GOG's Founder is Back: Is This Good News... or a Disaster?

BLUF: GOG's recent reacquisition by co-founder Michaś Kiciński signals a potential, yet concerning, strategic pivot towards game publishing. While Kiciński stresses GOG's unique values and current priorities, our analysis suggests this move could dilute the platform's long-standing, community-first ethos and create a slippery slope towards conflict of interest within its own digital storefront.

As veteran gamers, we've watched the digital distribution landscape evolve – from the early wild west to the modern, highly consolidated platforms. GOG, or Good Old Games, has always carved out a vital, almost sacred, niche: a haven for DRM-free titles, a champion of game preservation, and a direct counter-narrative to the always-online mandates that dominate much of the industry. So, when news broke that CD Projekt Red sold GOG back to its original co-founder, Michaś Kiciński, at the end of last year, our ears perked up. This wasn't just a corporate shuffle; it was a move with serious implications for a platform many of us hold dear.

The initial read was optimistic: Kiciński, a founding father of CD Projekt itself, would likely steer GOG back to its roots, focusing on its core value proposition of sprucing up classics and ensuring every title remains unencumbered by DRM. This, we believed, would be a much-needed buff to a service that sometimes feels overshadowed by its more aggressive competitors.

The Publishing Gambit: A Dangerous Tightrope Walk

However, a recent interview with Eurogamer has thrown a significant wrench into that comforting narrative. Kiciński, who is also a co-owner of indie publishing house Retrovibe, explicitly shared his interest in evolving GOG into a publishing business.

While Kiciński rightly stresses that a formal decision on publishing is still up for discussion and that GOG's immediate priority is to enhance its current offerings, we see a potential for a critical misstep here. GOG's strength has always been its neutrality, its commitment to being a platform for *all* developers who embrace the DRM-free ethos, not a competitor to them.

Our Concerns: Dilution and Disadvantage

Our decades of experience in this industry have taught us that when a platform owner becomes a publisher, conflicts of interest are not just possible; they become almost inevitable. We can vividly envision a future where:

• Preferential Treatment: GOG-published titles could receive prime real estate on the storefront's homepage, in newsletters, or during promotional events, overshadowing equally deserving, DRM-free titles from other publishers and developers that rely on GOG for distribution. This isn't just an "icky" thought; it's a direct disadvantage to the very partners GOG needs to thrive.
• Value Proposition Erosion: GOG's "unique values" and "special place on the market," as Kiciński himself noted, are built on trust and a perceived impartiality. Shifting into publishing, even for indie titles, fundamentally alters that dynamic. It signals a move away from being a pure curator and distributor to becoming a market player with its own stable of games.
• Resource Redirection: While Kiciński stated the current focus is on improving GOG's existing services, a publishing arm requires significant resources – talent, marketing spend, QA. Diverting attention and funds to this new venture, even if a long-term goal, could come at the expense of QoL updates or feature additions that would directly benefit all GOG users and partners.

Kiciński stated, "there is no need for any pivots or changes in philosophy or something like that." Yet, expanding into publishing is, by definition, a significant pivot in operational philosophy. While CD Projekt Red’s publishing activities were solely linked to their own juggernauts like The Witcher series and Cyberpunk 2077, GOG entering external publishing is a completely different beast. CDPR didn't need to compete with other publishers on its own store; GOG would.

We acknowledge that Kiciński has only recently taken the reins fully, and his immediate focus on strengthening GOG's existing foundations is commendable. The promise to build upon GOG's unique market position and loyal customer base, rather than changing too much, is a sentiment we wholeheartedly support. However, the flirtation with publishing introduces a fundamental tension into that promise.

Our hope, as dedicated followers of the gaming industry and long-time GOG users, is that immense thought and community feedback will precede any formal decision on publishing. GOG has cultivated a distinct identity and a deeply loyal player base precisely because it offered something different. We believe its future success lies not in becoming another publisher-distributor hybrid, but in doubling down on what truly makes it special: a truly DRM-free, community-focused platform that champions player choice and game preservation above all else. To compromise that would be, in our expert opinion, a substantial nerf to its most powerful stats.