First off i'm sorry if you thought I came off as trying to intentionally offend. Also thank you for taking the time to write a decent reply. That said:
Nobody here has said "Oh, this game is has only a 20% rating on steam, so it sucks and it won't be bought if put on gog!"
Rwarehall's replies state just that to some degree(if not in so many words
) when he points to review scores on steam & says gog will lose money if some of those games are brought here/says gog was right to not bring some of them here.
So I ask again: How can you manipulate a lack of reviews?
RWarehall provided an example of a game that got 80 reviews over the period of 5 years. How would that have been gamed? It seems to me to be the perfect example of a game that's not popular (especially counting the additional information provided by SteamSpy that showed it was in the lowest tier of owned games). If the game had 10k reviews and was rated 90% positive, one might become suspicious of manipulation (especially if equal attention wasn't given to the game outside of Steam reviews), but how would you manipulate a lack of reviews?
But there isn't a lack of reviews(unless your definition of "lack" differs from mine?
)...there are 80 reviews for that example, as you said. And even with so few reviews some could've(but not necessarily were, just could've) been manipulated.
I was more trying to point out that if data can be manipulated then it will be from time to time, and that with such in mind one cannot tout such data as more valid than other easily manipulable data(i.e. gog wishlist/etc) just because the set one touts supports their claims and the other set doesn't.
I was LESS trying to outright dismiss his data and more trying to show how he seemingly picked and chose which data to support in some cases, and point out how that line of reasoning is flawed.
Determining factor? Who said determining factor? In the very next block of text from me you quoted, I said "those would definitely be points against including it on gog".
I forget the exact thing I was trying to state to you on this, but in general that bit(iirc) is trying to point out how flawed it is to claim gog cannot bring some more games here due to cost/potential low sales when they do that already for some niche games.
Lack of steam reviews is definitely a more concrete point of data than wishlist entries (and way less manipulatable).
As I told rwarehall, anyone can manipulate steam reviews and scores....buy a game for cheap or get it for free in a trade and then run it a bit then add a crap review....it IS a bit easier to do via the gog wishlist but the potential is still there. This is one of the points I was trying to get across here to rwarehall/etc.....that that data(steam reviews/scores) isn't much more reliable than gog wishlist as both can be manipulated, and that to convince me of some things rwarehall would have to bring more evidence to the table.
Steam reviews, unlike gog ones, mean that that person has already bought the game. Aside from that, it also means that the person who bought the game was moved enough by it to write a review (positive OR negative). If the number of people who did that was really small over a long period of time, it is safe to extrapolate it isn't a very popular game. If we take very generous numbers and say that 10% of people who bought the game would review it, then gog could guess at 800 purchases over a period of 5 years (probably not even half of that, because gog is unfortunately a less popular platform than steam, and also, the game would get outdated within those 5 years, and likely not have the staying power of 20-30 year old classics).
Many who like a game slightly or will not likely leave reviews, even if they had an average experience.....to most it is too much work. A person who DISLIKES a game, however, will usually be a bit more likely to post a review on it to discourage people from buying such for whatever reason.
Also why shouldn't we have some of those games here? Why are some of the niche games more good for gog(sims and such) financially/etc?
PS: You keep bringing up the gog excuse of 'too niche', as if everyone takes it at face value. Gog uses that phrase because "We feel your game is rubbish, and it won't sell", is too rude.
I know that, but tastes are subjective and gog has been wrong on new games releases in the past so sometimes their idea of what will sell well is (pardon my french) crap.
Look where? Except for some devs who expressed their disappointment of only a handful of sales here on Twitter, there's hardly any hard data on that. And what games did you have in mind?
We DO know the sales numbers(or close to it) on some games and can then extrapolate games on the best selling lists based on that(i.e. lower games sold less than that number at the time the data on the known game's sales was told to us).
As for games...you mean ones I want here? Well my memory is poor(I have to write some stuff down to memorize it or recall it) so i'd need to go through my lists/jog my memory a bit. One such thing is more classic games by ip holders we have on board which gog could likely get running easily, and as for newer games i'd need a bit of time to work on a reply to that.