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
hummer010: they aren't actually reviews of the game.
this is a store, and this is a product. reviews may contain a complaint about service, dont you think?
Post edited January 17, 2018 by MazDen
At least on me, the delete made me think Beamdog feels being a bad parasite, so I removed them from my wishlist.
Often a parasite can be good, helping.

I really don't care about gogmixes, but I am not for their diseppearing.
I'll never care about this if Beamdog did not remove it.
avatar
hummer010: Arguably, a good chunk of the negative reviews should be deleted, mostly because they aren't actually reviews of the game.

Examples: A 1-star review that says "I have absolutely no desire to play the EE. Why can't I purchase the original classic separately instead of bundled with Beamdog's abomination?"

A 1-star review that says "I will not support this "enhanced" garbage ."

A 1-star review that says "Stay away from this and buy the old version instead. Because developers on this one... well, they basically send us up to our arsenal."

A 1-star review that says "1/5 for EE edition. 5+/5 for original."

None of these are valid reviews of the game, and only serve the purpose to skew the average score down.
I wouldn't get so hung up on (the meaning of) the term "review." I'm inclined to treat these as user opinions which may rightfully focus on something that is tangential to the core game. If it contains information that another user finds useful or interesting, then it's all good for me. In this case, these user voices convey strong feelings concerning the enhanced edition & beamdog. That alone is not super informative, but it may alert the reader to a potential issue and prompt them to do more research before buying. It is a desirable and entirely ethical result for me.
avatar
ERISS: I'll never care about this if Beamdog did not remove it.
GOG removed it. Let's not lynch Beamdog over it if we don't have any facts.
Post edited January 17, 2018 by clarry
avatar
ERISS: Often a parasite can be good, helping.
My tapeworm helps me get girls.
low rated
avatar
ERISS: Often a parasite can be good, helping.
avatar
tinyE: My tapeworm helps me get girls.
I can imagine.
The creator of the GOGmix (which isn't even the OP of this thread) is not forbidden from making more GOGmixes and was told to go ahead and make a new one with the same content but with a different title.

The original title didn't even describe the GOGmix itself, so personally I wouldn't have ever bothered to look at the list. Click-bait is bad enough, I'd rather not waste time reading something mis-titled as if it's hi-jacking the intent of the listing. I'm not interested in screams for attention from advertisers or the like.

For example, we could probably put any files we want to backup into the game save folders and change their extensions so Galaxy would backup our personal files, but of course that would be an inappropriate use of Galaxy. Same thing here with the GOGmix, I think it's more appropriate to have a title describing the listing and then the descriptions be the place for the commentary. If the GOGmix isn't used in that way, then it'd be a waste of time and I wouldn't bother reading it.

The original title could be copy/pasted into every description within the GOGmix and I doubt the GOGmix would be removed. Though I think it would more suitable to add more to the description than only that. Otherwise I wouldn't consider the GOGmix useful, let alone worth voting for it, and I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with someone else's temper tantrums.

For now, I think this topic has definitely run its course. The creator of the GOGmix could be using this opportunity to get attention for a new GOGmix, and likely would have gotten a lot of votes for it. It doesn't make sense to me to complain about someone else's system that could easily be used very effectively as is. As such, I'm very interested in not seeing this topic show up in the thread listings anymore, so it's time I add it to my CSS magic spell for eliminating uninteresting distractions:
[href="/forum/general/gog_deleted_the_beamdog_is_the_parasite_of_the_industrygogmix"]
{display:none!important}
I actually have more CSS than that so a thread row completely collapses when the link is hidden. Essentially I made all the other parts of the row "position:absolute", so the link itself is the only element that asserts its own vertical spacing. But perhaps this basic example of just ridding the link itself will suffice for anyone else wanting to apply it other threads that eventually become uninteresting.
avatar
richlind33: I think it's funny as hell that Beamdog wigged out over a mix that can only be found if you know it exists.
avatar
HypersomniacLive: [emphasis added]

This is actually not accurate. 10 GOGmixes are displayed by default based on number of votes on the pages of games they contain, and another 10 when one clicks on the "More GOGmixes" button. If a GOGmix has enough votes to make it into the first 10 ones, then it's immediately visible on a game page.

