GOG’s managing director has reflected on the platform’s 2020 decision to pass on selling Devotion, acknowledging the call hurt the storefront’s credibility with players. Framed as a lesson learned amid business pressures and geopolitical complexity, the remarks suggest a shift toward clearer communication and firmer values when handling sensitive releases—an issue that still shapes how PC storefronts balance openness, risk, and community trust.
A quick refresher on Devotion and the fallout
Devotion, a Taiwanese horror game, became one of the most talked-about indie releases of the last decade—not just for its atmosphere and storytelling, but for a controversy that spilled far beyond games. After its original 2019 release, the title was pulled from major platforms when an in-game asset was interpreted as mocking a world leader, setting off a chain reaction that affected publishers and licensing. When, in late 2020, the developer announced the game would arrive on GOG, the platform reversed course and declined to carry it. For many players and indie creators, that moment turned GOG from a champion of “good old games” and DRM-free ideals into a company grappling with the messy realities of a global market.
“We got it wrong” and why that matters
In a recent interview, GOG’s managing director said the team underestimated the complexity surrounding Devotion and made a decision they believed was necessary to protect the company and its partners. He also conceded the damage it did to user trust. That combination—owning the harm while explaining the context—isn’t a full repair job, but it does acknowledge what most players felt at the time: the choice didn’t align with the identity GOG had cultivated.
Why does this matter now? Because what storefronts sell (and refuse to sell) defines their brand more than any marketing slogan. When a platform that hangs its hat on preserving games and respecting player ownership steps back from a release, it sparks a bigger question: What values actually guide the curation?
The tightrope: ideals vs. reality
Running a large digital storefront means juggling a list of non-negotiables few of us see:
- Legal exposure across multiple jurisdictions
- Operational risks for partners and payment providers
- Commercial realities like regional compliance and platform relationships
None of that absolves a platform from its public promises, but it explains why ideal outcomes can be rare. The hard part is how you communicate the trade-offs. In 2020, GOG’s messaging felt abrupt and opaque. Even players willing to accept a tough call wanted clarity and consistency: If you won’t carry a game, say why in terms that match your stated values.
Signs of a course correction
Since then, GOG has signaled a willingness to host contentious titles that others avoid, positioning those decisions as content-based evaluations rather than politically driven calls. It’s a small but important step: if a storefront wants to stand for developer expression and player choice, it must show it can withstand discomfort when a release stirs debate.
To be clear, “learning the right lessons” doesn’t mean every sensitive game gets a greenlight. It means:
- Transparent criteria: What content standards guide acceptance and rejection?
- Consistent application: The rules shouldn’t bend with public pressure alone.
- Open explanations: If a call runs counter to expectations, say so plainly and own it.
What it means for players
For PC players who cherish DRM-free libraries and preservation, trust is a currency. Here’s what to watch:
- Policy clarity: Expect more explicit content guidelines and rationale around edge cases.
- Less whiplash: Fewer sudden reversals, more proactive communication before announcements.
- Broader curation: A willingness to carry challenging games when they meet stated standards.
If GOG can deliver those, it rebuilds goodwill not just with its core audience, but with anyone who wants consistent rules for how games are sold and maintained.
What it means for indie developers
Indies often live or die on platform support. The Devotion episode was a cautionary tale: visibility can vanish overnight when geopolitics collide with platform risk. The path forward that devs want to see is straightforward:
- Predictable review processes and timelines
- Clear escalations when legal or regional concerns arise
- Commitments to communicate decisions directly and early
When platforms articulate their thresholds, studios can design around constraints, plan distribution strategies, and decide when to self-publish on their own sites or alternative stores.
The bigger picture: politics, markets, and games
Games don’t exist in a vacuum. Cultural, political, and regional sensitivities will keep shaping availability. The difference between a platform that earns respect and one that feels capricious often comes down to how it tells the story of its decisions. Players generally accept that not all outcomes will be ideal. What they won’t accept is silence, vagueness, or values that appear selectively applied.
My take
GOG’s admission won’t rewrite the past, but it does mark progress. The most valuable line between “we learned” and “we changed” is the paper trail: consistent decisions, better messaging, and a track record of standing by clearly stated standards even when it’s inconvenient. If GOG keeps moving in that direction—carrying tough games when they meet policy, declining others with detailed, principled reasoning—it will recover the credibility it lost in 2020.
Ultimately, players want the same thing developers want: a fair shake. A storefront that puts its rules in the open and lives by them can weather controversies, support artistic risk, and still operate in a complicated world. If GOG holds that line, Devotion may become less a stain on its reputation and more a turning point in how the platform shows its values.