Exactly, it doesn't need to be one or the other. In my opinion if a dev has already sold a game here then all future games should be able to come here without curation. For new dev's/publshers this should be left to the community, set up a special page. Let us vote, could even have a minimal vote needed to be added. The wishlist is nice, but this needs to be something front and center that everyone can easily see and find for said games.

And if GOG does not simplify the backend for devs and give them more controls they have already lost. Devs want to login to a special portal, upload there files (be it a patch or a game build), and click publish, making it instantly available to every one of there users... 7 days a week, 365 days a year. They do not want to have to go through GOG to get anything added or done. This is one of top reasons devs love Steam if we exclude user-base.

If GOG doesn't adapt to that, it will never become something equivalent to Steam or even gain a significant market share.

Eh, people who redeemed Witcher 3 from their retail discs have a tendency of calling the Galaxy client as GOG.

Steam's 'shovelware' period didn't start till a few years ago and you have to realize that they clearly stated that up until then, they simply were not capable of releasing more titles a year than they were before that. The floodgates opened when they became capable of doing so.

GOG is a small company, I have no doubt this 'boutique approach' they like to claim is not so much a choice as it is a necessity, GOG is only able to release so many titles a year. So to those wanting the gates to be opened, that's probably not an option.

Whether their curation could stand some improvement (like the OP is asking for), that's another matter. I've seen titles rejected I personally considered quite good, but then again I've noticed over the years my preferred titles don't tend to be top sellers, and I guess to a store, that last part is paramount.

I think Judas did some months ago. The answer is as you expected; "we can't comment on this, NDA and stuff."

Every game GOG rejected is because it's run by feminist social justice lizards from the centre of the Earth.

It's not about "one or the other" - because that's saying we shouldn't go all-out shovelware, but we should go somewhat shovelware. Nothing should be left up to the community. The community, any community, are morons. User input + power = shovelware. See greenlight.

GOG's statements (via their action or inaction) is very firm. It's why I love their collection. Not every site needs to be every thing to every one. Shovelware is readily (and probably soon, exclusively) available.

Personally id rather GOG avoid the indie scene. So much artsy crap floating around when we could be getting real games, new or old.

Like that Ellen Pao woman who reddit en masse blamed and harassed for firing someone and trying to censor reddi, who then after she resigned it turned out she A) didn't fire that person (and the one who did fanned reddit on during the reddit rage and never mentioned he did it) and B) was actually one of the few fighting against the censorship on reddit, so now they nerdraged one of the few people on their own side out of reddit?

I wish GOG would be more open with us, personally I don't like all the junk there is on Steam but on the other hand there are also very good indie games that are worth of being here.

I find it a bit controversial from them that they accept games such as Incredipede, Samorost2 and other small indie games*, yet they refuse others.

*In no way I'm saying the games I mentioned suck and should have been refused, but truth be told what do these games have that others don't?

Also I would like to see Super Meat Boy, Limbo and Braid (among others). I almost bought Braid from HB a few weeks ago yet I held back still hoping GOG manage to bring it here.

Lol, as expected.

---

I don't get it, why is so confusing? It's not about the open shovelware store that Steam has, is about the limitations of gog's servers, they just can't say yes to every game even if it looks good, they're already taking a massive hit (you can tell by using the forum) with The Witcher 3 patches and dlc.

I don't know, check the steamspy sales numbers and do the math, if a game isn't selling well on the Steam Store (that has a way bigger userbase) i seriously doubt that it will any better here on gog (hell, i don't even believe that it will cover the expenses).

I tweeted Mike Bithell, creator of Thomas Was Alone (, [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc0C8H1YgUM]trailer 1, trailer 2, , [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niPZPws4k-0]soundtrack):

"@mikeBithell If @GOGcom contacted you & said that they want to be in the Mike Bithell business, would you consider selling your games there?"