Looking through Beamdog's catalogue, and going by the number of votes this one had, it definitely was among the 10 first ones, hence easily seen when scrolling through the game pages.

From the GOGmixes GreasyDogMeat mentioned as a counterargument, the EA one has less than 15 votes and the others a couple each, hence don't show up even when expanding the number of GOGmixes to 20. I am, however, inclined to think that EA wouldn't bother one way or another even if it was visible.
Thanks for the clarification. It's still funny that they wigged out, tho. ;p

Peeps need to stop crying about this mix -- you won, the beamdoggies soiled themselves over a few harsh -- but well-deserved -- words, showing how incredibly pitiful these untalented shysters are. So get to work on the next troll. ;p
okay, after reading through this entire topic i do agree with gog's position on the matter. as a business there are certain responsibilities to their clients and partners they have to attend.

and while personally i don't feel particularly strong about beamdog one way or the other, i do find that a title like "Beamdog is the parasite of the industry" utterly reeks of spurned, bitter, unwashed, basement dweller, gamer rage. which to me, is quite a bit more off-putting than selling a game at a price i don't necessarily like.

that said, i do think it's dumb you can't buy the originals apart from the enhanced versions.
Post edited January 18, 2018 by fortune_p_dawg
low rated
avatar
hummer010: Arguably, a good chunk of the negative reviews should be deleted, mostly because they aren't actually reviews of the game.

Examples: A 1-star review that says "I have absolutely no desire to play the EE. Why can't I purchase the original classic separately instead of bundled with Beamdog's abomination?"

A 1-star review that says "I will not support this "enhanced" garbage ."

A 1-star review that says "Stay away from this and buy the old version instead. Because developers on this one... well, they basically send us up to our arsenal."

A 1-star review that says "1/5 for EE edition. 5+/5 for original."

None of these are valid reviews of the game, and only serve the purpose to skew the average score down.
avatar
Klumpen0815: The same applies to 5 Star reviews like
"Loved that back then, great to see it here"
"Nostalgia is big on this one, def needed a remaster"
"One of the best games of the late 90s / early 2000s"
etc...
The 5-star ones are all valid. 1 and 3 are comments on the quality of the game (positive ones, as befits the score). 2 is a comment on the necessity of the remaster, suggests a user should buy it instead of the original version, because of the quality of the version they presumably played.

Meanwhile, the 1-stars quoted above are all manbaby whining unrelated to the quality of either the game or the remaster, and two of them openly admit to not having played the remaster.
avatar
Starmaker: The 5-star ones are all valid. 1 and 3 are comments on the quality of the game (positive ones, as befits the score). 2 is a comment on the necessity of the remaster, suggests a user should buy it instead of the original version, because of the quality of the version they presumably played.

Meanwhile, the 1-stars quoted above are all manbaby whining unrelated to the quality of either the game or the remaster, and two of them openly admit to not having played the remaster.
The problem is the reviews like that don't help any users identify problems on this current release or any changes made. Review system is broken, and nostalgia 5***** reviews from people who don't even own the GOG version of the game are not helpful at all.
deleted
avatar
fortune_p_dawg: and while personally i don't feel particularly strong about beamdog one way or the other, i do find that a title like "Beamdog is the parasite of the industry" utterly reeks of spurned, bitter, unwashed, basement dweller, gamer rage. which to me, is quite a bit more off-putting than selling a game at a price i don't necessarily like.
It is gamer nerd rage... however remember we're talking about games that are considered some of the best RPGs ever created.

They're now in the hands of untalented censoring... well... parasites. They do terrible work on the games. I remember having to wait a few years... YEARS for Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 to be in states that were less buggy than the original titles. Even then the add on content had horrible issues. One questline for the new Orc party member was incompletable because the dialogue wouldn't activate. Another fight had a dialogue box pop up every .5 seconds. Made escaping the zone ridiculously tedious.

