Well, it certainly worked for me ;) Not to the point of going on crazy spending sprees, but it tempted me to spend just a little more than I'd otherwise would have, which I assume is the point. I can't believe that format didn't return a decent amount of sales, but it might be hard to attach a certain amount of revenue to it (how much "plus" it actually produced).
It might be tricky to get some "high-profile" games to give away in such a fashion, assuming the devs/pubs don't do this out of the goodness of their hearts, whatever share they get might eat up some surplus... And the amount of games "given for free" is not really limited there.
From a business standpoint this mystery game sale seems more beneficial, for the simple reason you really only have to drop a very limited amount of expensive games into the pot - if there's even 5 copies of a 45 $ game in there, you can still advertise it thusly, even if the vast majority of games in the pool are much cheaper, and the devs/pubs will gladly sell them for 3$ or less. So, every Pinata sold is good for Gog's bottom line. I haven't checked this, but I'd be curious to know how many of the games in the pool are in the bottom third of bestselling games on Gog (even though that's not even taking into account current sales vs recent sales or heavy discounting...).

yeah, i would 'save' up big ticket buys (like divinity original sin etc) and wait for those seasonal sales to get the highest tier giveaway and buy smaller titles during the year. perhaps thats why we havent seen one for awhile, peeps saving up for the 'big' sale and not buying throughout the year so they've put in more impulse sales every week and these gambling ones.

~shrugs, not a clue

Yes. I'd already made two suggestions up thread.

1. You get more than one game to choose from in each Pinata. Two or three. But you only can pick one with each go. You still pay for access, you still get random games and are exposed to things you might not consider, GOG gets their impulse buys, people get a good deal - but they have at least some control over it.

2. Split the gambling aspect of the promo from the paying money aspect. Everyone gets a number of daily free Pinata's to open. GOG would have to find the number they are ok with. You open them, then decide which ones you'd buy. Keeps the randomness, the fun/surprise of what you might end up with gives GOG fairly spontaneous sales and drives traffic to the site during the sale (as people return daily), but crucially isn't pay for access and means people can choose whether they really want to put down money for them.

What really bothers me about it is the fact that if you're not among the first to "gamble", the more worthy prizes will no longer be available.
*skipping the fact that there is a limited number of a digital product*

So you end up playing the slots on a machine that doesn't have the "Big Prize" anymore. That's BS!

I would argue perhaps all commercial activity these days are in fact a form of gambling because what value is ascribed a good or service that even if consisting of physical human labor has that labor itself not underpinned on the basis of the mercantile capitalist system that has removed as much equal barter for the sake of varying IOU currency.
At the end of the day people pay the only offer on the table based on the gamble that what they are getting if they look to their neighbor seems of relative value and is hopefully fit for purpose.
Consider your mind blown, thank you; good day.

This whole topic is complete nonsense.. You guys are supposed to be adults. If you don't like gambling, then don't gamble.. If you don't like smoking, then don't smoke.. If you don't like drinking, then don't drink.. Simple isn't it? People who choose to engage in these things and complain about the consequences are the worst..

If only it was that easy, addiction wouldn't exist.

Not to fuel the emotional and, for some, even stress-inducing arguing, but addiction is just a fancy word for plain simple term "need". However necessary one or another actually is, they all always come from the same place as our need for food, secure shelter, social interactions.
Every need is under the risk of being abused and it is always up to debate, how much agency a person has over the issue, but objective fact is - your needs feast upon your laziness and it is a good life motto for everybody to always train yourself to control your sudden urges to eat too much, have too much drink this evening, or gamble.
Granted, there is a good reason for many things that are prone more than anything else to chemically or psychologically control person's urges to be under strict governmental control, but that doesn't mean people should place all responsibility for every potential addiction-inducing substance onto someone else's shoulders.

I think that's what MrGrimmX intended to point out - take responsibility for yourselves.
Or one day you'll end up in a situation where you'll have to pass utensils-test and have a license to use a kitchen knife, because they are potentially harmful.

P.S.
I personally do think, casinos and lotteries are bцllsht, which is exactly why I never waste my money on either of those.

This entire thing is ridiculous. People are complaining just to complain. GOG is doing nothing illegal, nothing that needs any kind of regulation and nothing explicitly wrong. You might not like it, but that's neither here nor there. They're offering people an extra choice and they're being perfectly transparent about the process. Yes, maybe some choices are not great (like putting in the pool games that, when discounted, cost less than the price of a Piñata, but as far as we know the list of games included might have been chosen before the individual discounts).

