It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
fortune_p_dawg: yep, mine too. and sadly rejected by gog.
Really? Interesting.
Maybe it is just these blobbers in general? Although The Quest doesn't seem to be team-based

Now I am wondering what the last similar game gog accepted was? Classic and new/indie.
Classic was probably the SS games or Krondor stuff. What about new/indie? Grimrock 2?
avatar
fortune_p_dawg: yep, mine too. and sadly rejected by gog.
avatar
babark: Really? Interesting.
Maybe it is just these blobbers in general? Although The Quest doesn't seem to be team-based

Now I am wondering what the last similar game gog accepted was? Classic and new/indie.
Classic was probably the SS games or Krondor stuff. What about new/indie? Grimrock 2?
yeah i think so, it might be worth giving the dev a poke over on the steam forum (i might do that later myself in fact). i'd buy it on humble or itchio if gog is a no go because reasons.
avatar
KiNgBrAdLeY7: What did you expect from people asking for more rights, while stealing and stomping flat on other people's rights? Be glad that they decide for us what should we play. They could decide we should have nothing to play!
avatar
firstpastthepost: So now the ability to purchase a game from your preferred store is a human rights issue? It's not as if you can't purchase the game. No one is deciding what you can and can't play. You still have the option to play the game. You also kind of miss the point that GoG has the right to run their business as they see fit. If you don't like the way they do that you can always purchase from another storefront.
EVERYTHING is a human rights issue for him. The fucked up thing, it's only an issue when it comes to HIS human rights. In his mind nobody else has any.
avatar
Lucumo: I mean, games getting rejected for being "too niche" is a thing for sure, considering several developers wrote about it. Now if you apply that "too niche" to every game equally and see one game rejected and a very similar approved, then it obviously doesn't make sense and it's hypocrisy. Same with the "curation" they so proudly tout, allowing bad games here or games with low production value or games which never get updated/fixed.
Has anyone stopped to think that maybe they are using "too niche" as a generic thing to say to avoid conflict and not be overly critical of the product they are turning down? They may be using that as an equivalent of "it's not you, it's me."

Everyone is focusing on their use of that term and getting upset about it when they have no idea of the true context of what they are saying when rejecting these games. Maybe they just thought the game was garbage or encountered a ton of bugs and didn't want to get into a protracted, pointlessly critical argument with a dev they knew they weren't going to accept a game from.
low rated
then they aren't doing their jobs. The game is neither buggy nor garbage.
low rated
avatar
Lucumo: I mean, games getting rejected for being "too niche" is a thing for sure, considering several developers wrote about it. Now if you apply that "too niche" to every game equally and see one game rejected and a very similar approved, then it obviously doesn't make sense and it's hypocrisy. Same with the "curation" they so proudly tout, allowing bad games here or games with low production value or games which never get updated/fixed.
avatar
firstpastthepost: Has anyone stopped to think that maybe they are using "too niche" as a generic thing to say to avoid conflict and not be overly critical of the product they are turning down? They may be using that as an equivalent of "it's not you, it's me."

Everyone is focusing on their use of that term and getting upset about it when they have no idea of the true context of what they are saying when rejecting these games. Maybe they just thought the game was garbage or encountered a ton of bugs and didn't want to get into a protracted, pointlessly critical argument with a dev they knew they weren't going to accept a game from.
Yes, that was already mentioned and that possibility is pretty obvious either way. However, if that is the case, the curators/GOG are/is even more skummy than previously assumed because they are spitting developers/publishers in the face even more (and thus (potential) fans of the game).
It's not hard giving a concise reply why something was rejected.
low rated
avatar
MarkoH01: You really don't see the difference in the complaints? You don't see the difference between a guy losing his job and a game not being released? In this case I would say we have nothing left to discuss at all.
What difference. Your comment was the cliche that a business can do what they want.
I can see why people might be annoyed with the showboating for rejected games.
It's their decision, they don't need to have to explain why a linko has been rejected or not and the supposedly given explanation does not have to make any sense at all if you think about it. They don't have to offer certain linko at all. It's up to them.
It looks like you can use that argument for anything.
avatar
Lucumo: I mean, games getting rejected for being "too niche" is a thing for sure, considering several developers wrote about it. Now if you apply that "too niche" to every game equally and see one game rejected and a very similar approved, then it obviously doesn't make sense and it's hypocrisy. Same with the "curation" they so proudly tout, allowing bad games here or games with low production value or games which never get updated/fixed.
avatar
firstpastthepost: Has anyone stopped to think that maybe they are using "too niche" as a generic thing to say to avoid conflict and not be overly critical of the product they are turning down? They may be using that as an equivalent of "it's not you, it's me."
Yes, it is equivalent. Which is why it is so bad. "it's not you, it's me." is a very transparent lie of convenience and as such is very condescending and insulting. Just like "too niche" it transports the message: "I don't want to explain my reasons to you and now f*ck off!"

