So the retention rates are less uninstalls than the previous version or test version?

Maybe they are getting their figures by the startup app or auto-run services that come with the software that have a persistent connection in the background.

Thank you; that doesn't really solve my issue though. I wouldn't want GWENT to show up in my library at all, so while I know Thronebreaker is offline, it still puts GWENT in the user's library as a "bonus" (in addition to having some GWENT content included in the download, iirc). I have heard that users can contact support if they want a game removed from their library for some reason, but that seems a lot of unnecessary effort. If Thronebreaker had been more RPG-based, I might have been tempted to go through with such effort.

To be honest these financial results don't look good. :( If it continues, the investors will start to ask questions whether it's reasonable to maintain the company. I hope CDP won't stop investing in GOG despite that it generates losses.

When I asked Gwent to be removed from the library I was told that it's not possible due to the game having been added for free. The only option would be to hide it which obviously is not the ideal solution but at least it's out of sight and maybe even out of mind. I certainly had forgotten about it until I read the last couple posts here.

Wow, interesting news! Glad I didn't go this route, then. I wonder if that is the case with other free games too. Now I am kind of curious *shrug*

Yes that is what I fear too, and ironically the quick easy money isn't all that easy. What company doesn't want to be the next "Fortnite"...yet none really are.

I would assume it is meant as a "loss leader" but good question.

I think quite a number of dedicated gamers would come to GOG based on the word of mouth and love for The Witcher franchise. Imo, it would be a step towards growing that dependable, but slower growing audience (to take your phrase).

Apparently not :(

I think as long as CDP/CDPR makes games they will keep the store going as it is a good platform to release/advertise said games and get a bigger cut of the revenue.

=============================

True enough.

Normally, though, a loss leader is either a necessity(store brand bread/milk/etc might be examples of this) or something people consume a ton of which is appealing to a good number of people(examples would be those cooked chickens in supermarkets or dollar items in fast food places). Here we have something that is neither a necessity or used by that many(afaik player numbers aren't the majority of the user base), and it's also given for free despite being a loss leader in other ways.

Yes, but many would likely not, as they are either diehard fans of other stores or dislike gog for some reason. And as gog has shareholders and they have to do what they can to make profit, they likely have to sell wherever possible(also they likely like money same as any business so I don't see them intentionally cutting themselves off from potential sales).

:(

First, +1, great responses. I'll just address this one for now.

I think GOG were in great position to make it exclusive though because CDPR has such a good reputation among gamers, and The Witcher is still relevant in the public eye. They have done a great job keeping it relevant and exposing it to new people. That's why I think an isometric "mini-Witcher" RPG game, instead of Thronebreaker, would have been a success as an exclusive, and why I think Cyberpunk could have also been exclusive had it been the next CDPR game after Witcher 3. Just my speculation though.

I do know there is a "no Steam no buy" crowd, but they are not really basing that on principle, just on emotion, so a tempting enough game would get them to cave. Cyberpunk certainly fits the bill. Consider how some of them already bought Thronebreaker here and wrote negative reviews about how they would've waited if they knew it was on Scheme. They broke their flimsy "principle" for Thronebreaker, why not for a much more expansive and anticipated game like Cyberpunk?

When I was talking about CDPR not making things exclusive I was talking about their major games....smaller side games like this could've been/could possibly be exclusives as they have a lower budget and thus it would be a lower risk to make them exclusives & some fans might flock to gog to play such(though not all potential players as I said before).

Not all broke their principle, and(if I may be so bold) you should be one to talk....you say they would break their principle to play here, but look at yourself....do you ever consider breaking your principle to play games on steam/etc for one particular title?

I am guessing the answer is likely to be no, and with that in mind it would be wise to assume there would also be a good number who feel the same but in the opposing direction(as you said..."no steam no buy").

Also I subscribe to the "the more the merrier" belief that more people on more stores should be allowed to play games on their store of choice, not less or just the stores one likes and none else.

