I also invite GOG to have their say here, even if it is just some kind of generic statement.

Most of us, virtually all I guess, are in the dark about how GOG curates.

And we get regular threads (topics) about games that have been refused by GOG.

So what I am attempting with this thread (topic), is to address all the possibilities of why, and what curation might entail.

First off let me start with the presumption that GOG want to sell as many games as they can, and that if they don't sell a game here, they have a good reason for that ... at least good to their mind(s).

Secondly, if you suggest something feasible as a reason, then I will list it in this first post, with maybe a link to your post, if you provide some informative detail or sound deductive reasoning etc.

I will start off with a few that come to my mind, with detail in a following post.

Many of the following are interconnected, and most are not in any particular order, and each may have a few aspects.

POSSIBLE REASONS FOR REFUSING A GAME
(1) Game Quality
(2) Game Content
(3) Potential Sales
(4) Likely Support
(5) Past Behavior
(6) Suspicions About Past Behavior
(7) Reputation
(8) Relationship With GOG
(9) Media Postings
(10) Payback
(11) Staffing Levels
(12) Staffing Expertise
(13) Genre Agenda
(14) Time Considerations
(15) Failed Deals
(16) Shareholder Pressure
(17) Partnership Pressures
(18) Outside Influences
(19) Dev/Pub not wanting to support Galaxy/achievements/etc --- replies
etc

POSSIBLE REASONS FOR GOG's SILENCE ABOUT THEIR DECISION
(1) Confidentiality Clause(s).
(2) Relationship Reason(s)
(3) Future Considerations
(4) Don't Feel They Have To
(5) Can't Win Either Way
etc

REASONS WHY A PROVIDER MIGHT COMPLAIN ABOUT THE REFUSAL
(1) Put Pressure On GOG
(2) Get A Better Cut Or Share
(3) Look Like The Good Guy
(4) Feel They Have Been Treated Badly
etc

P.S. Feel free to provide your own definition or understanding of what I have listed, don't wait for me. If it doesn't match with mine, I will say so and why I think that. I don't have to agree with it, for it to be valid enough or as an alternative.

P.S.S. Forum software doesn't seem to like more than two links in a line, so I provide additional links on my reply posts.

I have a suspicion:

They reject everything outright.

Occasionally, they will do a test-the-waters-type release.

If it sells, they will then absolutely DROWN you in similar releases.

Example 1: Everything Weeaboo
There used to be a time when everything remotely smelling of Animu or Mango got outright rejected by gog. Long, long ago. The test-the-waters release was Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky sold exceptionally well. Now hardly a day goes by without some nihon-looking quality product gracing the front page.

Example 2: Blobbers
Despite this being something you would assume appeals to teh hardcore oldskool crowd that made up a large part of gog's user base, gog rejected every single indie blobber that came across their desks. The test-the-waters release: Grimwah (which had some 1000 votes on the wishlist) outsold half of gog's catalogue within a week. Afterwards gog released all those indie blobbers that were initially rejected, including 8(!) of them in a single game.

Example 3: Visual Novels/Dating sims/Coomer games
I mean, just look at the front page. Clearly, there are people who will buy that stuff, no matter what. No questions asked. That's likely the crowd gog is going after at the moment.

Dev/Pub not wanting to support Galaxy/achievements/etc

Iirc I read on these forums that this is why Axiom Verge didn't release here.

They've done that before in interviews, and inviting it is pointless and counterproductive, because all their statement amounts to is, as usual, meaningless PR speak fluff that doesn't actually explain anything, whilst pretending that it does.

By encouraging GOG to re-state their meaningless PR fluff statement, all that does, if GOG does do that, is to give readers in this thread the misleading impression that GOG has actually explained how their 'curation' works, when in actual fact, they won't really have explained jack all. Actually, let's not do that, because that presumption is blatantly incorrect.

GOG has banned many games for Puritan-based and political-based reasons, not because GOG was afraid that they wouldn't sell here. I.e. Hatred, Devotion, Agony Unrated (this was later allowed on GOG after they relaxed their Puritan standards...but that doesn't change the fact that they have historically rejected it, and many games, for Puritan reasons), CountryBall Heroes, etc.

