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
SCPM: The page for Atomic Heart, under one of the FAQs mentions a GOG release:
https://buy.mundfish.com/en/
avatar
Mr.Mumbles: Would be nice if true. It looks so wonderfully weird.
It's since Bioshock that I don't see a game so weird, fantastic news.
Apparently, they've also opened the pre-orders on their site, even if they don't work yet.
avatar
SCPM: Crazy Monkey Studios and Crazy Monkey Studios, Claeysbrothers have been added to the company list for Guns, Gore, and Cannoli 1 and/or 2
Guns, Gore, and Cannoli 1 and 2 is now released. :)
I guess Celeste isn't coming this week (if at all) despite appearing in that 10th anniversary video. *sigh*
Post edited October 04, 2018 by Lucian_Galca
high rated
Liar-soft has a catalog entry now, probably for the yuri-topia visual novel Kindred Spirits on the Roof.
high rated
New company in the catalog: Pine Studio for
SEUM - Speedrunners from Hell - already mentions that it will be available for purchase on GOG soon.
SEUM: Speedrunners from Hell is a heavy metal first-person platformer. Like a bastard child of Quake 3 and Super Meat Boy, SEUM is truly hardcore and focuses on speed and fast reaction.

Slice every last millisecond as you race and blast your way through deadly arenas. Teleport, jump, fly, bounce and drop in a hundred merciless and fast paced maps for the ultimate prize: Your soul… and beer!
Further confirmation from developer of Vigilantes, that GOG didn't want the game:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/vigilantes-released.124157/#post-5821607

"I approached them and they declined. You can get a DRM free version from the website, though: "
avatar
murkki: Further confirmation from developer of Vigilantes, that GOG didn't want the game:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/vigilantes-released.124157/#post-5821607

"I approached them and they declined. You can get a DRM free version from the website, though: "
I still don't understand how the Gog curation system works .
avatar
murkki: Further confirmation from developer of Vigilantes, that GOG didn't want the game:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/vigilantes-released.124157/#post-5821607

"I approached them and they declined. You can get a DRM free version from the website, though: "
avatar
i_hope_you_rot: I still don't understand how the Gog curation system works .
I usually imagine the financial bailout chart from South Park.
avatar
murkki: I usually imagine the financial bailout chart from South Park.
I imagine they are throwing 12 sided dices with keywords on their sides .
Post edited October 07, 2018 by i_hope_you_rot
It would be much simpler if their criteria were:

1. The game exists.
2. It is DRM free or the publisher/developer is willing to remove the DRM.
3. It is not illegal.
4. The company has the necessary legal rights.
5. It meets some very basic quality and content criteria such as not consisting of stuff mainly from the Unity Asset Store and like not being a Holocaust simulator or something like that.

IMHO GOG's customers and not GOG's staff should be the main judges of quality. GOG certainly shouldn't be taste judges, telling us what we are supposed to like or not.

Edit:

Even if they are going to have fairly strict quality standards they should be as objective(or atleast intersubjective) as possible. Based on reviews, wishlist votes, forum and social media requests. That sort of thing. Not distaste of certain genres or vague, subjective and mostly baseless(and often wrong) intuitions about what the GOG community will or won't like.

Edit 2:

I don't need the GOG staff telling me what I will or won't like. I am perfectly capable of figuring that out myself. Right now, they are depriving me of that opportunity and it is kinda frustrating.

Edit 3:

The wishlist can only be used positively, and even then it must be used with discernment. A game receiving a massive amount of votes is a good indication that it will do well here, but not getting a lot of votes or not being on the list is no guarantee of doing badly. GOG (thankfully if you ask me) doesn't have an antiwishlist, with games that we want to be kept away from here. But sometimes, they seem to be acting as if they do.

Edit 4:

Some people here are big fans of curation but even they(or actually especially they) seem to be disappointed with some, or even many, of the actual curation decisions. That is a pitfall with curation systems like GOG's. They are good for the people with similar tastes and preferences to the curators but bad for those with broader or different preferences. This can also create inconsistencies when there is a change of manpower.

Edit 5:

A curation system can act as a way for a few to impose their preferences, pet peeves, eccentricities(we all have them) on the rest of us.

Edit 6:

That is in no way a criticism of any person in particular. It is just inherent in the nature of such a system.

