Mine was the initial Galaxy announcement, in 2014. I have been distrustful of GOG ever since.

The good thing is that thanks to the lack of DRM (for most of the single player content in most games), I don’t need to trust them.

Was that what the "good news" was referring to, the release of Galaxy?

I am on the fence with it. I don't use it (I've tried it though but i just don't need it as I don't play multiplayer, Early Access etc. games on GOG where a client is almost mandatory) but it may be possible it has brought enough new users to GOG, without which GOG would be long gone now. Who knows for sure... I mean, would new users have been happily buying The Witcher 3 or Cyberpunk from GOG if the only way to play it was to download the gigantic offline installers etc.? Many people simply expect a client that does the downloading and installation for them, and possibly the extra features like auto-updates and cloud saves, and some freaks apparently want achievements too.

The lowest point for me was when GOG started adding the Galaxy installer to all offline installers (with that I was seriously unhappy), but luckily they reversed their stance and returned the installers without Galaxy after getting lots of negative feedback. After that it has been 95% of the time smooth sailing, IMHO. Yeah yeah the Hitman game or Absolver with DRM or content behind an online account was not so nice but I got over them (and I feel it was probably because it is simply harder and harder to release AA or AAA games on GOG that are totally offline, as almost all of them tend to have some online content).

I couldn't care less about the political bickerings like GOG not releasing a Taiwanese game which had some anti-Chinese content, possibly... So I bought the game directly from the developer instead.

In my case, I feel that GOG is focusing on the wrong things. It's simple as that.

There has been so many Good News™ from GOG that I don’t know either which specific one was referred to earlier.

What I shared here is the Good News™ instance that has been the tipping point for me, but other people might have another in mind.

Regional pricing.

Ok. While on principle I don't support regional pricing (both because it is arbitrary and inaccurate as there are poor people in "rich" countries too, and overall games are not a thing where I feel richer people need to pay more), it is still not a biggie to me. All I care is whether I find the game price agreeable on a discount, not what it costs to someone in China or Russia.

If it is true regional pricing has allowed GOG to release DRM-free AA and AAA games on GOG that otherwise wouldn't have been released (because the publisher required regional pricing, or else), then I am actually for it.

DRM-free is still THE reason for me to buy games on GOG, not (lack of) regional pricing, or political things, or whatever. If DRM was added as a requirement, I wouldn't see much point to buy about anything on GOG (instead of e.g. the vaporous site).

An interesting inversion of GOG's problems with communication & timing, is that they'll announce titles well in advance of any semblance of a release date, so that when the fated day arrives they're greeted to crickets & tumbleweeds. Most infamously, Vampire™: The™ Masquerade™® -™ Bloodlines™ 2™, but there are several other titles which have had very premature announcements.

Oh, I'm not bothered by the regions that pay less, even if that's not fair either. I'm bothered when regions pay more than the US price, the EUR = USD thing and similar.
But mainly it's the principle of the thing. GOG had two clear, stated principles, DRM-free and one-world-one-price, stressed them in that video from that conference put up half a year before that moment when they said that they rejected games and deals because they wouldn't make a dent in their values, plural, and that the moment you do that you may make a fast dollar but in the longer term "GOG will explode and that's the end of it", and even made that video against regional pricing (which referred specifically to the EU paying more than the US, said nothing of regions paying less) and promised keeping the pricing for newer games as well in another video, when they stopped being "Good Old Games" and decided to allow newer games. Then they gave it up to get some newer and bigger games (and mainly for Witcher 3, even if AoE3 was the first chronologically)... And even then they promised to decide on a case by case basis and only implement this for particularly big-name and highly desired titles... And then that idea was also dropped, but it remained just for new titles... And then that was also dropped...
As for DRM-free, well, replace flat pricing with that. Doesn't it also prevent them from getting so many new and big-name titles? And haven't they being making dents in that as well? Just that they're too aware that it's the only difference that's still in their favor and, as you can see with the changed definition of what DRM-free single player entails and then things like Hitman, they keep testing the waters to see how much they can drop of it before the backlash is unmanageable and what the ratio between users who still care and those who don't is. Don't have any illusions that they won't drop it like a dirty rag the moment they'll determine that they can afford the loss of the users who still care for it.

Exactly, there's no consistency in their curation and communication.

Some games we get years of notice, some a month, but most games its complete radio silence until it gets released. Whether its day 1 or years down the line, its the same complete lack of notification

Yes, and as I keep saying, their choice. They can certainly pursue that and start adding DRM games to the service as well, but then I don't see what would be their remaining angle why people should buy from them, instead of the vaporous site.