The one original game they released... not even a full game... an expansion... was the antithesis of what a Baldur's Gate adventure should have been... linear and dull. The only thing that pops to mind as a positive from it was the inclusion of a character from the Icewind Dale series.

I know many people come to GOG for DRM free games. That isn't my interest here, it is the preservation of classic titles. With this sleazy parasitic company now in control of these classics it isn't preservation, its exploitation.
avatar
fortune_p_dawg: ...that said, i do think it's dumb you can't buy the originals apart from the enhanced versions.
It isn't "dumb". Their "enhanced" versions can't compete with the originals, so they talked GOG into eliminating the competition. That's low class. Very low class.
avatar
fortune_p_dawg: and while personally i don't feel particularly strong about beamdog one way or the other, i do find that a title like "Beamdog is the parasite of the industry" utterly reeks of spurned, bitter, unwashed, basement dweller, gamer rage. which to me, is quite a bit more off-putting than selling a game at a price i don't necessarily like.
avatar
GreasyDogMeat: It is gamer nerd rage... however remember we're talking about games that are considered some of the best RPGs ever created.

They're now in the hands of untalented censoring... well... parasites. They do terrible work on the games. I remember having to wait a few years... YEARS for Baldur's Gate 1 & 2 to be in states that were less buggy than the original titles. Even then the add on content had horrible issues. One questline for the new Orc party member was incompletable because the dialogue wouldn't activate. Another fight had a dialogue box pop up every .5 seconds. Made escaping the zone ridiculously tedious.

The one original game they released... not even a full game... an expansion... was the antithesis of what a Baldur's Gate adventure should have been... linear and dull. The only thing that pops to mind as a positive from it was the inclusion of a character from the Icewind Dale series.

I know many people come to GOG for DRM free games. That isn't my interest here, it is the preservation of classic titles. With this sleazy parasitic company now in control of these classics it isn't preservation, its exploitation.
true, i love those titles as well (particularly planescape); and just the same, i won't argue the bugs in the remasters. i feel though, like some things are ultimately out of our control and as with literally everything on the internet all of the foot stamping in the world isn't going to make beamdog throw their arms up and say "hmmm, you know, you're right, we suck and hereby relinquish all rights to the infinity engine d&d titles."

frankly i'm still happy the games are here, drm-free, despite the price increase. i think it'd ultimately be much much worse for gog and it's users if these things went steam only (although i don't really know what people think of beamdog or these remasters there either).
avatar
fortune_p_dawg: ...that said, i do think it's dumb you can't buy the originals apart from the enhanced versions.
avatar
richlind33: It isn't "dumb". Their "enhanced" versions can't compete with the originals, so they talked GOG into eliminating the competition. That's low class. Very low class.
you're right. they're marketing geniuses.
Post edited January 18, 2018 by fortune_p_dawg
low rated
avatar
Starmaker: The 5-star ones are all valid. 1 and 3 are comments on the quality of the game (positive ones, as befits the score). 2 is a comment on the necessity of the remaster, suggests a user should buy it instead of the original version, because of the quality of the version they presumably played.

Meanwhile, the 1-stars quoted above are all manbaby whining unrelated to the quality of either the game or the remaster, and two of them openly admit to not having played the remaster.
avatar
paladin181: The problem is the reviews like that don't help any users identify problems on this current release or any changes made. Review system is broken, and nostalgia 5***** reviews from people who don't even own the GOG version of the game are not helpful at all.
There's a difference between reviews that are unhelpful to some extent ("loved the original" is still greater than zero bytes of info, considering it's for all intensive porpoises the same game) and comments on things that don't have anything to do with the quality of the game at all. "Don't buy this game A because these very same developers don't update their other game B" is valid. "Don't buy this game A because the developers are Jews and I hate Jews" is not.