Edit 7:

Think of these two questions: 1. Who are the curators? 2. What qualifies them to be curators?
Post edited October 07, 2018 by Kristian
U forgot GOG exists as a business. No good them selling a game which doesn't remotely make them much money at all or which has a chance of appealing to customer's who may not have heard or already got a copy of it previously multiple times. Or would you like GOG to be what greenlight used to be... where we get all sorts of shovelware??.some curation is better than none..
low rated
Physical stores have limitations like shelf space, but that is not really the case with a store like GOG, so while the following might not always apply to physical stores, it should mostly apply to GOG: Profits from selling game A and game B > profits from selling only game A and not game B.

I will claim that many if not most games rejected by GOG would not have hurt their business or profits in anyway. On the contrary several would have helped them in that regard, some even significantly.

Edit:

Is Vigilantes shovelware? Would it hurt GOG's business to have it here?
Post edited October 07, 2018 by Kristian
high rated
avatar
Kristian: Physical stores have limitations like shelf space, but that is not really the case with a store like GOG, so while the following might not always apply to physical stores, it should mostly apply to GOG: Profits from selling game A and game B > profits from selling only game A and not game B.

I will claim that many if not most games rejected by GOG would not have hurt their business or profits in anyway. On the contrary several would have helped them in that regard, some even significantly.

Edit:

Is Vigilantes shovelware? Would it hurt GOG's business to have it here?
We've had this argument dozens and dozens of times.
There are costs involved in GOG selling a game, they commit to testing and providing support for every game they sell (something which I don't think any other store does, certainly not the major players). So if GOG spends maybe a few thousand pounds on said testing and writing up legal agreements to sell a game, then a little marketing (sure, writing one release post is the extent of a lot of their marketing for games, but it's still a non zero cost), plus hosting costs, manpower to set up the game page and do any artwork required and only sells 100 copies at £5 then they have made a loss.

And looking at the popularity and best selling lists shows that lots of games which have been out a long time languish in the last few pages and obviously don't sell well. It's almost impossible to judge if they have sold 5, 50, 500 or 5000 copies but I think it's safe to say many games fall at the lower end of that scale, and hence make very little return for GOG.

So no, selling more games isn't always better and more profitable, not with GOG's model. And personally I'd rather they sold less tested, supported and curated games then dropping testing and support and selling anything and everything.
avatar
murkki: Further confirmation from developer of Vigilantes, that GOG didn't want the game:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/vigilantes-released.124157/#post-5821607

"I approached them and they declined. You can get a DRM free version from the website, though: "
avatar
i_hope_you_rot: I still don't understand how the Gog curation system works .
Imagine a wall with lots of big notes. Each one carries the name of a game from a dev/publisher whom has applied said game with the wish that it will be released on GOG.

In front of that wall is a desk; on top of it a very powerful ventilator.

Now each week a random GOG employee takes a large spoon full of chocolate pudding and fling it (just the pudding; not the spoon) into the max speed rotating ventilator. The note with the most pudding on it is the game which will be released.

They use a former bathroom for it because the cleaner threatened to quit after the 2nd time when they did it in a regular office.
avatar
Kristian: Physical stores have limitations like shelf space, but that is not really the case with a store like GOG, so while the following might not always apply to physical stores, it should mostly apply to GOG: Profits from selling game A and game B > profits from selling only game A and not game B.

I will claim that many if not most games rejected by GOG would not have hurt their business or profits in anyway. On the contrary several would have helped them in that regard, some even significantly.

Edit:

Is Vigilantes shovelware? Would it hurt GOG's business to have it here?
avatar
adaliabooks: We've had this argument dozens and dozens of times.
There are costs involved in GOG selling a game, they commit to testing and providing support for every game they sell (something which I don't think any other store does, certainly not the major players). So if GOG spends maybe a few thousand pounds on said testing and writing up legal agreements to sell a game, then a little marketing (sure, writing one release post is the extent of a lot of their marketing for games, but it's still a non zero cost), plus hosting costs, manpower to set up the game page and do any artwork required and only sells 100 copies at £5 then they have made a loss.

And looking at the popularity and best selling lists shows that lots of games which have been out a long time languish in the last few pages and obviously don't sell well. It's almost impossible to judge if they have sold 5, 50, 500 or 5000 copies but I think it's safe to say many games fall at the lower end of that scale, and hence make very little return for GOG.

So no, selling more games isn't always better and more profitable, not with GOG's model. And personally I'd rather they sold less tested, supported and curated games then dropping testing and support and selling anything and everything.
Sure there aren't literally no costs, but the alternative aren't the current system vs. absolutely no curation. But there is no way that GOG is only rejecting games that would me unprofitable for them.

Also don't forget lost sales from companies not signing up with GOG because they don't want to deal with the curation. Who knows, maybe Microsoft and Sega would have signed up if it wasn't for the extremely arbitrary curation system.