I guess they have realized that themselves as well because they still cling to being DRM-free, even if they have side-projects as well like being able to play some of those DRM-free games also on Amazon Luna, or the Galaxy clients to offer features that offline installers can't (automatic updates, cloud saves, achievements, social features etc.).

The reason I don't equate those two is because flat pricing is not why I came to GOG, and bought from GOG. It was merely a "nice, I guess?"-feature to me, and it may have made more sense back when GOG was mostly about old MS-DOS and Windows 95 games that cost max 5€.

If GOG starts adding DRM to games and abandons offline installers, it's game over for them. DRM-free and offline installers are the main things people are here and the only things no one else offers. If those two things disappear, GOG will end up like Epic, EA APP, Ubisoft Connect, etc. who don't do anything new or better than Steam and there will be no reason to choose GOG over Steam.

Does GoG have issues? Most definitely.

I truly dislike their client and they have no offline mass downloader of their own so we have to rely on others to make them for us. They should honestly have an option for just a messenger client that the games can interface with for multiplayer and nothing else.

While their storefront feels off without the appropriate tags and you can't even filter out demos/prologues/etc. from it and you can actually screw up and have your entire game catalog littered with all these games that aren't even games and you shouldn't even be allowed to add to your collection and should just be able to download. Then comes with your issues of games from Amazon gaming showing up as you not owning them or owning higher version of a game doesn't somehow also count as owning the stripped down release of it and so on.

Even the forums feel cheap with their layout and even requires a pop out window just to type in a response.

BUT.... The service the provide is great and I would genuinely hate if they went under. While I don't bother replacing most of my steam games with GoG games I do prioritize GoG for all current and future purchases as I actively enjoy owning my games and keeping my installers offline on an enclosure. Even it comes to my actual steam games I would prefer to sail the high seas to get the games I already own just so I don't have to deal with the client or the lag of steam taking forever to load after your game collection seems to get to a large enough size.

The overall issues with GoG has nothing to do with the service they provide at a fundamental level, their issues are the level of polish they have with their services, their lack of advertising so that most don't even know they exist to even know they have this option, and an issue where many popular developers refuse to release games on here until they feel they are done like what many TV shows did with Netflix originally thinking no one wanted to watch them anymore.

They address the lack of polish I addressed above, they start actually advertising their stuff more and getting developers to advertise their games release here more and they will get more sales, as far as the developers releasing their games on here more, if more people buy here, they will be more inclined but many just won't because they don't like the thought of them not retaining full control over their product even after it was sold, you can look at Capcom trying to retroactively breaking modding as an example of that.

Polish the game client and give real alternatives to not using it while still being able to play them online. Get advertising up so that people don't have to stumble onto this place like I did and many others did just to know they exist. And they will get more business.

But, think of most people who barely know how to manage a steam library to come here and try and purchase a game on the site, how quickly do you think the site and Galaxy might turn them off before they even begin?

Oh, it won't be like those. CDP may be big, but EA and Ubisoft are bigger, can just keep a store for their own products if they want, and have enough leverage to be able to impose even on Steam the use of their logins or other DRM, possibly propping up said stores as a result. And Epic can afford to throw so much money at their store, which isn't meant to be able to sustain itself, that it's in an entirely different league, so it can just keep throwing free games out there and taking way too little of a cut of sales for anyone else to be able to compete. And while small niche stores that recognize and care for their niche don't need such advantages, being able to survive on quite little, GOG grew far too big for a niche and mostly alienated that core userbase that made up its niche anyway, so it won't have that either.

As far as the "Include DRM" on GoG suggestions.

The ONLY compromise I would be willing to accept on that would be if the games were released with DRM for ONLY the first 6 months of release and required a client or connection of some kind during that time, but after no longer than 6 months, the games WILL be given an offline installer as a condition of being sold on this site.

And that 6 month timer starts from the time it is released on the PC via any service, not just when it was released on GoG. So if the game came out on Steam or Epic or the Microsoft Store 6 months ago or longer, than it enjoys no DRM when released on GoG.

This way the developers enjoy their 6 months of control when the games sales are the most important to them while the GoG crowd still get our offline and DRM free installers without having to wait months or years to get it or expecting us to purchase the games multiple times.

Slippery slope again. Once the option exists, the 6 months will later become a year, also painted as good news because it means more games, then more, then games will get delisted soon after they have to be DRM free, then that very moment, regardless of contracts, since GOG won't enforce existing clauses (see updates for example), then there will no longer be any limit.