I do not usually write in forums but this would be the best news for the gamer who cannot afford an ultra pc to play his games, but who can buy games and a great support between both platforms with pro-consumer philosophies. It would also be a very smart move against companies that only care about money and not the consumer.

I sincerely hope not.

Not only is it meant to segue into a pure games as a streaming service
(Streaming meaning that you don't own or have control over your games),
but in its current configuration, you can't play more than an hour at a time with a low-priority access to their servers.
You would have to pay an additional monthly fee just to be able to play games you spent money on already
(For games you knew your machine couldn't handle..).

I hope games as a service comes back and bites them all in the rear.

geez, you can make distinct between purchase and a subscription to a entertainment network right?

the whole DRM discussion is not applicable in any way..

and some of those streaming services offer to stream the games you own completely legal in stunning 4k.....

again drm rights are really of no concern since you agree to make use of a media that will allow you too with of course the dreaded i'm connected to the internet connection.

of course this discussion needs to be aired now and then and personally i don't understand from what base these people are coming, with geforce now already available through.. well you know geforce now and with almost any game gog offers available ( if you have bought the game on steam that is or origin or etc etc ) and is supported by nvidia

anyways the other question is very simple to answer

How could this work ? you ask

Well this can work since nvidia atm only recognizes those games supported by nvidia hence geforce now only needs to have its confirmation of ownership so the game can be made available to you online, no need for drm shit or whatever.

do you have it ? yes ? oke then you can stream it

I think you confuse Geforce Now with Google Stadia. Geforce is more or less a virtual PC that is streamed to you. You can play games you own on Steam unless companies block this (like 2k/Gearbox/Borderlands for example). So you just get to play games you already own on a hardware platform you might otherwise not be able to afford.

This would perfectly fit in with Gog and anti-DRM since it has absolutely nothing to do with owning/not owning the game, in fact I would even say that not supporting this option is pretty anti-cosumer.

If you want that functionality use steam. There is really no need to make all stores look identical. And if you can’t afford a computer that runs 90% of the games here, how do you expect to even open them from a stream? Let’s waste the latest update to the internet speeds by gimmick it out stream from rentware stores, great idea!

Authentification/confirmation of the games you own on GoG and therefore could theoretically be streamable likely isn't that easy to do, both on the technical side of things and without severely violating the DRM-free core value.

For all we know it might require Galaxy for this to work, and you know what a large portion of GoG's userbase would have to say about that.

The whole idea of streaming comes from not having and not being able to/not wanting to afford a high-end rig. And no, "if you want that functionality use steam" misses the point entirely..

Streaming does _not_ need much power on the client side (otherwise there would be no business case, don't you think?), quite the contrary: you can go pretty low-end and still have a good experience, but yes, a reasonably fast internet connection is necessary. I don't get it - how would this violate your games from being DRM free? Could you elaborate that point a little more? You still could use/copy/play/modify and do whatever you like with them like before. You only would get the additional option to stream them over another service.

About the "Galaxy would be necessary" part - yes, I agree, that might be true, and that would be to only bad part, at least for me.

Depends on which definition of DRM you subscribe to, I guess.

For me, Galaxy, as well as any other client software, mandatory or optional, is a form of DRM.
If Galaxy would be required for this streaming thing to work, it would then obviously violate GoG's DRM-free core value too, albeit "just" indirectly. By allowing a third party-service, that relies on DRM to work, on the platform.

Allowing it nonetheless would effectively split GoG's userbase and cause a shitstorm of world-shattering proportions.
Both scenarios that GoG would surely want to avoid.

Gog and geforce now... what? Gog and geforce now eat toast? Gog and geforce now travel to Spain? Gog and geforce now run on the beach? What are Gog and geforce supposed to do now?

Ok, maybe we define DRM-free differently. For me it is in the most essential way described as "i bought it, i can run it wherever I like, however I like, whenever I like.". Part of the "wherever I like" would also be "run it on any virtual platform and stream the hell out of if" if that would be my thing (which it isn't).

Making Galaxy mandatory for the streaming (and !only! for the streaming) would restrict my freedom (again, I don't use streaming) in no way. So why would I be against the possibility that other people could use it for playing something like, say the Witcher 3 for example, a game that simply does not run enjoyable (if at all) on their rig natively. I still can do whatever I want with my games - why would i want to lessen their fun and freedom to do whatever they like with their games?

How would this split GOG's userbase? The analogy of playing your stuff on your friend's PC comes to mind. Why would this cause a shitstorm?

If we were talking about a shop/streaming system like Google Stadia, i would agree 100% with you, but this has nothing to do with it.

I don't know - assuming that this streaming bollocks would be coming to GoG a portion of the userbase might expect or feel entitled to this to work without Galaxy too?
And feel left behind/not treated equally upon the realization/confirmation that Galaxy would definitely be required?

The resulting pent-up aggravation usually discharges in form of a veritable caca-cyclone.
Like it has a couple of times in the past, with the one accompanying the bundling of Galaxy with the offline installers being one of the most memorable.

Not happening because it would go against GOG's DRM Free policy they have. Also not everyone has super fast Internet that can support online/cloud streaming in order for it to function properly and have a quality gaming experience. Cloud gaming is years away from becoming a quality way of playing games if it ever does. Also if you lose your Internet connection for a day then you wouldn't be able to play your games. Thanks but no thanks this method will NEVER work because I would like some control when I can play or can't play my games.

I wouldn't say the streaming would come to Gog - it hasn't come to steam either. It's the other way around - GoG would come to Geforce like Steam did at least from the customer's perspective. I never saw an ad or even any information about Geforce Now on Steam, but i might have simply missed it, of course.

And to be honest - since the games on Gog are DRM free, there would be no good reason to enforce the use of Galaxy there either (again: customer's freedom). There are other streaming services out there which provide you with a virtual PC on which you could install software whichever way you like - nobody would expect that Galaxy would be enforced there, so why should it on Geforce Now? Simply run a browser in the virtual PC, log in on Gog and download the offline installer and run it - problem solved.

I could understand any aggravation if this would by any kind of the usual "software as a service" bullshit, but it isn't, it's more like "hardware as a service" which is a completely different kind of beast without the restrictions to user-freedom. And as far as i have seen, the Gog userbase is usually pretty friendly compared to the toxic steam forums, so i have good hopes that the shitstorm will pass us maybe this time. :)

Again - why would this go against "DRM free"? Your games - you play them where you like and in which way you like - that is what DRM free means, at least to me.

Not everybody has a super fast rig - that doesn't stop GOG from selling games with high hardware requirements - and why should it?

Cloud gaming has come pretty far, as long as your internet connection is reasonable. (50 MBit downstream is usually more than enough) when have you tried it the last time?

A prognosis like something will NEVER work is pretty strong and sounds a lot like "640k ought to be enough for everybody" - how can you be so sure? Also, this isn't a thing for you, i get it (it isn't a thing for me either), but why not let others use it?