Since the site was changed for the 10th Anniversary, it seems to me that GOG is banking way too much on using "curated games" as a main selling point of why people should buy from GOG.

I don't think that's a good idea. IMO GOG sells tons of bad games, which indicates that "curation" doesn't have much, if any purpose.

I also find the "curated collections" that the store page very obtrusively puts into the users' faces all the time to be very obnoxious. Just like how many people complained about the Thronebreaker advertisements being obnoxious, the "curated collections" are at least as bad, and definitely much worse if they are going to stay there forever, instead of eventually coming to an end, like the Thronebreaker advertising did.

I don't think most gamers need a "curator" to decide for them whether a game is good or not. Ultimately, any curator's determination is largely based on their subjective opinion, and that will vary based on every individual's likes and dislikes. The opinion of a curator may well be different from many or most of the end users who might buy/play the game they recommend.

I can't fathom any gamer in actual real-life who would think to themself: "I am going to buy from GOG specifically because a curator (or more than one) has endorsed their games as good."

I wonder what other improvements GOG might be neglecting based on the inaccurate premise
that "curation" is the thing that will keep them doing well. For example, (obviously this is just theoretical speculation in order to illustrate a point) they might think they need not make GOG into a viable multiplayer platform because "curation" will draw in enough sales to make up for those that are lost to platforms that do feature viable multiplayer.

What do you think about these issues?

Should GPG remove the obnoxious & obtrusive "curated collections" ads? Should GOG at least vastly obscure them (i.e. make them way smaller and out of the way of the average user)? Should GOG make those ads appear as opt-in options only for users who are logged in and who have checked a box which specifically asked to see them?

Should GOG stop banking so heavily on "curation" as a main selling point?

Should GOG start adding other things to its site/service so that it gains some new selling points that are actually good? (i.e. on par with DRM-free, which at the moment, is GOG's one & only good selling point).

for me it's still the DRM free site

I really don't care how gOg (or any store) brand themselves. I just buy the games I want, and the rest is meaningless fluff. For all I care, they can tell me that the games are stored on gold-plated servers which are cooled down with angel tears - I almost never see / read the front page any way (or any other non-game pages) as I tend to just go straight for the game page I need, or the forums to look for sales. I have actually not seen that they are focusing on "curation" at all....

I would hope curators aren't meant to encourage you to buy the game on their word alone, but perhaps to hightlight games you had not heard of, hidden gems and that sort of thing. I've honestly never had much luck with curators on GOG or Steam, so I mostly just ignore them.

They push the point strongly in media interviews and on the site itself. Like in the obnoxious "curated collection" banners that take up huge portions of the store screen (and which the user has no way to opt-out of, even though they never opted-into seeing that in the first place).

And it's also right there on the main statement of the main page: "GOG.COM, the DRM-free home for a curated selection of games." So their mission statement is putting curation on par with DRM-free as their two main selling points, as if they are of equivalent worth.

tells you how much I have seen the front page, as I have not seen that banner...

* I don't mind that they advertise the curated collection because i almost never visit the main page, i have a link that takes me to the news tab so i can see what have released the day but if enough complain GOG might just as well.

* I personally don't like the curation because it's in GOG's own words "hand picked" because i could care less of what their opinion of a game is but what i like or rather would like if it worked better is to keep trash out of the store.
The curation is subpar however. how else could games like Inner circle, Hello Neighbor, Soldier of Fortune Payback and many other horrible games find it's way here while other better are rejected.

*I don't know the inner workings of GOG so i don't know how much time and manpower curation takes up but implementing feature parity with Steam would most likely be a long term priority.
I don't know how they approach devs and figure out the business deals, stuff such as multiplayer can be tough i guess especially if it's older and was released with steam in mind and GOG a few years after unless they have devs/publishers they know will continue to release games here in the future and not just a one time release.

YES !!!

I mean, that curation thing is a joke.
They keep some critically acclaimed indie games out, but at the same time they have hundreds of DLCs cluttering the catalog (with no "hide DLC" filtering option available, obviously).

It is very hard to be a trusting GOG customers these days.

The only thing that keeps me here is DRM-free, more specifically, the lack of any other real competing DRM-free outlet.

The very least thing they could do is to have some voting list going on, like "here are the games we rejected, but 10 most wanted will be accepted into the catalog". Not perfect, but at least better than the current situation.
They could call it GOG Greenlight or whatever.

