Support us on Patreon
PayPalUpdate - 30/01/26 16:56 UTC - GOG answered the GamingOnLinux email about this and the GOG rep said: "At this time, we won't be able to comment publicly on our internal processes or tools. However, we’re aware of the conversations happening around this topic and the assumptions that can go with it.". I've pressed them further for a clearer statement on GOG's use of generative AI.
Original article below:
AI continues to be everywhere, and now it's appearing on the GOG store too most recently a big banner for their New Year Sale. In related news: GOG recently launched the GOG Patrons program to support them directly to revive classic games, and then they were acquired by one of the original co-founders.
More recent related news is that they're even looking to bring GOG Galaxy to Linux (finally!) with a new job opening - that link is quite relevant here now too since it notes one of the responsibilities is to "Actively use and promote AI-assisted development tools", and so this news could further derail a lot of good-will for GOG from customers to game developers.
A post on Reddit I spotted pointed out there seemed to be some AI generation on the GOG store page, and when you look at it properly - there's a lot of issues with it. Like how the console is just melting. Also a bit of an odd choice anyway, since they're a PC store - why feature a clearly Nintendo-styled old console? Here's the image currently in question:
One of the GOG team "KosmicznaPluskwa" ended up replying on the official GOG forum, with quite a wall of text styled ramble noting they're not a company spokesperson but they're replying on this "because I personally want to", and just before the rant they did confirm clearly "OK, so to clear the air - current sale banner is fully AI. Not my work. This is all I can say on this". As for their ramble, they clearly feel pretty strongly on this, so perhaps GOG are going to see some internal pushback on this.
I'll copy the end of their little ramble because it felt important:
Maybe it doesn't matter some store put out sloppy work on promo banner - in the end everyone is just there to buy the product - but I know I enjoy seeing cool new artworks out there, when I'm out to buy new products as well. When I buy a new cool figure I like to keep the box around if it's pretty - this is kind of the same, but on digital level. More cool art to see on top of buying art (video games in our case here) is always more cool art in the world and this is what I'm happy to have. So with everyone also feeling strongly in this thread - I'm with you. And continue speaking up - in the face of future we don't like to see, complacency is not the way.
Regardless of any thoughts on it one thing remains clear - the more AI generation is used for the little things "it's just this, it's just that!" - the more it will be accepted, and the more it will replace actual people. We'll see less actual art, less real intentional character in what we see - and more slop with melting consoles.
Not the best look for GOG. When you're a smaller store, one that has clearly struggled in the past, this kind of cost-cutting by replacing artists and marketing people with AI generation is probably not going to go over too well with the wider gaming community.
GOG have been contacted for a statement, I will update if they reply.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
See more from me
You can also find comments for this article on social media: 
wit_as_a_riddle 4 hours ago
Quoting: Purple Library GuyYou're still misrepresenting what I actually said, and that's the core issue here.Quoting: wit_as_a_riddleUh, yeah. Go look at what you said.Quoting: Purple Library GuyThat sounds like it makes sense, but it's ludicrous! The morally repugnant issue is sex with underage girls, spending money on it or not is irrelevant.Quoting: wit_as_a_riddleI find the moral indignation over what others do with their own hard earned money to be performative.That sounds like it makes sense, but it's ludicrous. So, Geoffrey Epstein spent his own hard earned money on sex with underage girls. I am morally indignant about that. Not you, though, that would be "performative".
Your point was that if people were spending "their own hard earned money" on something, that meant we shouldn't be morally indignant about it. This appeared to be an admonition completely independent of the content of what those people were doing with their "hard earned money". I pointed out the absurdity of this. You have just confirmed it--yes, whether someone spends "their own hard earned money" on something is in fact irrelevant to whether we should feel moral indignation about it. So, your initial statement was ludicrous.
My original statement:
"I find the moral indignation over what others do with their own hard earned money to be performative."
Nowhere did I say - or even imply - that *spending one's own money makes any action morally acceptable* or immune to criticism. That would be an absurd, blanket claim, and I never made it.
What I did say is that moral outrage directed specifically at how people spend their own money (on legal, consensual, victimless things - the qualification you seem to require, despite its obviousness) often feels performative - i.e., it's frequently more about signaling virtue, enforcing conformity, or expressing envy/disapproval of lifestyle choices than about addressing actual harm.
Your Epstein example doesn't refute that at all; it just changes the subject to something completely different. The moral horror in the Epstein case is *the rape and exploitation of children* - a serious crime with direct victims. That's not "what he did with his money" in any meaningful sense; it's felony sexual abuse. The money was merely the means/tool, not the morally relevant part. Condemning child rape isn't "indignation over what others do with their hard earned money" - it's indignation over *child rape*. Conflating the two is a deliberate sleight of hand.
To make your rebuttal work, you had to rewrite my position as something like:
"No one should ever feel moral indignation about anything purchased with one's own money, no matter how evil."
But that's a *straw man*. I never universalized it that way. The scope was always about personal spending choices that don't directly victimize others (luxury goods, adult entertainment, donations to controversial causes, etc.). You stripped out that implicit qualifier, replaced it with an extreme version that includes heinous crimes, then declared the whole thing "ludicrous." That's not engaging with what I said - it's manufacturing an easier target.
My logic remains perfectly consistent:
When the action itself is harmless / consensual / victimless, moral indignation about how someone spends *their own money* on it is often performative (status-signaling, puritanism, etc.).
When the action is harmful (especially criminal and victim-involving), then outrage is justified - and the fact that money changed hands is irrelevant to the moral assessment.
The distinction isn't hard to see unless you're intentionally blurring it. Either you are misreading or you are knowingly misleading.
How to setup OpenMW for modern Morrowind on Linux / SteamOS and Steam Deck
How to install Hollow Knight: Silksong mods on Linux, SteamOS and Steam Deck