GOG’s 13-Game Protest Passed One Million Claims—But the Giveaway Is Over

GOG’s Freedom to Buy giveaway is no longer active. The storefront offered 13 adult-themed games free for 48 hours in August 2025, and more than one million copies were claimed during the first 24 hours; the promotion then closed after its final hours on August 3.

The episode still matters because the conflict it highlighted was not resolved by one successful giveaway. Developers of adult games remain exposed to decisions made across three separate layers: storefront moderation, public discovery and payment processing. Those layers are often discussed as if they were interchangeable, but the consequences for a creator can be very different.

What GOG offered—and what has expired

GOG launched Freedom to Buy as a protest against legal games disappearing from digital storefronts. Its official Freedom to Buy page described a 48-hour offer covering 13 games and presented the action as a defense of access to legal, responsibly made work.

The bundle included established adult-oriented or provocative PC titles rather than 18 separate games—the “18+” label refers to mature content, not the number of products. Claiming the bundle added the games to a user’s GOG library, while GOG’s DRM-free distribution model allowed downloadable offline installers where supplied by the publisher.

That distinction does not revive the promotion. The campaign page can still function as a statement of purpose, but its original redemption window has passed. Readers encountering old posts or social links should therefore not expect the 13 games to be free now.

One million claims changed the scale of the story

The strongest measurable result arrived before the offer ended. PC Gamer’s report on the campaign response recorded GOG’s announcement that one million people had claimed the games within 24 hours, after which the company extended the action by several hours because users had encountered difficulties.

That figure measures claims, not one million unique paying customers, downloads or completed play sessions. It also does not show how many participants supported GOG’s argument rather than simply accepting a free bundle. Even with those limits, the volume demonstrated that a dispute usually confined to platform policies and developer communities could produce substantial consumer participation.

The result also sharpened the campaign’s central contrast. Removing the price eliminated a payment transaction at the moment of redemption, allowing GOG to distribute the selected works while making payment restrictions themselves part of the public discussion. It was a temporary protest mechanism, not a durable commercial model for the participating developers.

Why “removed” and “deindexed” are not the same

The broader controversy involved several kinds of platform action, and treating all of them as deletion obscures what creators actually faced. A game may be rejected from a storefront, removed from sale, excluded from search and recommendations, blocked from accepting a particular payment method, or left accessible only to existing owners. Each outcome affects revenue and reach differently.

Itch.io’s response illustrates that distinction. In its July 31 developer update, the platform said it was restoring free adult NSFW projects to public discovery while paid content would return gradually. It also said Stripe payments had been disabled on pages identified as adult NSFW content and that it was discussing support with other payment partners.

For creators, deindexing can be commercially severe even when files remain available. A project absent from browse pages, recommendations and search loses the storefront discovery that helps new customers find it. Existing owners may retain access while the developer simultaneously loses both visibility and the ability to process new sales through a familiar channel.

The reindexing of free projects also exposed the core constraint behind GOG’s gesture. Content can be easier to distribute when no payment is collected, but creators generally need paid distribution to finance production, updates and support. Free access may preserve circulation without preserving a sustainable business.

The campaign did not settle who controls availability

Freedom to Buy made GOG’s position visible, but it did not establish a universal rule requiring stores or financial intermediaries to carry every lawful game. Legality, a storefront’s own content standards and the acceptable-use policies attached to financial services remain separate tests. Passing one does not guarantee passage through the others.

This matters especially to small studios and solo developers. A large publisher may have legal staff, several storefront relationships and the resources to add alternative checkout systems. A specialist creator can depend on one platform for hosting, discovery, payments and access to an established audience; a restriction at any single point can therefore affect the entire release.

The dispute also demonstrated why platform language deserves close reading. “Available to existing owners” is not equivalent to “available for purchase,” and “page remains accessible” is not equivalent to “discoverable in the marketplace.” Likewise, a processor declining a category does not necessarily mean a card network has directly reviewed and rejected every individual game in that category.

What remains after the free bundle

The durable outcome is not a continuing supply of free games. It is a documented example of a storefront using its catalog, distribution system and DRM-free positioning to turn an infrastructure dispute into a consumer-facing event—and attracting more than one million claims while doing so.

For players, the practical status is straightforward: the 2025 bundle cannot now be claimed, and current prices or availability must be checked game by game. For creators, the more consequential lesson is that keeping a project technically hosted is only part of distribution; discoverability and payment acceptance can determine whether that project still has a viable market.

GOG’s protest succeeded as a short, highly visible intervention. The underlying dependency it highlighted remains structural: a creator’s access to customers can be narrowed without a game becoming illegal and without its files being erased from every existing owner’s library.

Also read:

• Google Product Listings Are Still Free—but Visibility Is Not Guaranteed
• LingBot-World 2.0 Claims Hour-Long Worlds—but Its Open Release Is Partial
• JOLTS Has 7.4 Million Openings—That Does Not Mean 7.4 Million Offers