They could at least be open about their curation. Why some games are accepted, why some others are not.
Who makes these decisions? Are big companies and small indies treated equally, and it's only the game itself that matters, or would the biggest AAA titles go through the same curation process too?

The idea of a curated collection isn't a bad one...BUT. It is dependent on being able to fulfill many different tastes with good product (One Finger Death Punch, Mushimisama, ect) , not being afraid of "tapped out" material (Super Meat Boy), and the willingness to turn many stones over to find the stuff that is good but forgotten or not established (Shatter, Heartbeat).

Basically, it requires GOG to act like an aggressive player, not a isolated dodo.

And not just indie games but also standard ones/ports...all while selling games that don't work or are basically completely broken (DotEmu SNK ports). Refusing titles because they are "niche" doesn't make sense either when a lot of games that are being sold are pretty obscure. Additionally, they rebranded so long ago, they should have changed their thinking accordingly. Absolutely true (not that I can see their front page anyway).

I agree with you. As you said curation is no guarantee of quality as some rejected games turned out to be popular and in high demand (Opus Magnum), whilst more than a few old games on here haven't aged well at all and are running on pure nostalgia. Pretty much any MS-DOS game running via DOSBox that combines clunky, laggy controls with timed action sequences (eg, Litil Divil) plays far, far worse than half the titles GOG has rejected. Several games here (Arcanum, Divine Divinity, etc) have multiple game-breaking bugs that remain unfixed and long abandoned. Some games like "very positive" Betrayer get rejected, whilst other like Agatha Christie - The ABC Murders are scraping 3/5 stars due to being "bad obvious ipad port".

Personally though, I'm here purely for DRM-Free selling point. The moment that goes away, so do I. Not liking a game and being given a choice of fewer games isn't really a selling point, more some substitute for common sense, so I've never seen the point of a "feature" that shrinks the pool of stuff I might like to "make the store look better" when at the same time, as other mentioned you can't hide games you own or the "wall of DLC" or multiple editions for some games here, making the "professionally curated lists" look a little weak in practise and the store just as cluttered with 16x entries for Stellaris, 14x for Pillars of Eternity 2, 11x for Surviving Mars, 8x for Tyranny, 6x for Battletech, etc.

I agree. But consider that review magazines and websites have been basically doing the same thing for years, telling users what to buy. The fundamental concern for me (besides people apparently not being able to think for themselves) has always been the possibility of pay for play; i.e. the idea that some games will get preferential treatment in the reviews or advertising compared to others, even if the hyped one is a steaming pile. This in turn colors the market, what types of games have success, entire genres can actually fail thanks to this behind the scenes kind of politicization. Where I disagree with you is that I think most users do give a lot of weight to the curated collections just like they do with Rotten Tomatoes and various other things coloring their opinion on media before they even check it out for themselves. I think making GOG into a truly viable multiplayer platform would include forced always-on Galaxy whether they would actually admit this or not, so if those are the choices, bring on more curation instead please. :) Yes, preferably keep them as an option. I would even be fine with them as "on by default", unlike how the profiles which I feel should not be on by default; privacy settings should always be opt-out not opt-in. I noticed the curated collections right away as being an unpleasant new feature of the downgrade too. Yes. To me the curated collections go in the opposite direction of your suggestion here. Let me explain. I think curation is good as a "behind the scenes" thing. For example, I do not want every indie game ever made to be flooding the site. I support curation, I just don't think curated collections need to be a selling point. I think the better focus would be on user customization and freedom to navigate the site and the games how they want. Consider that Steam is so restrictive, one size fits all. GOG could stand out by allowing users to tailor their site experience to their own liking. See above, with the idea of choosing whether or not to see the curated collections. Another major option that comes to mind right off the bat would be allowing to choose between using the old version of the site instead of the new version. I know that in many ways, it seems GOG intends to emulate Steam. But I think GOG could really stand out by offering a more personalized, customizable experience compared to the sterile, corporate monopoly experience.

+1

As for curation, the (binary polar opposite) alternative is open slather (like the iStore).
There needs to be some minimum standards for a game / digital distraction / whatever to be available, otherwise scammers will be able to use a front end "game" as a trojan to siphon money from unsuspecting people, or sell broken code ("It's an alpha release that we're working to publish…"), or worse.
There is a sweet spot between too-restricted (which I'm hearing is the real complaint, here?) and no restrictions.
/2¢