So lately it seems more and more there seems to be a return to the old arguement of should GOG remained curated or not as GOG seems to reject many games for seemingly no sensible reason at least through the user base here on the forums anyway since we don't often get a clear explanation as to why and with some clamering for a end of curation here, which most don't want since it will lead to the typical flooding of the store with crap. I happen to fall in the latter catagory, I personally think it's silly to end over all curation because that one game or style of game you really want wasn't accepted and have to subject the rest of us to the same crap that many currently deal with on Stream, the app store, desura, ect. where it's just a market flooded with crap and people have to search for the diamonds in the rough as it were.

So what I propose is what I think is a good compromise where GOG could offer a greenlight style system for rejected titles where they can be put up to be voted on by the customer base here but unlike Greenlight where anyone with a 100 dollars can submit their game this will be only for games submitted to GOG and will also be a curated one where the games rejected for techincal reasons like being broken, being something cobbled together with store bought unity assests, being unfinished, ect. and the like will not be open to voting by the community thus preventing scumbag devs like Digital Homicide from cheesing the system like they do with Greenlight now.

So basically games GOG rejects for more subjective reasons like being too niche, not being a good fit, we don't want to sell this genre of game, being too high of a price will be the only ones up for voting. Obviously details about the game will be there price point and the like.

Yes we have the wishlist but as events have shown us those are only guidelines and don't have that much bearing on GOG's final decisions.

I think this is a decent compromise. What do the rest of you think? Also if you like here is the wishlist for it(feels weird given how I just criticized it).

http://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/the_ability_for_the_customer_base_to_be_able_to_vote_in_rejected_games

This is a terrible idea, and you're a terrible person. I hope you feel terrible about it.

[url= LOL I TROLL U!!! Jesus Christ that hatred thread turned me into an even more disgruntled person. I feel like if we're going to wharrrgarbl about something we should include a troll notification. Like a troll tag. Is that a thing? It should be a thing.][/url]

[url= Also, that second paragraph was ONE SENTENCE. Holy crap, Faulkner, I thought you were dead.][/url]

[url= Nothing to see here, just felt like a third hidden comment.][/url]

[url=OK I know you shouldn't explain the joke but for anyone who doesn't read exhausting English literature William Faulkner was an author known for his long, rambling style. His sentences could often be a page or more long, and his novel Absalom, Absalom containes a sentence that was in teh Guiness Book of World Records for being the longest sentence in the English language, at 1,288 words, though there have certainly been longer, like Joyce's 4,000+ word "sentence" in Ulysses ][/url]

I think it's impossible to pin down a decision to reject or accept a game based on any singular criteria. I suspect GOG applies a larger range of criteria when making such decisions, among them consideration of whether the game will actually sell in the first place.

I suspect, for example, that if a game has been present on Steam for longer and/or has been bundled several times over, then GOG is more unlikely to take it on, simply because the game's selling power is exhausted. Simultaneous releases with Steam are likely to be viewed more favourably than as an afterthought in the wake of Steam sales being exhausted. That being said, GOG has brought plenty of previously Steam-only titles over, but those have been top-tier AAA and indie games

We also don't know how truthful those developers who publicly announce their rejection are being. Maybe they refused to agree to GOG's share, maybe they wanted to sneak in DRM through the back door? Maybe the game was fundamentally broken or was simply gimped without Steamworks.

As a rule of thumb, I would say that developers who are looking to treat GOG with a little more respect as a storefront are likely to be more successful than developers who simply view GOG as a last-ditch attempt to squeeze out sales because the Steam well has dried up. Every time I see some hyperbolic "GOG rejected" thread, it's usually some game that has not only been on Steam for ages but has done the indie bundle circuit so many times that its commercial viability is dead.

Also, I've noticed that GOG tends to reject very short games (<= 3 hours)

I'm not really sure that, if such a program were created, it would really wind up being any different than the current wishlist system. (In fact, it could potentially take focus away from the regular wishlist items!) Also, it would be just another element of the site (like the forums, the wishlists and GOGmixes) that might not receive much attention from the web devs/other staff after it was initially rolled out.

Since you brought up the issue of curation, though, I hope you don't mind if I drop a link to my own wish (in the hope of getting more than just my own vote =| ):
http://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/keep_gogcom_a_curated_store

I think asking for an open channel would be a more appropriate step, followed by transparency. 2 things they hate and refuse to do. It's like how Gabe says Steam listens to its users, when it actually only bows down to reddit when they complain in masses. Because listening to your own discussion boards where you can ban or ignore everyone isn't productive apparently. I mean, it's not where your customers/users are or anything so you might as well ignore it.

So you want GOG to - publicly maintain a list of games they consider bad / developers they consider uncooperative; - publicly or semi-publicly maintain a list of games they consider broken (games they rejected which didn't make it onto the sloppy seconds list); - agree to be legally bound by whatever marblecake the system produces and open themselves to rightsholder extortion.

SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA!

You know it was just a idea. smart ass.