The concept of choice offends some people. Always the ones with a narcissistic streak ("it offends ME so ban it!")

No, I'm not ignoring anything. I agree that quality is subjective, but that doesn't mean it can't be a valid criterion by which to choose what games should be allowed onto the store. 'Subjective' does not automatically equal 'bad' or 'flawed', although I know many people probably see it that way. From the start, GOG was always supposed to be a curated store that strove to achieve a thteshold level of quality, so as to avoid the vast oceans of trash that you see on Steam. I, for one, valued that as one of the unique defining characteristics of the store, which, like so many others seems to be under threat.

There is nothing inherently 'wrong' with subjectivity. It's not a perfect world and it's never going to be. However, it seems that some people will not rest until we can achieve a world that is perfectly consistent, homogeneous and optimized, as if it has been designed by computers.

Why are we so unable to allow human beings to make decisions and exercise discretion? Does every decision these days have to be perfectly consistent with some sort of rigid, codified policy?

/rant

Are you sure, you asking the correct question? Because my question would be: is ANY decision these days consistent with some sort of rigid, codified policy?

Actually, (iirc) the "curated store" selling point came later on.....before that Gog mostly got games that were old and highly asked for(on the wish lists)....that's about it.

To me, the major core pillars were/are the main unique characteristics of the store.....of which sadly only one remains atm.

Well said

Lastly, i'll say this: I don't necessarily want every game in existence here, but I think Gog should just add games and people can vote with their wallets. If a game sells well, that should/can be Gog's signal to add more similar genre/quality games, and if a game doesn't sell well than that should/can be Gog's signal to rethink adding more similar genre/quality games here.
(i.e. let customers and their wallets essentially be the "curation system" for the most part)

One thing I would definitely agree with is that listing on GOG should not be a 1-way street. More games should be actively considered for removal, if they don't end up meeting certain quality standards and/or developers don't adequately support them. For instance, games could be automatically flagged to be considered for removal if they achieve a verified user rating of less than 3.

Case in point: P.A.M.E.L.A. should imo be de-listed from GOG, since by all accounts it is very broken and has been abandoned by the developer.

See (referring to other posters in the thread)? Nothing there relating to sexual content.

I'd be happier to see more 'questionable' games being given a chance on GOG, if there were a more active mechanism in place for 'bad' games to potentially get removed.

Why, then, are some of you complaining that GoG has rejected some games? They decided that the quality of those games was not enough to sell in this store. Why is your subjective opinion "more correct" than their subjective opinion? Why should you decide what to sell in GoG and what not?

I'm not saying I should decide what gets sold on GOG and what doesn't. I want GOG to make the decision, but I am arguing in favor of curation and maintaining a minimum level of quality. I'd agree though that GOG should be clearer about what their criteria for curation are.

Some people are complaining about GOG rejecting games, because there are games that have been turned down that had hundreds of votes on their wishlist entries. Which is why they are annoyed to see games being added that seem to be of rather questionable quality, when other games that many people have voted for are getting turned down.

But that's exactly what you're trying to do. You can't constantly shout "these games are of poor quality because I say so, GoG should remove them, and it doesn't matter what GoG and other users think about this!", and then say "I'm not saying I should decide what gets sold on GOG and what doesn't". GoG decided that these AO games are of high quality and can be sold here. Users voting with their wallet decided similarly, judging by the sales. So leave these games alone. Pretty easy, right?

You mix together good quality games and frankly garbage just because they all belong to the genre that you don't like. You can find a lot of really low-quality AO games on Steam. And putting them on a par with those about which there were so many indignations is the same as putting "DOOM Eternal" and something like "Project Pulsation" or "Operation swat" on a par.

If you're worried about the quality of the games, make a fuss about rejected good games. And about the really questionable non-AO games, which are not so few in the GoG catalog, including those that were added many years ago (Why then no one was outraged about them just as violently, huh?). But keep your hands off games that belong to a genre you don't like but are quality in their genre.

For example, I don't like FPS, sports, walking and farming simulators, etc. But at the same time, I'm not saying that all games of these genres are low-quality garbage that has no place on GoG. Because I understand that:
1) Every genre has good, average and bad games.
2) Every genre has its fans
If you want respect for your interests, have respect for others.

No. It is more that we thought that we as a humanity have moved on from our sexploitation phase, but I guess not.

Not for me really.

Is there a way of turning it off so I don't have to see this type of game, like the setting on steam?

No.

Even if you look at the description of these type of games, there is no clear indication about what to expect. Like they are ashamed of these games, or maybe trying to trick people into buying them by accident.

You will be OK if you just ignore all the Asian looking game posters and ones with blank 3D faces staring at you.

So long as humans have biological urges, they will enjoy sex. That said, the reason why things like the tentacle genre emerged is because Puritans made acknowledging sex taboo. There was a time that people lived in the same household and would have vanilla sex while the other residents were in the building - but Puritans broke that sexual education.

Apparently, that is one of the reasons why "taboo" variants of sex arose, such as S&M, backdoor play, and tentacle monsters: People weren't allowed to know how the act is typically done, so they had to invent ideas on the matter. While I very much enjoy diversity in lovemaking, I find it amusing that Puritans are responsible for sowing the fertile seed of creativity.

By making the act of sex "special", Puritans made a mundane event into something exotic.


Unfortunately, the cruel morality of Puritans also caused genuine harm. Through acts of law enforcement and bad education, people can be harmed when trying to enjoy sex. For example, police are known to extort prostitutes in order to "look away" from their livelihood. Legalizing and decriminalizing sex would allow sex workers to have a much safer environment, be it medical services or the expectation of police to actually treat them like any other citizen.

Point being, the true form of "sexploitation" is that of the false moralists. They use shame to obtain opportunities, be it political brownie points or to coerce less fortunate people into sex. Hopefully, the US and many other nations will be reformed to eliminate sexual shame. A negative morality harms society, far more than consensual sex ever did.

Will you stop crying if we let you into our treehouse?

Video games = exploitation? Are you even able to tell the difference between fiction and reality? Sure doesn't look like it to me.