So are we making games or selling games?
I think making video games are like movies? When there is an anticipation of an idea for a movie to be made. Then there are investors for a movie. Then it is announced a movie is in development. The movie is in development with a budget and against a deadline. Then there is a trailer released and some publicity. Filming finely stopped and now is just to edit, sound, etc. As it is getting finalized for theatrical distribution, an internal or outside screening may be done. Then finally it is released to theaters. While that is going, the movie is further revised for different packaged distributions on DVD, Blu-ray, 4k, online or digital distribution, etc. Then later you get the directors cut, extended, unrated, ultimate. And in time you get the special, collectors, or anniversary edition. After that comes a remake. Somehow everyone gets paid [or continues to find ways to get paid].
(In Gogs case it would be finding creative ways to sell, resell, repackage and resell again)

On digital content..
Gaming has come along way. Along with the many companies and consoles that went under, dissolved, or went bankrupt for whatever reasons [BTW I had high hopes for Jaguar, Virtual Boy, had the first PSX on the day it came out in the US]. There are still digital assets of some sort – games [roms] – out there. I am not an expert. But I think there is ownership, licensing of the game [and of all other content included in the game], fees paid to be on a console, etc. Then you have copyrights, the authors (writers), creators (development), publishers (distribution). As the games get older and the companies and creators that made them passed on - you have questions like: who owns or maintains these games? Were something to happen, who did/should ownership of the content transfer to? Is it abandon-ware? Is it free now? Is emulation okay? Can I package a bunch of these old games with DOSBox in a downloadable ISO and sell as bonus content in a nostalgic eBook?
(Who has the knowledge to figure out how to run these old games on modern systems? Who has the time, the bandwidth, let alone the terabytes of storage to archive all these [DRM and warez free] obsolete games? Who needs all that, when you have a one-stop-shop like Gog? Click, download, play.)

Back to the topic..
I still think the in-house development and sales should be separate for profit-loss reporting purposes. Not having one piggyback off another. If it is failing or not showing a profit, don’t attribute it to another service or department as a reason why it is not doing good. Are future reports going to be like this? How can you discuss new business when you still have old business - previous bad quarter(s)?

Gog is amazing in that is allows some to play games quite easily right out of the box, as it were. But it is a double edged sword....with that ease of use comes dependency and the tendency to make people more reliant on such and less on their own know how and hard work(which one often had to do with older games(abandonware or no).

I mean how many know how to configure a startup file or make a boot disk, or how to even edit dosbox config files if need be?

As I alluded to, and mentioned in the past, I have a clear basis for my beliefs. I can articulate multiple reasons why I am against DRM and thus why I won't buy games with it, or at this point even from primarily DRMed storefronts (like Humble). By contrast, "no Steam no buy" is based on emoting rather than a solid foundation. Unless "muh conveeeeeeenience" is considered a solid foundation :p

Your beliefs could also be said to be based on emotional response to things you like/dislike....even if you can articulate the reasons well as to why you do/think so.

In essence you are expecting people with strong beliefs and convictions to break those but won't break your own, and you look down upon them for doing so.....isn't that a tad hypocritical?

What I am saying is that while people with those beliefs may feel strongly, their beliefs don't have much support beyond that "feeling." I am proud to say I look down on the act of herd-following and believing things "just because." There are personal reasons and experiences that led me to overcome such things myself, and I encourage others to do so organically. Towards that end, I encourage introspection and finding a rational basis for one's beliefs, or alternatively, finding that there is NOT a rational basis for one's belief and thus re-exploring the belief. This is obviously a very broad statement that goes beyond "no Steam no buy" or even more general brand loyalty. While perhaps our brains are not entirely immune to advertisement and other stimuli, surely there is at least something good we should be able to put forth as to why we as individuals support the brands we do.

Some might feel your beliefs are also unjustified for whatever reason, though, which is the point I was trying to get across. If you want to have others respect your own beliefs then you should not be so quick to(possibly) look down at those of others, as it weakens your own position when examined by others. This is also good advice in general/works for others who do so.

This is all good and to be commended.....I still think people shouldn't look down on or somewhat quickly cast aside other people's beliefs because they are about things we might dislike or disagree with though.

(You seemed to be doing that be saying your beliefs have reasons and theirs likely only have emotions behind them seemingly without a second thought)

Fair enough.

Gwent and Thronebreaker must have been a total disaster financial-wise. Maybe they should concentrate on selling games made by others and leave the development of games to their mother company. Or if they want to make games, look at what sells most currently and then try to remake this and improve a bit.