GOG Looks Beyond Storefront As Independence Opens Publishing Path

I see GOG at a turning point. After years inside CD Projekt Red’s orbit, GOG is now independent, and the change is already reshaping what the store can consider doing next. GOG is no longer tied to the priorities of a publicly listed studio focused on blockbuster releases. Instead, it is privately owned again by its original co-founder, Michał Kiciński, and that shift has created room for ideas that were previously off the table. One of those ideas is indie game publishing.

The news comes from a conversation reported by Eurogamer, and it matters because it reframes GOG’s role in the PC market. I have always known GOG as a storefront defined by DRM-free sales and a long-running effort to restore and preserve classic PC games. Publishing is a different responsibility. It involves creative risk, capital exposure, and long-term support for developers. Under CD Projekt Red, those risks were seen as distractions. Outside that structure, they are now being discussed.

In the second paragraph, I want to thank Eurogamer for the original reporting that surfaced these details and framed the context clearly. The article draws directly from interviews with Michał Kiciński and GOG managing director Maciej Gołębiewski, and it outlines why publishing titles similar to Project Warlock, Shardpunk, and BIOTA was not feasible before, but now sits on the table.

Kiciński made it clear that independence changes what GOG can attempt. Speaking to Eurogamer’s Robert Purchese, he explained that GOG could not realistically enter third-party publishing while grouped with CD Projekt Red, because all publishing focus inside that company was tied to its own games.

“So one of the directions which were not that much possible in the past is evolving GOG more into publishing business, and that's something we will certainly discuss,” he said.

Kiciński is not new to publishing. He is also a co-owner of Retrovibe, an indie publisher known for retro-styled releases. That background matters because it suggests this idea is not speculative. It comes from direct experience. He stressed that no decisions have been made yet, but the fact that the topic is even open marks a shift in how GOG sees itself.

“No decisions have been made yet, but this opens a whole new area of activities for GOG which was not that much possible together with CD Projekt Red as one group,” he added.

For context, GOG spent 17 years as part of CD Projekt. As CD Projekt Red grew into a global studio, GOG became the smaller unit inside a much larger operation. The benefits were obvious. GOG had close access to high-profile releases like The Witcher series and Cyberpunk 2077, often supported by aggressive pricing. The downsides were structural. Decision-making slowed. Risk tolerance dropped. Publishing games outside CD Projekt Red’s portfolio did not align with the group’s focus.

Kiciński described this imbalance in practical terms.

“It's quite a common business situation when you have two entities of very different sizes in one group, and naturally, the attention and resources goes to the bigger part.”

From my perspective, this explains why GOG often felt cautious despite its loyal audience. The store was trusted, but rarely experimental. That restraint now appears deliberate rather than cultural.

Maciej Gołębiewski, who has led GOG day to day for over a decade, reinforced that view. He contrasted GOG’s size with the complexity of a global, publicly traded company.

“Having one single owner simplifies a lot of things in terms of potential decision making or risk appetite,” he said.

Kiciński agreed and was more direct about his personal role.

“I’m super accessible and decisions can be made fast, and also, I’m not afraid of risk as a private investor.”

That comment stood out to me. Publishing is built on risk, especially in the indie space, where margins are tight and visibility is fragile. A store that already controls distribution, curation, and community reach has leverage if it chooses to publish responsibly. GOG now has the structural freedom to try.

Importantly, none of these signals a retreat from what GOG already does. The company has stated that its core principles remain unchanged. DRM-free sales are staying. Game preservation remains central. The relationship with CD Projekt Red also continues under a six-year commercial agreement that keeps CDPR titles prominently supported on the platform.

Physical proximity reinforces that continuity. Both companies still operate from the same office complex, and Kiciński remains a major shareholder in CD Projekt. The separation is legal and strategic, not hostile.

Timing also matters. The acquisition closed in mid-December, after a sale process that included other bidders. When Kiciński spoke to Eurogamer on January 8, it was effectively his first day back in the office. Strategy discussions are still early.

“What we agreed already is that GOG can improve on what's doing right now,” he said.

There are no announced pivots, no new business model, and no confirmed publishing slate. What exists is intent and appetite.

“For sure, we have a big appetite for the growth of GOG,” Kiciński said.

I read this as cautious ambition. GOG is not trying to become a rival to large publishers. It is exploring whether its values can extend upstream, from selling games to helping make them. If that happens, it will test how preservation, ownership, and indie publishing intersect under one roof.

Read also: In an industry defined by billion-dollar acquisitions, GOG’s sale for around $25 million in December looked modest. The effect has been outsized. Control returned to Michał Kiciński, one of the platform’s founders, with a stated goal of protecting GOG’s principles around DRM-free access and game preservation. For many players, the change brought relief rather than uncertainty, and early signals suggest that GOG’s next chapter will build on that trust rather than trade it away.