Dray2k: Why do you even bother, you know the state of the forums (and its technological backend) hasen't really changed since 2009 or so. Legit criticism posted in this thread aside, I still feel that a lot of the technology behind this site is as outdated as some of the opinions many of the users of this board are expousing. I think its related to the infrastructure that is related to the general organisation of the site. The store doesn't need another revamp but anything related to it.

Its just speculation from my end but perhaps reaching out to other stores is also a way to compensate? Revamping an entire organisation is a huge effort after all (unless you're Apple or Twitch, then you're just a lazy fuck who is underpaying one dude to handle 99.9% of the entire backend of the business).

Let people bitch and moan over things 99.95% of the video game consuming population doesn't care about. If its too much for the moderation team to handle just move forth and close the thread. Its not like that users on here owe you anything after all, even if they're partially your core audience.

I support GOG even if they do "questionable" decisions simply because us as users don't fully know the context behind such moves. And to be fair and square, GOG.com is a clean company compared to the large ones like Apple, Google, all social media sites, MS, etc. It takes a long time (or a real lot of cash) to fully disregard your own core principles and I don't see GOG heading in such a direction. Not in a way that is fully obvious as of now at least.

GameN16bit: This only comes into play when the the game is on multiple stores including GOG, if GOG doesn't carry the game for whatever reason then this is a moot point really. And the entire issue GOG is having is they don't have enough users to justify releasing on GOG plus additional stores.... which brings us right back to what I said above about how getting more users is paramount with Galaxy then using marketing to encourage buying from GOG directly.

As I said, catch 22... you are making my point.

AB2012: I often wonder how people buy one or two games on GOG then claim to "struggle" to understand how to install them and yet simultaneously have no problem downloading and double clicking on GOG_Galaxy_2.0.exe,

SpikedWallMan: If GOG wants to "level the playing field" as you say, it's going to have to be through making a better product than Steam ...

SpikedWallMan: To be honest, it doesn't level the playing field. It just doesn't.

If GOG's game releases start looking exactly like Steam's DRM'd ones, I'll just move back to Steam because they have a larger library, often have better deals on games via key resellers and bundles, and overall seem more robust which means that there is a greater likelihood of the service staying open longer than GOG (thus making Steam a better value for my money). Similarly, if GOG's releases look exactly like Steam's, there is no incentive for anyone to move away from Steam since GOG has far fewer workshop/social features than Steam. (Not to mention GOG has a far smaller library.) In fact, I would hypothesize that even if GOG could achieve feature AND library parity with Steam tomorrow, and they would be nowhere close to the scale of Steam even after 3 years because people will still not see any reason to switch services. So right there GOG has completely thrown away most of its market advantage by dropping their DRM-free focus.

In addition, if GOG is banking on Galaxy 2.0 to make them as large as Steam, that is just an absurd notion. There are lots of people (Epic fans in particular, ironically) that don't mind multiple launchers because "it's just another free launcher", and there are also alternatives like Playnite/Launchbox which do the basically the same thing as Galaxy 2.0. So Galaxy 2.0's cross-platform management is not necessarily a "killer feature" either. If GOG goes all-in on the delusion that Galaxy 2.0's cross-platform integration and DRM will magically make them bigger than Steam, they're going to spend themselves right into oblivion trying to reach that goal. (And selling games from a weak store like Epic through Galaxy 2.0 will just push users away from GOG and thus make this goal harder to achieve.) Look at the other launchers out there: Origin, Uplay and Battle.net have been around for a long time and none of them are bigger than Steam. And they even make some (or all) of their own AAA games exclusive to their launchers and that STILL isn't enough to draw Steam users away and make those services as big as Steam. Also, even though the Epic launcher has been out for only a few years, they still aren't close to as big as Steam. (Partially because EGS is a new store which does not offer much other than just games and partially because their anti-consumer business practices simply turn people off.) Also, the idea of GOG actually making money off of Galaxy 2.0 makes me nervous because that seems like the type of weak "product" that won't make much money on its own unless GOG starts deploying very shady data-selling tactics. (Which is how similarly simplistic services like Facebook make their money.)

So, what can GOG do to still be competitive? (In my mind anyway...)

1. They can keep doing what they have been doing for the past 12 years: releasing classic games that have not seen a release in ages. This is the primary thing that lured me to GOG in the first place (and the DRM-free mission kept me here). So seeking out the rights to more niche games that Steam doesn't care about would be great. (Games like Blade Runner, Metal Gear, and Silent Hill are absolutely perfect examples of how GOG has achieved this spectacularly in the past year or so.) Keeping a community games wishlist is also an excellent idea, and I applaud GOG for going the extra mile to seek out the rights to release some of them.