The Epic version of AV is drm-free and does not support achievements.
There has to be another reason not to release that game here. Maybe its creator doesn't like gog.

You are only speaking from your guesses, impressions and biases, none of what you say is ground in facts.

And it is always important to hear both sides of a story, hence my invite to GOG, lest I also be accused of bias.

Sure some not so bright folk, may go away thinking GOG gave a good answer, when it was just the usual mumbo jumbo that doesn't really explain anything, but that will always be the case. This topic though, is attempting to look at all the possible reasons for the way curation currently is, and is a window or chance for GOG to maybe be a little more open. Some openness is better than none.

With a topic like this, one can never say we didn't try to understand, and gave it a real in-depth look.

Some people accuse GOG of all sorts of things, much of it crazy and based on no facts what-so-ever.

Sounds awfully like a conspiracy theory to me. I don't doubt they do occasionally test the waters, but many games that aren't here or have been refused, would clearly have been good sellers. So I take the view, that one should never look too simplistically at these matters, hence the big list of possibilities in my opening post.

Appearances can be deceptive.

For some reason, that I have never totally understood, many folk want a quick simple reason for the way things are, and when they don't get that, they refuse to believe it isn't the case, and so conspiracy theories etc abound.

Things are nearly always complex, though many are in denial about that ... doesn't suit their world view.

Unless you are in possession of all the facts, how can you make a proper judgment ... simply you can't.

Yep, one I had overlooked.

For many developers I guess, like many gamers who want all their games in one place, they don't want to work on two versions of a game ... one for Steam and one for GOG etc. Extra work, and often they never have the time to complete a game like they would have preferred to, which is also I suspect why there is less Linux and even Mac versions than there could be. If a game goes to market in less than a bug free state, you can bet there were publisher and or shareholder pressures behind that. To then go that extra mile, to support GOG or Linux or Mac, probably seems a grumpy bridge too far.

Earlier Reply

Another Reply

Neither are you, so take your own advice and go give your painfully self-aggrandising sermon to someone who cares instead.

Nice and charming civil response. Didn't they teach you manners at school or home.

Where exactly have I stated something without facts, that is clearly not just my opinion and experience and a good measure of logic?
If you disagree with something I said, fair enough, your right to do so, and to air it.
Just as it is my right to have an opinion as well, based on my experiences or not.

My recollection of how I understood it...again, given from reading the forums so I'm not trying make a proclamation of how it must have been so...was that the insistence was on GOG's end to include the Galaxy support for achievements. If Epic didn't require that, it would explain why it is there and not here. I do also recall some sort of drama mentioned by users, where AV dev or pub seemed to be weirded out by a GOG user daring to ask their game to come here, but I thought it was still on track to come here after that until Galaxy support was insisted upon. Who knows at this point.

Here's a little thought exercise.

You have GOG and a game Provider trying to come to an agreement.

That agreement doesn't happen, and Provider goes away feeling aggrieved.

To their mind, GOG are small fry, and they already have their game on sale at Steam or Epic, maybe both, and other stores, perhaps even their own. Maybe that makes them feel they should be able to dictate the terms of a deal with GOG.

That aggrievance may lead to a public outcry to put further pressure on GOG. It may also be that contractual obligations prevent either GOG or the Provider from telling the whole story. So the Provider just claims that GOG refused to sell their game. GOG cannot speak out, because maybe that transgresses the contractual obligations, because they would be revealing something ... or more likely they don't want to badmouth a potential provider in public, lest resentment occur and then no chance of further business.

GOG to my mind, are nearly always between a rock and a hard place. They have to attract, while at the same time, get enough profit, and they don't have the luxuries of stores that don't care for or promote DRM-Free.

To compare Steam and Epic for a moment. Steam sell a lot of games, and to most gamers, so I can see why people think they need a smaller cut than what they ask for. Epic have no doubt felt the same, hence their seeming war with Steam and taking less a cut themselves. GOG naturally don't have the same situation, as they are a smaller concern, and maybe every dollar counts. It is all about running costs in the end.

Hell I know first hand about the cost cutting GOG seems to do with servers servicing my neck of the world, though I have had better download speeds lately ... maybe due to my complaining ... who knows.