GOG.com

[Siobhan]

They should have organically grown their supply without diluting their brand, e.g. by bringing in Amiga games. It made sense to branch out a bit into indies since there's some overlap with the classic gaming audience and you get a steady supply of new products. But as always with GOG, the execution was haphazard and I think they went too far down that particular rabbit hole. Now their store is this odd melange of classic games, indies that mimic that style, and indie stuff that's just indie to the max. They stopped investing into the classic gaming side, but have little else to set them apart --- they're definitely not the go-to indie store where you can satisfy all your indie cravings. And it's just odd that they rejected various dungeon crawlers but have things like Corpse Party 2. I have no idea if that game is any good, but it's an example of how their "curated" catalog has produced this odd thing where it's no longer clear what their brand identity is, what they're trying to excel at. It feels like they lost sight of their original strategy and are now in a spot where they have two very different product portfolios, both too big to be phased out, neither one well-positioned for future growth.

 

[DalekFlay]

They should have organically grown their supply without diluting their brand, e.g. by bringing in Amiga games. It made sense to branch out a bit into indies since there's some overlap with the classic gaming audience and you get a steady supply of new products. But as always with GOG, the execution was haphazard and I think they went too far down that particular rabbit hole. Now their store is this odd melange of classic games, indies that mimic that style, and indie stuff that's just indie to the max. They stopped investing into the classic gaming side, but have little else to set them apart --- they're definitely not the go-to indie store where you can satisfy all your indie cravings. And it's just odd that they rejected various dungeon crawlers but have things like Corpse Party 2. I have no idea if that game is any good, but it's an example of how their "curated" catalog has produced this odd thing where it's no longer clear what their brand identity is, what they're trying to excel at. It feels like they lost sight of their original strategy and are now in a spot where they have two very different product portfolios, both too big to be phased out, neither one well-positioned for future growth.

I think their market identity for a long time now has just been "DRM FREE!" Which is a shit marketing identity because other than a handful of weirdos like me no one really fucking cares. Now they're trying to make Galaxy 2.0 "one client to rule them all" their market identity, which people do seem to care about. Enough to leave Steam though? I doubt it.

 

[Fronzel Neekburm]

"DRM FREE!" Which is a shit marketing identity because other than a handful of weirdos like me no one really fucking cares.

It also seems to have bitten them in the ass in the long run. Not the DRM-free stance per se, but them making a big fuzz about it. Take the Epic Store for instance: I think it's safe to say that about 90% of the games they've given away were DRM-free, including a good number of big games from major publishers which aren't even sold on gog (the Batman Arkham games being a good example). Publishers seem either oblivious or indifferent about their games being DRM-free on other storefronts, whereas gog immediately raises the "muh piracy" red flag.

Now they're trying to make Galaxy 2.0 "one client to rule them all" their market identity, which people do seem to care about. Enough to leave Steam though? I doubt it.

Even if the users make Galaxy their default client: What's the point? Sure, it might attract new users, but those will still have to purchase most of their new releases on Steam, since gog ain't getting them or are retarded enough to reject them.

 

[Lacrymas]

They might put ads in the client and they'll probably do that. As for GOG's continued expansion, no idea, they don't seem to have an idea either since it has looked like they just throw everything on the wall and see what sticks for a while now, but nothing seems to stick as well as, you know, getting good old games to run on new systems and hardware. I'm glad they also got the indie crowd, but it's indeed oversaturated with random games with no quality control whatsoever. Refusing to "stock" Grimoire is a travesty.

 

[DalekFlay]

It also seems to have bitten them in the ass in the long run. Not the DRM-free stance per se, but them making a big fuzz about it. Take the Epic Store for instance: I think it's safe to say that about 90% of the games they've given away were DRM-free, including a good number of big games from major publishers which aren't even sold on gog (the Batman Arkham games being a good example). Publishers seem either oblivious or indifferent about their games being DRM-free on other storefronts, whereas gog immediately raises the "muh piracy" red flag.

