If GOG rejects a game, I'm sure they have a reason. Besides, I'm far more likely to buy a game on a whim because I know that GOG curates the games, and thus it's less likely a complete dud. Steam is full of shovelware nowadays and it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I think it would be good if GOG created voting pages similar to the ones of buyable games which contained 5 pics and less than 5 min of gameplay and allowed customers vote. Also restrict voters to gamers who paid for at least 1 or 5 to avoid fake accounts.

Just gonna leave this here:

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/classic_digital_rereleasing_old_infogrames_games_on_steam/post26

And these, which were also supposedly rejected by gog:

https://store.steampowered.com/sub/59404/

I'll gladly take Gog Greenlight over the "expert opinion" of whoever is responsible for getting One Finger Death Punch refused.

Why? It looks like Mortal Kombat with shitty graphics and a lot of light effects to compensate for the shitty graphics.

If I remember well, greenlight allowed vote every user, that is why I wrote about restriction. Also there were user's comments and fake material prepared by developers. I am writing about more simple thing.
Developer sends game, worker of gog prepares pics and short gameplay, those allowed players vote "yes or no" in gladiator manner and that is it.

Thank you Linko90. I'll be looking forward to some updates about the process, however small.

Play it, then you know why.

Who GL votes would come from is worth considering. Ideally, it comes from people who want to see the game on GOG, realistically, they would come from people who haven't played and potentially, as was the case with steam GL, it will be a ratrace of which developer can muster people to vote for their game. It won't be a quality contest at all if the people voting haven't played it and it won't even be a popularity contest because genuinely interested people won't be the majority of people. All it will be is a test of who has most favours due from their friends.

Also steam GL got swept in a tsunami of trash and finding good games to vote for was even more difficult than finding good games to buy.

I think GOG should have a good idea of what games they want to sell and publicly announce the criteria.

A good Green Light is a Kickstarter-like Green Light, when a voter makes a promise to buy the game.

I have shilled for the implementation of a Greenlight-like system in the past, so I'm quoting this from a post I made on another gog-related board in the not too distant past:

[i]"Can we get gog Greenlight now, please? I honestly have lost all faith in their "curation" and all that "too niche" "not a good fit" correspondence they're sendings devs is an embarrassment. At least with a Greenlight-like system they'd have a far more valid and badass-sounding excuse: "Our community turned you down, lol"

How about this then: Introducing WISHLIST 2.0!

Works the same way as the wishlist before it, with one crucial difference: Your vote will be multiplied by a factor of x for each dollar you spent on gog. For example, if you spent 1000 bucks on gog games in the past and choose to vote for, say, One Finger Death Punch... BOOM! Those measily 155 votes immediately jump to 1155!

The more I think about it, the more I like this idea. It would immediately put an end to this bogus "not a good fit with our core audience" horseshit, as it would immediately help gog determine how much interest there ACTUALLY is for a game. If people spend more money on this platform, they should get more of a say than your average forum trolls, spambots, pirates and gog connect freeloaders, since the amount they spent in the past is indicative of the likelyhood of them purchasing the title they voted for.

OF COURSE we'd exclude empty accounts! Multiply your vote by the amount of dollars spent. $0 spent means your vote gets multiplied by 0. Whoops, better luck next time! You want your one million alts to vote for some shitty game? Cough up the dough first! Then we'll see if some voting fraud shenanigans are actually worth it for you. It's so simple. So effective. So beautiful.

Personally, the gripe I'd have with this system might be that customers from regions with heavy regional discounts would be at a disadvantage, since they'll naturally spend less on gog overall. But then again, they get the regional pricing advantage and every day for them is a summer sale, so it's fair and square that they get a tough break for once.

I seriously can't think of any downsides to this idea, except the obvious one that gog's webdevs would be incapable of implementing something this intricate. If any of you can think of any downsides, I'd like to hear them!"[/i]

Interesting idea

this is the curation some people keep glamoring oh so much over Steam so there ya go
yes, great idea, lets make an elitistic version of gog wishlist that only the chosen people can use, because its sure to appease everybody! *sarcasm*

The big flaw of the proposed "Wish Points" system is that a developer/publisher can just buy a couple thousand bucks worth of games, and instantly hold a large amount of influence.

Not that it is a necessarily bad concept, it just needs a bit more refinement to prevent being gamed or totally overwhelming the power of Real People.


For example: Each person is initially limited to a maximum influence of 100 points. With each year that an account exists, the cap increases by $100. This means that someone who has frequented GOG for a decade has a max of $1,000.