This is not like, say, loot boxes in online games, where the only way to get certain items is to buy the boxes and pray that the RNG is on your side. No, because the games are still being sold on the website, and there's still a bunch of them being discounted. This Piñata thing is just an extra and you're perfectly able to ignore it, nothing changes if you do. You're not missing out on anything because of it.

If you purchase one knowing fully well the game you'll get will be chosen at random and you don't get a game you wanted then it's no one's fault. It was a chance and you took it, that's it. And what you might consider an uninteresting game might be something someone else might like, it's not like they're catering exclusively to your tastes.

What did you expect? The thing taking games from your wishlist? As if. People would just be filling their wishlists with the most expensive games just to get them.

What made you think that "anybody" in this topic was claiming it was illegal? Did you even read the comments or even the main topic before writing? Because from what you wrote, you certainly have no idea what this topic is about. Let me summarize for you. Nobody in this topic claimed GOG was doing anything illegal. The debate is about how it may effect some people. To lay the subject on the table so people can discuss the situation which people are doing very maturely so far and I believe it has been very helpful for lots of people.

It is an interesting concept that people who were actually discussing the topic was very mature while people who were against those people were sometimes very rude, just like you now. It is never ridiculous to discuss things. It is never stupid to ask the morality of the situation, weather it is legal or not. That's how humanity progress, get better and change those laws accordingly to those morality changes.

As a professor, I never fear any student asking questions, no matter how stupid it may sound. I fear students who do not ask questions. I fear students who think it is stupid even to ask questions and try to bully who do.

Exactly! As a great person once said "there's no such thing as stupid questions, just stupid people".

That is not necessarily true.
If you relate it too more obvious forms of gambling, lets take poker machines.
Poker machines are designed to pay 80%, which on the surface seems pretty reasonable doesn't it.
Certainly you wouldn't install one to run at a loss and you have it manufactured to do so and as such come under moral obligation not to make it completely rigged; this being backed up by law because we all know morals aren't binding and capitalist ventures the world over tend to gravitate towards sociopathic endeavor (not to labor on such a point).
It's not the prize pool that is the issue, it is the iterative behavior that represents the demise of the individual; and the crafting of the device that can be held malicious in it's intent.

Responding to Dreadjaws and others sentiment, I make no claim that the simple one off instance that occurs is detrimental, but the nature of gambling itself as vitriolic because it is designed in full malice to leverage inherent human weaknesses and that while may not coming to harm of the majority in it's gentle acceptance permits great exploitation and harm that should not by any rational human being be tolerated when it hinges upon the indisputable fact that the victim is merely human.

BTW I come from a family who historically had great wealth in land, that was in fact lost due in specific to gambling debt.
I do speak with passion that such ill gotten works are anti-human and erode society as well as human endeavor (while obviously tying into corruption more generally).
I would expect a lot here are American, they seem to be quite vocal around the premise of laws & freedoms.
I would put it to you; would you be happy if the prime industries your country is known for (off the top of my head most based around patents that are transferable). Would you find it a just situation to have that ongoing economic endeavor seized from under it (and under your patent system barred from much further economic pursuit) because of a lack of Governmental foresight to protect it's industries from overseas exploitation of loop holes that naturally develop simply from the English language not being 'perfect' in getting a completely holistic legal view of what is being intended.
You would argue that it is different; and I would posit, how so?
(BTW it's incredibly interesting the vast differences in the amount of words available to different languages)

So to gamble is human and taking advantage of it is bad? But isn't taking advantage of the weak and stupid also human? You seem to want laws or guides to protect one and restrict the other type of "human". Simply because you think one is good and one is bad. That's human socialism, especially the left wing variety, to a tee. A blight upon everything that is natural. Nature takes the weak, the stupid the slow and sick and shows no mercy- and in doing so maintains balance to perfection. Humans with their socialism take the weak the stupid the slow and sick and make laws to protect them so they can stay alive and breed and make more weak, stupid people. It spreads like cancer. Soon they outnumber the smart and strong and human society fails yet again. "Majority rules" doesn't work in mental institutions.

I don't agree entirely to this. There should be a mix of centralist ideals. We're human right? We can also show compassion and love, isn't that human too? The idea of banning something to protect people is fascist. What do you think led to WW2? Thru sanctions, other fascists. Extremes are inherently not good for anyone. I'm going to drink to this. Cheers.

You're right about the folly of legislating "right and wrong", but you fail because you don't recognize the fact that without ethics human beings are merely animals: clever animals that quickly degenerate into self-destruction because without ethics, all they have to govern themselves is self-gratification.