If a platform existed that let you genuinely own your games, would you use it?
GOG offers a solution to the digital ownership problem and nobody cares. The platform sells DRM-free games you actually own. Download the installers, keep them forever, install them without online verification. If GOG closes tomorrow, your downloaded games still work because the files function independently. The ownership is genuine rather than licensed. GOG can’t revoke access because they never controlled it after you downloaded the files. The alternative exists. The market chose Steam anyway.
What DRM-Free Actually Means
DRM-free removes the authentication requirements, online checks, and platform lock-in that define modern digital distribution. GOG games download as standard installers—executable files that run the installation process. Run the installer, the game installs, play it without internet or accounts. The files are yours permanently like a physical disc would be. The ownership is genuine rather than theoretical.
The contrast with Steam is absolute. Steam requires the client for authentication, online verification for initial setup, and continuous service operation for the platform to function. GOG gives you files that work independently. Steam gives you licenses that require ongoing platform operation. GOG’s relationship with you ends at transaction completion. Steam’s relationship continues indefinitely because access depends on continued service.
If GOG shuts down tomorrow, your downloaded games still work. The installers sit on your hard drive or backup storage functioning exactly as they did when GOG operated. If Steam shuts down tomorrow, your entire library becomes inaccessible unless Valve implements some contingency plan for providing offline access. The difference is fundamental—GOG never controlled your access after download, so can’t revoke it. Steam always controls access, so closure eliminates it.
The Independence from CD Projekt
GOG separated from CD Projekt on December 29, 2025. Co-founder Michał Kiciński purchased 100% of the shares for approximately $25 million, making the platform independent after 17 years of being owned by CD Projekt. The stated reason was allowing GOG to focus on preservation and DRM-free distribution whilst CD Projekt concentrates on game development. The distribution agreement ensures CD Projekt games continue releasing on GOG despite the ownership separation.
The independence matters for GOG’s preservation mission. Being owned by a game developer created potential conflicts between GOG’s DRM-free principles and CD Projekt’s desire to maximize revenue through platform partnerships. The separation allows GOG to prioritize preservation over profit in ways that would have been difficult whilst answering to a parent company focused on development rather than distribution philosophy.
The purchase price of $25 million for a platform that’s operated for 17 years tells you everything about GOG’s market position. Steam is worth billions. Epic Games Store has billions in backing from Fortnite revenue. GOG sold for $25 million because it never achieved the market penetration or revenue that its DRM-free principles theoretically deserved. The niche position is absolute.
Why Selection Is Limited
GOG’s game selection is limited because companies won’t give licensing rights for DRM-free distribution. Publishers want ongoing control over access and the ability to revoke licenses. DRM-free distribution eliminates that control by making files independent of platform operation. The threat of piracy also matters—giving users unprotected files makes piracy easier even though piracy happens regardless of DRM implementation.
The classic games also face historical complications. Documentation wasn’t preserved during company consolidations, acquisitions, and closures. The legal team spends years untangling ownership chains to determine who actually has the rights to license a 20-year-old game where the original developer, publisher, and distributor might all no longer exist. The preservation work is real but limits selection to games where rights can be established.
The result is a library offering a fraction of what Steam provides. Major publishers don’t release on GOG. AAA titles skip the platform. The selection focuses on indie games, classic titles, and CD Projekt’s own games because those are the developers willing to accept DRM-free distribution. The limited library becomes self-reinforcing—users don’t adopt GOG because it lacks the games they want, so publishers don’t release on GOG because the user base doesn’t justify the effort.
The Preservation Mission
GOG started in 2008 specifically to preserve classic games for modern hardware. Good Old Games—the original meaning of GOG before rebranding to just the acronym—focused on making old games work on contemporary systems through compatibility patches, DOSBox integration, and rights negotiations. The preservation extended beyond technical compatibility to legal preservation by tracking down rights holders and negotiating licenses.
The GOG Preservation Program formalizes this with “rescue missions” restoring abandoned titles. The work involves rebuilding games for modern systems, securing rights from multiple parties, and ensuring the restored versions work on current hardware. The preservation isn’t just archival but active reconstruction making games playable rather than just stored as historical artifacts.
The preservation argument for DRM-free is absolute. When GOG preserves a game and gives you the installer, that game is preserved permanently regardless of GOG’s future operation. The preservation extends beyond GOG’s own archives to every user’s personal backup creating distributed redundancy. DRM-protected preservation requires the platform continuing to operate or consciously removing DRM before shutdown. DRM-free preservation happens automatically through distribution.
Why Everyone Uses Steam Instead
GOG’s interface is functional but can’t match Steam’s ecosystem. The social features, achievement systems, workshop integration, friend lists, and community features that make Steam more than just a store don’t exist on GOG to the same degree. The Galaxy client attempts to provide similar features but launched years after Steam established dominance and never achieved feature parity.
The existing libraries also create inertia. When you’ve built a Steam library of 500 games through years of purchases, starting fresh on GOG means abandoning that psychological investment. Even knowing Steam licenses are revocable whilst GOG provides ownership, the accumulated library represents sunk costs making switching feel like waste rather than investment in better ownership rights.
The social infrastructure matters more than individual users realize. Your friends use Steam. Multiplayer happens through Steam. The gifting, trading, and social features integrate gaming with social connections in ways GOG doesn’t match. Moving to GOG for better ownership means losing the social elements that enhance gaming beyond just playing games alone.
The Contradiction of Knowing Better
Users know GOG exists and represents better ownership. The choice to use Steam anyway represents revealed preference for convenience over rights. The abstract benefit of genuine ownership can’t compete with the concrete convenience of Steam’s ecosystem, sales, and social features. The market answered the question—ownership matters less than convenience when forced to choose between them.
The contradiction isn’t just individual but collective. Everyone knows DRM is anti-consumer. Everyone knows revocable licenses are worse than genuine ownership. Everyone knows GOG provides the better deal for consumer rights. Everyone uses Steam anyway because the benefits of Steam’s ecosystem outweigh the theoretical advantages of ownership rights that most people never exercise.
The tragedy is this validates publisher preference for DRM and licensing. Publishers watching consumer behavior see that people choose convenient licensing over inconvenient ownership even when the ownership option exists. This reinforces the industry trend toward platform control and revocable access because consumer behavior demonstrates ownership rights aren’t valued enough to sacrifice convenience or ecosystem benefits.
Does GOG’s market failure prove that consumers don’t actually value ownership enough to accept limited selection and inferior social features, or does it prove that corporate control of gaming infrastructure makes genuine competition impossible regardless of superior consumer rights?
Either way, GOG lets you actually own games. The installers are yours permanently. The access can’t be revoked. The ownership is genuine rather than licensed. Nobody uses it because Steam’s ecosystem is better and the ownership concerns feel abstract until catastrophic loss occurs.
The market spoke. Convenience beat ownership. The DRM-free alternative exists and thrives as a niche for preservation enthusiasts and ideological purists whilst the mass market accepts revocable licenses in exchange for better interfaces and social integration. The contradiction is knowing GOG provides better ownership whilst choosing Steam anyway because the practical benefits outweigh the theoretical rights.
Either way, the alternative exists. You could own your games through GOG instead of licensing them through Steam. You just won’t, because Steam’s interface is nicer and your friends are already there.
