Thanks for the head's up. Bought the games just to be sure.

Those are not the only titles on GOG that Mages was involved in making. They also made most (but not all) of the Corpse Party games that are listed on GOG.

Sorry, missed them due to being listed under "a different developer" (a.k.a. "GOG didn't split the two devs involved")

Looks like I was correct.
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/delisting_raiden_iii_digital_edition

Currently (Jan 4, 2023) on sale for 75% off for all three S.T.A.L.K.E.R. titles (Call of Pripyat, Clear Sky, Shadow of Chernobyl)

When was B-17 Flying Fortress: The Mighty 8th removed?
Nevermind - about a week or two ago.

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/delisting_the_westport_independent

Wizards of the Coast is updating the OGL (Open Gaming License)

https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634

This is changes that will force companies to change everything related to D&D and wizards products under that license. Or risk loosing it to Wizards of the Coast.

I know there are games based on systems that use the older OGL. I am not sure we are in risk of loosing them also or potentially be delisted?? Or if it affects them all together?

I am not sure if or what this may affect. But this could be huge loss of games. Which goes retroactively backwards.

I would be glad if a GOG admin could comment if this is a valid worry or not.

Looks like a valid worry. I hope there aren't too many works that relied on such a sketchy license. The license itself seems vague and somewhat self-contradictory if the authorization term is to be taken such that a previously authorized (which, by the way, isn't given a definition for in the license) license may retroactively become unauthorized. That would very much contradict the perpetual license grant.

What a mess. A mess that only lawyers can settle, and I can see why anyone who used the original OGL would rather not go there.. and play it safe and take their stuff offline.

Now, can you name any games here that actually use OGL content?

Pathfinder? Cyberpunk?

On a very quick search, the Gamesradar article has a quick explanation of impact:

"Basically, it means that the games you might love like Pathfinder - or upcoming ones you're excited about, e.g. Warcraft co-creator's Auroboros(opens in new tab) or Free League's Lord of the Rings D&D book(opens in new tab) - could be hit with significant changes going forward. To start with, it's important to note that the original OGL these products were, or are, made with would no longer be valid. From what
I understand, that means the publishers would have to agree to the new system by the proposed deadline (which the leak says is January 13) if they wanted to continue selling their products. If they didn't sign on the dotted line and adhere to the new restrictions, I can only assume that both new and old content would have to be pulled off virtual shelves because it'd be in breach of the revised agreement. (But I've reached out to Wizards to clarify.)

So, why wouldn't they just agree and get back to normal? Well, having to suddenly hand over 25% of your earnings past $750,000 each year would take a massive toll on the publisher's bottom line. Profit aside, this is money used to pay writers, artists, designers, and more. Reducing the take would therefore squeeze companies in question, so it stands to reason that cuts of some description (be it content or jobs) would follow. This potentially leads to a drop in scale, quality, or frequency for products. It could also result in delays as developers pump the brakes to reassess the situation. I wouldn't be surprised if it leads to the development of alternative game systems instead, or increased hesitancy to go with OGL because of the added, sometimes literal, cost.

It'll hit smaller creators too, albeit less dramatically. It's all good and well not having to pay royalties if you don't earn more than $750K on your product, but having to register it with Wizards and report annual revenue is still an added faff that makes the process less appealing. Especially because, as io9 points out, "there is no mention of perpetual, worldwide rights given to creators (which was present in section 4 of the original OGL), and one of the caveats is that the company "can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days' notice"... Regardless of whether or not it is owned by the creator, Wizards will [also] have a "nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose."" This isn't an uncommon slice of legal jargon, but it's unsettling nonetheless.

Fortunately, free products - like community builds or adventures you don't charge for - remain unaffected. Actual plays like Critical Role should be alright too, seeing as you're not being charged to watch the show."

Other articles on a quick search:
https://screenrant.com/one-dnd-ogl-changes-open-game-license-dungeons-dragons/
https://www.ign.com/articles/wizards-of-the-coasts-new-dungeons-dragons-license-ogl-controversy
https://www.polygon.com/23540640/dnd-ogl-1-1-leak-dungeons-dragons-pathfinder-2e-wotc-hasbro

Since the document was leaked and not necessarily Wizards of the Coast's final stance on that matter, it's still too early for an official statement even from the potentially-affected publishers, much less from GOG itself.

The worry is justified, though, especially if the agreement is made public without any changes, and it could potentially affect games like Pathfinder and Solasta.

Well, Kickstarter reacted, though they had to, being specifically named WotC's preferred crowdfunding platform and the new license stating that those using it will need to pay WotC less than if they use any other platform.
And that Polygon article also has brief reactions from two publishers.

Oh, and another point I forgot to mention; the document was supposed to have already been officially unveiled (4th January to be precise). Since the date passed and we only had a leak, there might indeed be changes after all.
Paizo merely said that it's complicated. Green Ronin said that they didn't even read it, but saw no benefit to it from hearsay. Hardly official statements to questions such as "are your OGL-dependent products in danger?" Since the new legal framework has yet to be established, it's too premature to make a definitive statement.

I think the games most at risk of being taken down from GoG are the ones from companies that are trying to push their own in-house corporate game launchers to compete with Steam, because they want put as many games as possible inside the "walled gardens" of their launchers to require people to use their stupid unwanted launchers to play the games they want to play. What am I talking about?

*Any game from Electronic Arts or a developer bought by Electronic Arts, such as BioWare games like Jade Empire or Dragon Age: Origins Ultimate
*Any game from Activision-Blizzard or a developer bought by them, such as Diablo or WarCraft 2
*Any game from Epic Games or a developer bought by Epic Games
*Any game from Ubisoft or a developer bought by Ubisoft, such as Far Cry or Heroes of Might and Magic 3

Because each of those corporate developers are trying to push their own game launchers, such as what EA is doing with the EA Launcher or as it used to be called "Origin."

If you're wanting a game from any of those big corporate publishers who are trying to promote their shitty game launchers, you might want to buy it on GoG before you lose the opportunity.

It's not like D&D exists after 2nd Edition, anyway.