I will admit I shouldn't have put off the idea of making an optional client as a bad one so quickly. I think I was worried due to the way the PR guy seemed stuff like, "We knew we couldn't stick with old games forever, so we started adding new games." Well that's true you can't stick only with old games forever, but as someone here for the good old games I felt a little bit thrown under the bus by what I felt was kind of dismissive of the g.o.g. fans. Maybe I was reading too much into that, though.
The problem comes when GOG emulates Steam to the point where it effectively becomes known as "that store that's trying to be Steam #2" or something like that. Generally, from a marketing point of view, it's not
worth trying to be everything to everybody; you're better off specializing in one particular area. I think GOG has succeeded because, online, it has become known as a curator of DRM-free old games not easily available legally. (There is room for debate on whether DRM-free or old games helped the most.) If GOG starts bringing in Steam features like crazy, it may "muddy the waters", or make it difficult to distinguish between the two in gamers' minds. I think, starting out at least, many gamers here would be unhappy because GOG would be bringing in features they were trying to get away
from (social network-esque stuff, pop-up achievements that break immersion, etc.), and Steam users probably wouldn't migrate over anyways because all their friends are on Steam already, so why change now.
But of course this is all speculation, and I could be flat-out wrong. I had one single advertising class in university, which hammered home the importance of focus in business rather than broadness. Maybe if GOG hammers home how all this is optional, they might be able to keep most people happy. If in early 2014, GOG says they signed one of the Big 3 or ZeniMax, and starts bringing more classics from current big-name publishers again (aside from EA), my worry will have been bullshit anyway.