fact that these IPs are successful.

Tomb Raider - half of Tomb Raider sales comes from the rebooted trilogy which means the rebooted trilogy did do well. I dont know why it doesnt do as well as Uncharted (probably Uncharted as more run and gun) but its 41.7 million vs 35 million. Tomb Raider could catch up and surpass it with more investment imo.

Deux Ex - its still the most famous cyberpunk IP in the video game industry imo so letting it go is a waste. Also is a completely different setting from Squares other IPs so valuable to have.

Hitman - Square was only in charge of Absolution and 2016 so cant say for sure Hitman would have improved under Square leadership.

Edios - Edios is a good studio. Edios Montreal produced both modern Deus Exs, Thief, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and Guardians of the Galaxy. Mentioned already how Tomb Raider did not perform badly and Deus Ex is good. Guardians was a big step up from Avengers and could have built up more steam and a new franchise.

This is so they can invest further in blockchain technology, AI, and cloud for games. I do think improved AI and cloud technology will be a big asset to video games if infrastructure improves enough. I really am not that hot about games on the blockchain though.

I have to ask, did the main offices in Japan even give a shit about their Eidos products beyond being a moneymaking scheme? You'd think such a robust lineup would have some crossover appeal, but apparently adding a Final Fantasy poster into Deus Ex was too much of a hassle as is. Or was it more like Sega where each branch barely even acknowledges each other?

Had to check to see if Squeenix was selling Dungeon Siege, too, but no. They've dug up the Dungeon Siege corpse and are turning it into a float for an NFT laden meta-game parade.

Except for a while there Square's western output was regularly outselling Final Fantasy.

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/square-enix-won-t-spend-cash-from-300-million-studio-sale-on-blockchain-projects

"Square Enix has explained that cash from the sale of key studios and franchises won't be used to fund blockchain initiatives.

The Japanese company recently sold three key studios including Crystal Dynamics and Eidos-Montreal to Embracer for $300 million and suggested the proceeds would be used, in part, to move forward with investments in fields "including blockchain, AI, and the cloud."

Now, however, the company has dialled back those sentiments and instead says it will use the funds to bolster its development capabilities, echoing remarks it made last month.

"Rather than using the proceeds from the divestiture in new investment domains such as NFT and blockchain, we intend to use them primarily to fund our efforts to foster solid IP and to enhance our development capabilities in our core Digital Entertainment segment," explained the company in a financial briefing.

Further outlining the rationale behind the Embracer deal, Square Enix said the primary purpose of the transaction was to reorient its portfolio with a view to "stepping up our offering of online titles that we develop for the North American and the European market."

"We want to focus on creating new titles that align with our strategy, including ones that leverage new IP," added the company. "In addition to reorienting our portfolio, we will also enhance our publishing function.""

Wonder if in the course of this sudden turnaround they also considered going to ask Embracer if the purchase could be called off.

Considering they've been hemorrhaging money for so long, I can't see them backing out of the Embracer deal, it may be too far along to cancel anyway.

As for changing direction, "reorienting portfolio with a view towards online Western/European markets" sounds like the opposite of what I want to see from Squeenix...

Incoming microtransactions factory?