It's definitely interesting Epic doesn't add any DRM of their own and no one seems to care much. I've read endless whining from developers about having to create client-free versions and patches for GOG, so maybe that has more to do with it than DRM nowadays. Hard to say.

 

[Lacrymas]

They also lack a lot of actually good old games and the community wishlist is overflowing with suggestions. Why don't they get things like Armies of Exigo and Lords of Everquest? I keep a copy of them on my PC because I'm sure I won't be able to find them again if I lose them. I'd also suggest the Lord of the Rings games, the Sims 1, Resident Evil 1/2/3 (but maybe they have rights issues with all of those), No One Lives Forever, the Black & Whites (even though I've always found them a bit meh), Dungeon Siege, etc.

 

[Endemic]

No One Lives Forever.

NOLF is stuck in licensing hell. It's been mentioned before on this thread: https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/gog-com.69065/page-381#post-6006910

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

There's still a lot of really good old games to be released, but I think the "licensing problems" is just a convenient excuse for them more often then not and they're just not that interested anymore. The fact that there are series where some games were released long time ago, but there is no sign of others is a bit of a giveaway (like most Generals, but not Star or People's).

They can still positively surprise from time to time (Wizards and Warriors!), but overall they aren't even trying to hide that it's not about good old games anymore and they see bad new games as a preferable alternative.

 

[Morkar Left]

This curator thing is bullshit. Honestly let the customers decide what is good and what isn't and provide the customer with a good software and filters to let him look up the catalogue himself. If they want to curate something they should just make sure that it's on their portfolio. Maybe highlight good games with reviews from customers, make some special lists ("influential games with choices and consequences" or whatever) and highlight this in some news.

Still curious about gog galaxy 2.0 but somehow the beta didn't run for me. Since I had to reinstall galaxy v1 to play my games again I'm not gambling here with my time and just wait.

 

[Azalin]

Hmm,just got an email from gog for newsletter subscribers that includes a "mini game" with secret discounts for Bloostained,Grim Dawn,Blasphemous,Diablo abd Hollow Knight,eiach one 5 % better than it's available during the normal sale,so anyone interested should check their emails before buying

 

[Tiger]

Witcher 1 and 2 for £3.58. Bargain.

 

[DalekFlay]

There's still a lot of really good old games to be released, but I think the "licensing problems" is just a convenient excuse for them more often then not and they're just not that interested anymore.

Then why do they make such a big deal about it when they do get a new classic, like Star Wars Racer? You guys vastly underestimate the licensing issue is for old games. It's a big deal.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Then why do they make such a big deal about it when they do get a new classic, like Star Wars Racer?

I'm fairly sure it's a more effective marketing strategy than making a small deal out of your release.

 

[DalekFlay]

I'm fairly sure it's a more effective marketing strategy than making a small deal out of your release.

The point is they hyped and marketed that sucker like crazy with a splash page on the main site and everything. If they "weren't interested" as you say, they would have just dumped it out and heavily promoted something else. The simple fact is almost all the classics people usually list in their "can't believe GOG won't release this!" lists have licensing or technical issues. You can deny that if you want, but it only makes you look silly.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

The feck are you on about? Literally no one, anywhere, ever denied the licencing issues that games have. But if you think old classics are a focus for them now then, yeah... don't even know why you bother posting.

Also lol at the technical issues - as if that ever stopped them from releasing a game.

 

[DalekFlay]

The feck are you on about? Literally no one, anywhere, ever denied the licencing issues that games have.

...

There's still a lot of really good old games to be released, but I think the "licensing problems" is just a convenient excuse for them more often then not and they're just not that interested anymore.

 

[Siobhan]

Those aren't necessarily contradictory statements. Depending on one's interpretation, the second one acknowledges that licensing issues exist to varying degrees and then contends that GOG isn't particularly heartbroken about that because they no longer view this as their core product line and it gives them an easy out. Rather than going all in and trying every trick in the book, they have a few folks working on it on the side and if it works out they'll of course milk it for all its worth. Might be true, might be not, but it's perfectly compatible with what we see on the customer side.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

The feck are you on about? Literally no one, anywhere, ever denied the licencing issues that games have.