2. They can double-down on their DRM-free mission. The state of DRM today is absolutely laughable. Even the "mighty" Denuvo gets cracked in a matter of days, and there is plenty of documentation online to support this claim. So more education on why paying for ineffective DRM is a waste of a developer's money, and what the long-term consequence of DRM is for consumers (point to SafeDisc and SecuRom for examples) would go a long way in showing why GOG is better than Steam.

3. They can target more releases for new AAA games on GOG. What GOG will probably need to do is start lobbying hard for AAA companies to drop their DRM and release DRM-free on GOG. This should not be hard to do for reasons described in the previous point. Another statistic that would be interesting to devs would how many DRM-free copies of new-ish games are re-purchased on GOG by people that already own these DRM'd games on Steam. (I'm sure that this would not be a hard statistic for GOG to acquire.) So it may take a little legwork to lobby like this, but it would all be part of cultivating a larger market.

4. Advertise, advertise, advertise. GOG is not huge because it is not well-known. One thing in particular wat to advertise that I can think of is participating in far more game bundles than GOG currently does. This is how lots of people build their Steam libraries. Also, a partnership with Humble Bundle would be perfect because they also used to support the DRM-free mission. (And maybe they still do?) So a Humble Indie Bundle with GOG keys would draw lots of people here. I believe that I have seen one GOG bundle on Humble Bundle and one on Fanatical, but that's all the GOG bundles I can remember. This is a HUGELY missed opportunity. If people build large GOG libraries through bundle purchases, then they will be more likely to come back to GOG for non-bundle purchases. I know lots of Steam users that started using Steam only because they started buying Humble Bundles, and now they buy lots of games directly from Steam. GOG needs to stop missing out on this marketing opportunity.

So that's my thoughts on the situation. If GOG wants to "level the playing field" as you say, it's going to have to be through making a better product than Steam or offering some sort of incentive to use the GOG platform. The all-in-one launcher philosophy is not going to be that incentive, IMO. If you only use Steam, then you're only using one launcher anyway so that's not going to do anything to grow the user base.

SpikedWallMan: 2. They can double-down on their DRM-free mission. The state of DRM today is absolutely laughable. Even the "mighty" Denuvo gets cracked in a matter of days, and there is plenty of documentation online to support this claim. So more education on why paying for ineffective DRM is a waste of a developer's money, and what the long-term consequence of DRM is for consumers (point to SafeDisc and SecuRom for examples) would go a long way in showing why GOG is better than Steam.

Breja: This is what they should have been doing all along. I know I'm not exactly a business expert by any stretch, but the fact they had a strong unique selling point, one that is very pro-consumer which is quite the distinction in this day and age, and instead of marketing the hell out of it they decided to push it aside and undermine it at every turn sounds like total insanity. Like literally, if a person brought this to me as their master plan I'd have them see a shrink.

GameN16bit: So your really arguing against optional additional value, which makes zero sense.

toxicTom: I also don't understand why GOG in all these years failed to capitalize on its USP, the DRM-free. Is the marketing apartment dead? There have been enough opportunities to show how DRM fucks people sideways, Games for Windows Live anyone? The stores that have died in the meantime? Forced content removals on Steam (GTA)?

They could have teamed up with initiatives like Defective by Design: https://defectivebydesign.org/ They could have worked with digital museums (do good things and talk about it), hosted or sponsored events. Take it to the hearts of people. Many gamers today are moms and dads - ask them if they want their children be able to experience the games they grew up with - and show how DRM prevents that.

toxicTom: What they did do was launch FCKDRM, and forget about it a few weeks later. Could have been a thing. You can't call for a DRM-free revolution and then go to sleep. But that's what they did. It's so sad.

Breja: There's so many people they could have teamed up with.

Breja: It's like they started it, and then realised they are advertising a revolution against the very thing they actually hope to become.

toxicTom: Yeah, that's really baffling. I know some people who are really into game preservation, have been in the media and everything. They certainly wouldn't have said no to a GOG cooperation.

toxicTom: I don't think they wanted to become a DRM store, a small-time Polish Steam. I was in contact with some people from the old staff, and they really were quite true to the DRM-free idea.
I do think GOG really lacks in ambition and direction. And that's a management issue. I don't know what going on there behind the scenes, but it can't be good. A few years ago, if I hadn't had family, I'd even considered working there - lots of cool people. Not anymore. And I guess there's a reason the old people went away, and the new staff - certainly friendly people too - are less... ambitious to "fraternise" with the users.

toxicTom: Sorry, I fail to see "additional value" here. The games are available on the EGS, why should I want to buy them through GOG's client? When the epic client still has to run to install and run the games?