Game selection isn't directly relevant to quality of service.
Market could be considered a negative. Trading cards are a silly concept, no matter how useful their effects may be.
None of those are related to quality of products or service.

Again, you're totally okay to have a subjective preference, but none of those things relates directly to the topic I was attempting to address: That GOG offers higher quality products and services directly related to those products, with higher quality support.

It's totally okay to say you prefer steam- hell, it's even okay to say you prefer Ubi, but people may look at you reeeeeal funny over it.

But that doesn't at all negate the fact that Valve offers a very subpar service as game quality and support are concerned, and that GOG offers a much higher quality one.

If you prefer the bells and whistles of steam to GOG, then that's totally fine. Noone is currently discussing supplanting any one service with another.

But in quality of core products and service, it's a pretty clear GOG>Origin>steam>Uplay dynamic.

Of course, each one has their own unique traits, be they positive, neutral, or negative, that may have you prefer one to another.

Except maybe Uplay, not sure what positives it really has :X

Free to play is a valid argument about distributor quality, but it's a hard one to quantify- most free games on steam are also available free elsewhere, for one.

Moreover, it still doesn't relate directly to the quality of the games you BUY, which is the actual discussion point. Again, we're referring specifically to the benefits of buying a game from GOG over buying one from steam- absolutely nothing else.
Ie, how much effort GOG and steam put in to make sure the games you buy are functional, and what content they throw in with purchase, the support they provide, and so forth.

The community argument is nonsense- or rather, it's not only not relevant, it's blatantly untrue. steam is notorious for having a sizably bad consumer base, to the point that MMOs that integrate steam access have a reputation of negatively reacting to the fact.
GOG's community is, as far as I've seen, considered overall to be very helpful and friendly.
A larger part of the matter is how GOG's staff takes a more active hand in managing discussion quality, I imagine.

That aside- yes, steam integrates an in-depth friend/chat system that is quite useful and convenient, and there's no argument that that's another valid argument about distributor quality- that, AGAIN, has nothing at all to do with purchasing a game from steam. :'P

Predicting the future is not a talent of mine, so I won't even address the last point-

Edit: Though I can say this:
Anything you buy from GOG, you permanently own, and can easily make a back-up of the install files for. so even if GOG one day does shut down, you should be safe.

If steam crashes, you don't have near as reliable a guarantee that you'll still easily be able to access your games, even if you do manage to somehow install all of them. Moreover, unlike GOG's install files, even if you did manage to install them all, you couldn't transfer them to new hard drives.

Ergo, GOG wins that, as well :)

Here all free (and if it's not linking you properly to the page just click price tab and check free), also every now and then (usually during big sales) they make time limited free game grab (they put a title you can get for free on their front page)
And if you want f2p games here

sowwy! :X

I think I'm just so used to steam replacing physical discs in retail copies now, that I may have just automatically swapped it, so it was probably my confusion to begin with :X

I think I'd probably agree with most of that.

Back in the 90s while I was at university I used to work part time for a video game retail distributor. I ended up in the buying department which was awesome due to all the freebies. EA were real assholes to deal with, you could never win with them.

The deals they pushed for on distribution and exclusivity were very aggressive and a lot of people like Sega got pushed into contracts that hurt them in the long run. But as long as EA were making money they never accepted that there was any reason they should change, even if some of their crap seemed to amount to killing the (metaphorical) geese that were laying (metaphorical) golden eggs.

I don't think they have changed or adapted their mentality at all since then. They must hate Steam and its market share - but I simply don't think they could ever accept the kind of compromises and deals that would allow Origin to expand. They always seem to want too much control over everything.