The fact that GOG is missing such commonplace and cherished games is a black mark. It tells people that GOG has little influence, and will not be able to give them the games they want. After all, if they can't manage the easy stuff, then clearly GOG isn't going to do anything better.

On some days, I consider abandoning GOG outright. I want a world free of DRM and censorship, but that requires access to media in the first place. GOG isn't allowing me to buy stuff. That is a huge problem.

This. I own those games already, years ago, when they were new, before GOG expanded to indies/AAAs/AAs. How many people here honestly don't have it? What, literally, is the point of putting products on GOG that may only sell 50-100 copies? In the case of Rex Rocket, it has less than 200 votes. Let's say 50% of those votes buy it. (I'm probably being generous, because I know for a fact that people vote things on the wishlist in order to help people they like out, without intention of ever purchasing said game. I'm guilty of it too.) So that's less than 100 guaranteed copies sold. Is it worth it to the dev or GOG? Hell no. Not from a logistics or business standpoint on either side. If GOG had hit up Braid/Limbo before the humble bundles and Summer of Xbox sales, Barry and the others would have a point. At this point, it'd be a waste of time for everyone but a specific niche of a niche of a niche of people.

(I'm not saying this to denigrate anyone, but it's common sense. It's mind boggling to me that there would be enough interest NOW to make it worth anyone's time to bring them here NOW.)

What could GOG gain from this? They would still have to increase their staff and expenses to deal with this, while at the same time devaluing their own releases by saying "you can buy these games if you want but we think they're not good enough". And what developer would like to see their games on GOG in such a second-class category?

Nope. I don't believe I've ever mentioned the game before that post. I just came across that response by the developer and thought it might be relevant to this thread.

My apologies, I didn't take the time to go look at who started its dedicated thread. That was extremely careless of me.

Making developers willing to treat GOG as a 1st-class citizen will mean that GOG gets access to games while they are fresh. If GOG is to play the long game, then they must be willing to think about the long term consequences of their policies. Developers notice who did and didn't treat them properly, and will respond in kind. GOG's curation system is planting the seed of isolationism, and GOG as a company will be cut off from developers.


In my opinion, GOG will not be able to get current AAA companies to release games onto the service while they are fresh. As such, GOG must develop relations with smaller companies. These small companies will eventually grow into bigger ones, so convincing them about GOG while they are young and weak is crucial to GOG's success. Given enough time, at least one of these companies will release their equivalent of GTA III, and GOG can be there to reap the benefits.

I'm guessing there's something up with these beyond "GoG not wanting them."

I think of them as inextricably tied to and released on XBox Live Arcade / Digital Distribution as flagships of the (then) new "mainstream" / big budget "indie" genre. I'm sure they may or may not have been sold elsewhere and possibly even as DRM free, but the fact that they aren't here is probably tied more to contracts and obligations with their original release. That's just my hunch though.

That stuff like Bastion and Transistor are showing up is a good sign that GoG won't be left out in the cold in the future though. And who knows, maybe the "big three" listed above show up as genuine "good old games" in a Ten Year Anniversary Edition...

They've all appeared in bundles and all DRM-free. I have all of them and actually only intentionally bought 1. The others were part of bundles I bought for other games.

Braid, Cave Story+, Limbo and Super Meat Boy are legend. Of course they would sell enough to justify releasing them. Everyone does not already own them, and a decent amount of people who do would purchase them again. There are many indie latecomers that have done just fine here after being discounted and/or bundled elsewhere.

Sure, GOG could do that, but they often don't. See the release of Odallus sans Oniken and Lumino City sans Lume?

You have, and some of us disagree with it each time you have. ;)

Give me 10 minutes to compile data on the 50 best selling indies on GOG (going by GOG's definition of Indie).

LOL - only one intentionally. So maybe I'm looking into it too much and it really is just an issue of oversaturation.

It's been longer than 10 minutes. I'll give you three examples from the 50 best selling indies:

Machinarium was originally released October 16, 2009 but only came to GOG March 29, 2012. It currently is the 16th best selling indie game here.

Trine was originally released July 3, 2009 but only came to GOG March 26, 2012. It currently is the 17th best selling indie game here.

Terraria was originally released May 16, 2011 but only came to GOG October 2, 2014. It currently is the 32nd best selling indie game here.

I see your data and raise you more. Still need to fill two columns, but unsure if I have the time now.
To comment on your examples though:

Released when GOG went Indie. TET's tease had revealed it before GOG made the switch. So "New and Exciting" for GOG.

In addition to the above, massive discounts when 2 (75% - 85%) and 3 (75%) were announced, as well as when EE (80%) was released.

DRM-Free premiere. Before GOG, it was only available on Steam.

Will be playing SolForge for the next few hours, so doubt I'll be able to fill the empty columns. Do tell me if you want me to do so after the tourney though.

What did you mean to prove with your spreadsheet other than more than half of the 50 best selling indie games on GOG were not available here on day 1?