There's still a lot of really good old games to be released, but I think the "licensing problems" is just a convenient excuse for them more often then not and they're just not that interested anymore.

What exactly don't you understand? They ain't really interested in releasing old games so they can just pull "licensing hell" card and be done with it. That doesn't mean I'm denying titles like Raven catalogue have licensing problems, which is a fact. Isn't English your first language? You really seem to be trying to come off as super thick at times.

 

[DalekFlay]

What exactly don't you understand? They ain't really interested in releasing old games so they can just pull "licensing hell" card and be done with it. That doesn't mean I'm denying titles like Raven catalogue have licensing problems, which is a fact. Isn't English your first language? You really seem to be trying to come off as super thick at times.

To me saying that "licensing issues are an excuse" and "no one denies licensing is an issue" are pretty fucking contradictory, but hey what the hell do I know. In any case if you don't think GOG would love to sell NOLF and would promote it heavily like they did Star Wars Racer, I don't know what to tell you. Of course they fucking would. They can't though, and can't for others like it, so instead they focus on indies and the few AAA scraps they're allowed to have. This isn't fucking complicated, honestly.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

It's not contradictory if you're not saying both situations apply to the same game. Like how some lazy worker who pushed your request to the bottom of the pile might say "oh, you know, bureaucracy" when you ask them why it's taking so long for them to answer it, knowing you'll probably accept it because bureaucracy is a real problem and a likely cause.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

To me saying that "licensing issues are an excuse" and "no one denies licensing is an issue" are pretty fucking contradictory, but hey what the hell do I know.

Dude, I don't know what to tell you. The fact that an issue can be a convenient excuse doesn't mean you, or anyone else, is denying the issue exists. Like when some stupid girl at a bar asks you to drive her home and you're happy to reply "I don't have a car" doesn't mean you're saying "I don't want to have a car". Why are we having this discussion? Wtf is happening here?

They can't though, and can't for others like it, so instead they focus on indies and the few AAA scraps they're allowed to have.

Suuure, just like they can't release old-school crpgs that actually follow up on the good old games they so love, so they need to focus on animu flash games instead. Oh, wait. Or how it's completely impossible to release game from series/publishers they've already worked with and have in their catalog etc. etc. Also, stop writing stupid shit like I said it. Of course they would release NOLF (or Myth or Warlords or whatever) if it was easy and cheap. Doesn't change the fact that their current strategy is focused on modern titles with good old games as an afterthought.

 

[Infinitron]

I think it's likely that GOG are no longer prioritizing bringing back legacy titles as much as they used to. However, it's possible that a Nightdive Studios-style operation could get additional old games released on GOG by doing their work for them. Remember, in the end all it took to bring back System Shock 2 was to actually do the work of contacting and reaching an arrangement with the insurance company that owned the rights. All those years the problem was just that nobody had bothered to get off his ass and do it. I'm sure that there are all sorts of lesser-known games that could be brought back in the same way.

 

[Dux]

As long as it's the proper old game that's brought back and not some abomination with a HQ2x filter slapped on it.

 

[Curratum]

Both GOG and NightDive can suck an egg, just BECAUSE of SSHock 2. When the game released on GOG, it was advertised everywhere as a GOG exclusive. A few months later it came to Steam. The same shit happened with multiple other titles - releasing with "EXCLUSIVELY ON GOG" banners, then coming to Steam a little later. I've still not bought Diablo 1 on GOG because I know it will come to Steam in a couple of months.

 

[Infinitron]

I've still not bought Diablo 1 on GOG because I know it will come to Steam in a couple of months.

Hmmm, I wouldn't be so sure. The general trend seems to be that the small Nightdive-style operations whose entire business model is based on rereleasing old games quickly release their games on Steam and everywhere else. But the big publishers who have a back catalog of legacy games often release them only on GOG.