GOG should stop using that lame excuse completely. Either state the actual reasons for turning a game down or don't give any reasons at all. If they don't want to reveal their reasons, they should stick with a factual: "Your game has been rejected."
low rated
avatar
babark: I am glad for you that you were able to obtain the game. You could also have bought it on steam, downloaded and installed it, and it would have also been DRM-free.
[...]
[More]
Er, pardon? That's what I did do...I object to the fact that you have to use it through their client at least once, but I was able to obtain it and am content that I have it. At the same time, I really dislike that I supported Scheme even once, and it is regrettable to me that the game is not here where I would've gladly bought it instead.

With all due respect, methinks there is some strawmanning going on in saying that my argument is disingenuous. Nowhere in my post did I say that other games "shouldn't be here". My comment is that I find it unusual that this particular game, Grimoire, got rejected when it is in line with core GOG games, moreso than other games that do get accepted are.

People came and continue to come to this site for those old-school style games. I would also point out that the legacy of PC gaming is more defined by RPGs and clones of RPGs, than it is by Mario or Mario clones, so your analogy there doesn't really hold up, imo.

If you are going to allude to the market, then it is all the more vital for me as a consumer to make my wants clear. You should be celebrating the alleged "true goggers"' argument. Unless the phrase "the market" is just shorthand for "everyone should just roll over and accept what they are fed".
low rated
It's easy to figure out, really. Whenever you see the "this game is too niche" line, automatically translate that into:

"X number of community members got triggered by Y number of said game's features, so we should decline it. Because said community members blackmailed us before to stop buying our games and tell their friends do the same, unless we ban whatever they deem as "toxic elements" ".

The first step, had been them demanding forum moderation and new rules. Now, they have a say in what games ultimately make it here, as it seems.

Besides, there was that huge controversy with that SJW employee of GOG before, he caused quite the ruckus, some time ago. (just google it out, i am too bored to deal with that, sorry)
Post edited February 08, 2019 by KiNgBrAdLeY7
The Quest...

avatar
BreOl72: Now, that looks like it's right up my alley.
avatar
fortune_p_dawg: yep, mine too. and sadly rejected by gog.
hmm... probably would have bought it.
avatar
rjbuffchix: Er, pardon? That's what I did do...I object to the fact that you have to use it through their client at least once, but I was able to obtain it and am content that I have it. At the same time, I really dislike that I supported Scheme even once, and it is regrettable to me that the game is not here where I would've gladly bought it instead.

With all due respect, methinks there is some strawmanning going on in saying that my argument is disingenuous. Nowhere in my post did I say that other games "shouldn't be here". My comment is that I find it unusual that this particular game, Grimoire, got rejected when it is in line with core GOG games, moreso than other games that do get accepted are.

People came and continue to come to this site for those old-school style games. I would also point out that the legacy of PC gaming is more defined by RPGs and clones of RPGs, than it is by Mario or Mario clones, so your analogy there doesn't really hold up, imo.

If you are going to allude to the market, then it is all the more vital for me as a consumer to make my wants clear. You should be celebrating the alleged "true goggers"' argument. Unless the phrase "the market" is just shorthand for "everyone should just roll over and accept what they are fed".
Oh, sorry. I didn't realise you were trying to be cute/clever by calling Steam Scheme. I thought you were talking about some other store you had to get the game from.
But it seems you are strawmanning what you said I strawmanned :D. I never claimed that you said other games shouldn't be here.
My point is simply that it is only YOUR perception that gog was created to cater to your specific desire for this game. I don't think that's true at all, for the multiple reasons I listed in my last post. And I'm not sure what the point of "Your example doesn't count, because Mario was not a PC game" is? It was an analogy. You know: "Wizardry to this game is like Mario to that Butterfly game I linked".
If you must be literal with your comparisons, then perhaps this would be more in line with what you want, and it happens quite often:
Comparing something like this to something like Monkey Island with terms like "Hearkens back to the golden era of adventure games", "Inspired by LucasArts classics" etc.
Post edited February 08, 2019 by babark
low rated
avatar
babark: My point is simply that it is only YOUR perception that gog was created to cater to your specific desire for this game.
Not for my desire of this specific game itself. For games that inspired this specific game, and of the same or similar type as this specific game. Though I will say, I would still want to rebuy the game on GOG if it was available here, even though I already "own" it through the other site. To me, that is a testament to GOG.
Such a shame. I would pick up Grimoire if it showed up here. GoG may reconsider in the future as they sometimes do.

I never liked that "too niche" response. Sometimes GoG's curation makes me think they just use a Magic 8 ball to decide. Grimoire was presented to them and they got "My sources say no." Or a "Reply hazy, try again."
In my opinion Grimoire is a great match for GOG and I'm really surprised why they rejected it.

Seems that curation is not such a good thing after all.