While Steam continues to do well with it being the most popular games store, it seems CD PROJEKT Group's store GOG is really starting to struggle.
CD PROJEKT recently released their latest financial results, along with a call with investors that went over how the whole business is doing. It's not all bad news for them, since they saw overall 38% more sales revenue compared to the third quarter of last year. On the GOG side though, it posted increasing losses and so it's going to be restructured.
Over the current year to date it appears GOG has seen losses of about $2.21 million, which is pretty bad considering the 1.37 million they gained during the same period last year.
They've said that GOG "should focus more on its core business activity - which means offering a handpicked selection of games with its unique DRM- free philosophy" and so there's going to be some changes to the GOG team, with some moving over instead to CD PROJEKT RED. Additionally, they've "initiated reorganization of GOG’s operations" to focus on the "core business" and they're hoping this will "improve its financial effectiveness in 2022".
It's not really surprising, when you think that Epic Games continue to desperately try and turn a profit by pulling more customers to their store and even they don't expect to turn a profit until at least 2024.
Quoting: PitWell, I hope everyone here is aware that the problems GOG has have absolutely zero to do with the (non)existence of a Linux client. The percentage of Linux users there is unlikely much different from the Steam one, and a 1% unhappy customers won't cause such a loss....True enough. I think people are just sort of saying "I know I ought to be upset about the no-DRM store having problems, but this is why, from a Linux perspective, I don't much care."
Quoting: kuhpunktEven if true - it still has nothing to do with your claim that Valve lowered the fees for big publishers. They didn't. They still have a 30%/70% share.
Fine. I'm out.
Last edited by Mal on 2 December 2021 at 12:14 am UTC
Quoting: kuhpunktQuoting: MalOh come on. Don't point the exception to the rule and call it the norm. :D
Even if true - it still has nothing to do with your claim that Valve lowered the fees for big publishers. They didn't. They still have a 30%/70% share.
But they did. In 2018, they reduced their fees for big publishers (technically any game over $10M sales is reduced). What am I missing here?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition
Edit:
Wait, just re-read - are you (kuhpunkt) suggesting that it's technically not a price reduction for big publishers because like 2 indies managed to make $10M of sales!?!
Haha - okay then. Yeah, I'm with Mal. They reduced their prices for big publishers, make no mistake. The fact that a couple of indie lottery winners benefited as well is of no relevance. It was done to appease the big guns and honestly, it's probably the only reason we're seeing Origin games back on Steam. I also believe it's the only reason we're seeing some Sony titles on there too. Their motivation here was clear. I'm gobsmacked you're arguing such a technicality.
Last edited by scaine on 1 December 2021 at 11:59 pm UTC
Quoting: scaineQuoting: kuhpunktQuoting: MalOh come on. Don't point the exception to the rule and call it the norm. :D
Even if true - it still has nothing to do with your claim that Valve lowered the fees for big publishers. They didn't. They still have a 30%/70% share.
But they did. In 2018, they reduced their fees for big publishers (technically any game over $10M sales is reduced). What am I missing here?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition
Edit:
Wait, just re-read - are you (kuhpunkt) suggesting that it's technically not a price reduction for big publishers because like 2 indies managed to make $10M of sales!?!
Haha - okay then. Yeah, I'm with Mal. They reduced their prices for big publishers, make no mistake. The fact that a couple of indie lottery winners benefited as well is of no relevance. It was done to appease the big guns and honestly, it's probably the only reason we're seeing Origin games back on Steam. I also believe it's the only reason we're seeing some Sony titles on there too. Their motivation here was clear. I'm gobsmacked you're arguing such a technicality.
It's not a technicality. There is a 30%/70% cut for everybody. If they had reduced the fees for big publishers like you say, they would have a 20%/80% cut as a default. That is not the case. How can you claim that they reduced the fees when they didn't?
If anything, you could say that they introduced a tiered system that favors big publishers - but they still have to earn that higher tier.
Last edited by kuhpunkt on 2 December 2021 at 8:05 am UTC
Quoting: PitThen Humble. OK, they're not dead, they still lurk around like a Zombie, selling Steam keys. Pitiful fate for a former spearhead of DRM-free and platform-independent gaming....
Slightly OT - This change didn't happen because of Steam actually, Humble sold themselves to IGN in late ~2017 which is when things started to change with them.
Quoting: dibzQuoting: PitThen Humble. OK, they're not dead, they still lurk around like a Zombie, selling Steam keys. Pitiful fate for a former spearhead of DRM-free and platform-independent gaming....
Slightly OT - This change didn't happen because of Steam actually, Humble sold themselves to IGN in late ~2017 which is when things started to change with them.
Fair point, indeed. Although it had started earlier already, more Steam-only stuff etc. After IGN the downhill went into a free fall .
And of course (OK, IMHO) it was a consequence of / reaction to the competition from Steam. If only because developers lost interest....
Quoting: PitAnd of course (OK, IMHO) it was a consequence of / reaction to the competition from Steam. If only because developers lost interest....
Yeah I don't agree with that, but (OK, IMHO too) I think it was more a matter of the market flooding with indie bundles from them and others. The quality of games dropped substantially, and it didn't take long for people to get sick of their libraries filling up with, how do I put this, "crap". Humble and others did take steps to combat this issue, once people stopped buying bundles because they were bundles, by breaking them out into individual keys once purchased; however, even then people were and still do get turned off by just having an abundance of junk keys.
I know whenever someone brags about the size of the libraries, someone always asks (pretty quickly) how much of it is junk from indie bundles. And they're usually not wrong either.
It's unfortunate that that stigma regarding junk keys was created, because I'm sure there are legitimately good or even great indie games that get passed over due to immediately looking like bundle filler and never being given a chance. Especially since sometimes they are junk bundle filler.
Quoting: kuhpunktIt's not a technicality. There is a 30%/70% cut for everybody. If they had reduced the fees for big publishers like you say, they would have a 20%/80% cut as a default. That is not the case. How can you claim that they reduced the fees when they didn't?Oh come on. If for a given group, their games get deal X 99% of the time, and 99% of the games getting deal X belong to that group, who was deal X made for?
Sure, this way it's future proofed for if someone else comes along and joins the group. And the deal has significantly better optics than "Companies A, B, C and D pay 20% and everyone else pays 30%". But the point of the policy was to appease the big publishers, not to give a bonus to indies with a flash in the pan.
Last edited by sudoer on 2 December 2021 at 6:37 pm UTC
"GOG: DRM-free games from a company that seemingly doesn't give two shits about Linux gaming."
"STEAM: DRM-filled games from a company that actively promotes Linux gaming."
See more from me