If GOG finally allowed people to transfer their purchases from

>basically everyone owns almost all of their games on Steam; a single client for purchasing and updating games
>buying games on GOG while already owning Steam games would mean running two clients, which people care more about than GOG's anti-DRM policy
>allowing people to link a Steam account to a GOG account would mean they could have all their games on the GOG client
Is GOG just stupid?
I asked them about this, and they gave a pretty neutral response saying they weren't planning any such feature.
It's an extremely good feature, it could fucktuple their market share within months: The only reasons for not doing it are if it's illegal, or if you're stupid.

File: idiot.jpg (116KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1280x720px

>>387998565
>Because I know that's exactly the reason I don't use GOG.
>why doesn't publisher Z let me use their service for product X in their library if I already bought it from publisher Y
You're an idiot.

>>387999137
>supporting third-party purchases is dumb
This is the attitude that kills a lot of products.

A company gets greedy and thinks they can force people to spend more on their product by not having their product support stuff that their customers already bought from other companies.

What instead happens is their product gets laughed at, because if the customer buys that product, they have to do one of two things:
>keep the old thing that the new product was intended to replace, so they can keep using what the old product was compatible with
>re-purchase lots of things for their new product
They're both terrible options.

>>388000302
Except we're not talking about physical products where power connectors might be different, we're talking about videogame purchase and download service. Publisher needs a license to provide service for one videogame, creating a library even half the size of steam would be lenghty and costly process, for what? For a fag who thinks he's priviledged to download bought game from any service just because it's convenient for him? Service provider different from the one you bought from will never see your money, there's no reason for them go lengths for your convenience.

>>387998565
That's already a thing with GOG Connect though. Unfortunately it's limited time only and a limited selection of games, but I'd much rather use GOG than Steam these days.

>>387998565
So you are not using GOG, because you are not using GOG?
That's the logic loop that comes from your statement.

>>388001781
>no reason
I just explained the reason.
It's literally the only way to break the Steam's monopoly.

Your thinking is overly-capitalistic, which ironically prevents you from seeing what a clever businessman would do.
You're making simple associations such as "giving support for something someone paid for elsewhere" = bad.
It's actually good, because that attracts customers.

Sure, GOG doesn't have all the games Steam does, but to let users have copies of games they already bought on Steam would be a start.

>>387998565
>2017
>Using Steam
Why?

No, seriously, why? It was never good, but got memed into "good" around 2012. Then the fuck huge mass of people realised it's shit and everyone flaked away around 2015.

And here you are, wondering why Shop A doesn't let you take things from it if you already bought them in Shop B.
Retardation: Expert Level

>>387999114
Or maybe because Steam wouldn't want it?
Thought about that, genius?

>>387998565
Do you walk away taking things from shelf in WalMart, because you already bought that same object through Amazon?

Are you just pretending or genuinely this stupid?

>>387999114
You clearly haven't asked them because they already do this, but it comes down directly to whether or not the devs of the games will let them.
Currently the only method they have is allowing it for certain games for a limited amount of time.
Also gog doesn't need a fucking client to run the games you mong.

File: 800.png (146KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 625x626px

>I'm retarded and you are paying attention to me: The Thread

I don't see how this would be possible. When a store like Steam sells a game, it's providing a license for a fraction of the game's cost while giving the developer/publisher the rest. GoG would have to issue completely new licenses and pay for those licenses completely out of their own pocket. It would bankrupt them. The only other way would be to contact every game company hand have them make the licenses usable on GoG, but they have no reason to do so at the cost of possible duplicate sales.

>>388002701
This.
I only use steam to talk to friends now, or play something once a week.
Meanwhile I have lots of GoG games, emulators, a hacked 3ds, and pirated vidya that I play way more often than anything on steam

>>388002701
The most common steamfaggot on here is the one who buys games when they cost a penny and has thousands of them in his backlog, but played only a few at most.
They won't ever leave Steam because muh backlog.

>>388002701
>>388002920
>paraphrasing something poorly lets me call it retarded
There's literally no reason not to provide support for third-party purchases, if you're legally allowed to.

There's a roughly 0% chance that someone will re-purchase the same thing from you if they switch to your service.
There's a substantial chance though that someone will not switch to your service because you don't provide support for their third party purchases.

Which is exactly what GOG suffers from.

>>388003156
>providing a license for a fraction of the game's cost
If I could move my entire Steam library to GoG for a tenth of what I paid for it, I happily would.

>possible duplicate sales
lolno
Someone migrating their Steam library to GoG is probably doing so out of protest, which implies that they have a lot of free time on their hands if they're getting into vidya politics, which implies they're not so rich that they're going to repurchase their games.