His response:

"@Barry_Woodward @GOGcom unfortunately, they refused to sell TWA"

https://twitter.com/mikeBithell/status/497452611793321984

Around the time of the original tweet, he posted the following:

"Indie tip no. 128: Don't be pushed on price. A major distribution platform demanded I halved Thomas' price, massively glad I ignored. Obviously, listen to wiser voices, but shop around to see if people agree. I didn't go with that platform, but did fine elsewhere."

https://twitter.com/mikeBithell/status/387873245665320960
https://twitter.com/mikeBithell/status/387873439781892096

I'm glad you brought this up, Barry_Wooward. I had debated making a thread about this very subject a couple weeks ago. *ahem*

Recently, I made my first non-GOG digital PC game purchase. During the Humble Store's recent DRM-Free sale, I saw an indie game that I really wanted to pick up; The Novelist. I remember seeing it somewhere in my past travels, but I can't remember where. Either way, the game looks intriguing and the sale price was great. It was too tempting to pass it up. However, I was going to pass it up in favor of getting it through GOG.

Alas, GOG does not sell The Novelist. It seems like a good fit to GOG's library, so I decided to send a tweet to the developers to ask if there was any chance of this game coming here. Their reply shocked me:

"Unfortunately, no. I reached out to them recently but they felt it was too long since it launched to add it now."

What?!? This is the worst reason I have ever heard to reject a game from being on GOG. Sure, it doesn't have that many votes on its wishlist, it's not very long, and reviews are somewhat mixed, but it's still a provocative indie title well deserving of being here. If it were here, or even had a chance of being here, I would have passed on the Humble deal entirely. Even if buying it here would have ultimately been more expensive, I wouldn't have cared. I would gladly pay a few dollars more to see it on my shelf among all my other PC games.

When the juggernaut that is "The Evil Empire" dominates so much of the market share as it is, why reject a game on such pathetic criteria? Was GOG worried that getting the game so long after their competitors would limit the sales potential? The worst case scenario would be what it ALWAYS is:

"Cool, but I already have it on Steam."

"Psh...another indie game? Wake me up when we get some actual Good Old Games for once."

"Oh, great! I've been hoping this would come here! Bought!"

"Hmm...could be good. Wishlisted for now."

and

"Already got it on Steam, but I'll add it to my GOG shelf. Why not?"

So, due to this ridiculous reasoning on GOG's part, I have had to give my hard-earned dollars to another vendor for the first time in my digital PC game buying life. Sure, it might only have been $3 thanks to the sale, but its still $3 that GOG didn't get. Such a shame.

Not everything one deems shovelware is actually shovelware, to someone somewhere that is a game they wanted to play. For GOG to say GOG knows what their community will buy is a bit of a stretch, this community has grown a lot of the past few years and has changed.

I'm not saying GOG should automatically let in the trash or put that up for a vote, there should still be a bit of curation there but for the games they deemed "not a game we would buy" with no other reason for rejection, these games should be left to the community before making a final decision.

This is not the same as anyone being able to put out anything like on Steam. I'm not suggesting anyone be able to add to this system, everything would still need to go through GOG.

The wording is a bit strange. Does half a million owners mean that they sold half a million copies or are there a lot of giveaways included?

Anyway I guess GOG should have had this game. I mean I'm okay with a curated approach (otherwise you get GamersGate or Desura) but the threshold should be so low that 95% of the good selling games are included. GOG should communicate better why they turned something down (in case they have specific reasons for it) and they could accept more Indie games.

GOG would probably pay automatically each month too. That is not so difficult. A lot of businesses do.

Maybe the best solution would be if GOG would have a curated area and a non-curated area. I would probably stay within the curated area and of course it would then be GOG's choice alone what they consider their special picks.

The ones who are rejected would of course always feel dejected. Everyone wants that previous attention a release on GOG gets but not everyone can get it, otherwise it gets diluted too much.

So, solution: a non-curated area on GOG without any special release messages where just everyone can put a game but with higher cut (due to higher fixed costs). All the good selling games from this segment can then change into the curated area.

See if you can find Lars Doucet's article on the long tail of Defender's Quest, which did mention when they got their revenue. The majority of it came on release, on promo, or on sale. So a game 6 months after release is not likely to sell many copies, and it may not even cover the expenses of the contract.