I don't see how anything you're sayhing now has anything to do with the original point which was about using sheer controversy to market a game. Mortal Kombat did that as did GTA (and let's not pretend that the original GTA which defined the franchise offered you all sorts of options including ones which do not involve massacring tons of people - you made progress by earning money and money was made by doing missions which mostly involved killing people or by killing people directly, you couldn't possibly beat the game without massacring tons of people, including innocent ones). Your main point now is that those games offer something beyond shock value in their gameplay, it's too early to say whether that is also true for Hatred. From everything I've read and heard Hatred is trying to offer a high quality shooter experience, whether they can deliver is a different issue. And any controversial game is accused of being solely about that controversial content before it's released and continues to be accused of that by its haters even once a huge group of people already agrees that the game is about more than that. Right now you're no different than anyone who has criticized Mortal Kombat, GTA, Doom, Manhunt etc. without actually playing the game. Manhunt was probably the game where my reaction was closest to how many people are reacting to Hatred now but I tried it and discovered a good and solid stealth game and - for its time - decent shooter. I'm not making the same mistake I made with Manhunt again.

So you hold the devs responsible for the Journos clickbait?

Edit: NVM. Basically reposted the post above because it didn't appear for several minutes. :P

I never had a problem with controversy being used to sell the game, rather just pointed most people in this thread would not have cared without it but now want to complain because GOG isn't selling it. That's it. The controversy sold the game, not it's content.

You kind of seemed to be trying to justify it as being okay to sell because of games like GTA and MK being sold, but perhaps that just how I took it.

You could be right, I'm just going by what the devs have stated, and it seems like nothing more than a kill everything for no reason sort of game... we shall find out I guess.

I don't really care about the game either way. It looks pretty boring, and I'm sure that GOG.com had their reasons for refusing it. Probably because it was pretty boring.

I also wouldn't read to much into the devs posting that GOG.com thought the game was good. Of course they're not gonna tell them "Your game is bad and you should feel bad!"
No, they are going to be more diplomatic about it, and the dev just wasn't able to read between the lines.

"We found your game to be very interesting, taking a very unique approach towards social issues, while utilizing some classic gameplay mechanics. We also really liked the art style."
= it's shite.

And Alien Shooter, Alien Shooter 2, Zombie Shooter, and Zombie Shooter 2 are not boring?

It is important to regulate companies, because they have significant powers. Individual people do not require much regulation, on account that they often lack the power to affect other people in a significant way.

Distributors have far more power than any legal customer. They can decide what you see or hear, so it is important for society to prevent distributors from having an interest in censorship. How companies like Valve or CDProject approach Hatred will inform their behavior toward future games - including those that have genuine political ramifications.

Dunno, haven't played them. I have no interest in top-down shooters. But Hatred seems to be a particular uninspired one.

???!!!??? My English skills are not the best so I'm re-reading it => Yup, I think it's clear for me so I'll do a breakdown of my previous message:

Devs publish an informative post about release with a single sentence that it won't be available on GOG
=> Fine, that's informative, normal business stuff going on

Journos turning a sentence into the main point of the "article" to provoke reactions (normal title would have been like "All details about Hatred release")
=> classic yellow journalism trick => bad practice

Which would be a good argument if the biggest PC gaming distributor didn't carry the game.

I -ing loved those games!

it basically looks like it's going to be the original Postal with higer res graphics.
Postal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxgoLk2NCh4
Hatred: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcIsEcZQrLc

And the original Postal got boring really quick, once the novelty of playing a nut job on a killing spree wares it gets repetitive really quickly but then again that can be said for most overhead twin stick shooters.

I also wonder if GOG promised to release the game at some point. Because the developers are behaving like if GOG promised to publish it but changing its mind at the last moment. Because if "Widely Expected" is people asking for a game, we can also blame GOG for not selling mass effect or the like. I have searched for info and only found this, which says GOG wanted to test the game and then decide wether to sell or not.

So, is GOG getting a shitstorm because some people thought it was going to be released here without an actual agreement?

Great developers!

Fact is that GOG.com is a highly curated store (in contrast to Steam), and they have rejected many games, even games of high quality, in the past, and it's often hard for us to understand why. I know that they rejected Escape Goat once, for example, and only got it several months later.

So know, GOG.com not wanting to sell this game might have nothing to do with "political correctness" or "censoring free speech". And throwing a tantrum because this particular game is not on GOG.com doesn't really help your case, honestly.

Escape Goat wasn't associated with accusations of being affiliated with racist organizations, wasn't the target of disingenuous haters and clickbait bloggers, wasn't vetoed by Gabe Newell, etc.

Very different situations.