There are plenty of good reasons. The only reason this is a discussion is because some people are unhappy with the curation at present.

No, the reason there is a discussion about this is because people want to bitch about GOG period. Curation is just the reason du jour.

In a few weeks it will be something else.

On a side note I've noticed that a lot of the most vocal people in here don't give a shit about games they don't want to play not being sold here. They don't have a problem with curation so long as it caters to their personal taste.

First, I feel you are incorrect. Curation is currently an issue because curation without transparency makes a wishlist potentially meaningless... and that is of particular interest to people who came to GoG looking for "good old games."

There would seem little to no way of you deducing this from recent threads. I would guess you are transferring your own biases a bit. But your point that people are brought to issues when they feel a stake in those issues is the very point! When games you are interested in are getting rejected, you will naturally at teh very least want clarification of the acceptance process. That's human nature.

tinyE might be incorrect sometimes, as we all are, but he's 100% correct in the fact that sometimes people just love to trash the joint. I have been guilty of criticizing GOG as well, but I usually try to have a reason and not just repeat the same crap week after week after week.

If you know it's an ongoing problem, it's great that you want to provide solutions for GOG, but believe me, we've been giving them these solutions ever since they opened the gates and started selling newer games on here. That's going back at least to 2012.

They've heard it from us many, many times. If we couldn't get the public "private" profiles removed, despite the privacy concerns and the fact that some of the issues with the profiles seem to contradict the new laws in Europe, then I don't think you're going to have much luck getting them to remove curation, or publicly admit their standards.

They probably got it in their head that their curation is necessary to increase profits, and it's doing the opposite, but because of their stubbornness they don't want to change policies. It's like admitting to a stranger you're wrong about the business you created. Most people don't want to, or cannot, do so.

Criteria for *acceptance*. At the very least, it would save some devs from wasting their time applying. And might spare us from having these horribly painful discussion that seem to torment some of us to no end. ;p

My only real issue with the curation is the rejection of older games like the somewhat recent Steam release of the Infogrames titles, the MacVenture games, and some others here and there if I recall correctly.

They should give this information to people who submit their games, but it's the dev's choice of whether to make that information public.

lolno. Steam has become a dumpster for every lazy hack with access to Unity and pirated assets. It discredits the store and insults the customer. It shows they care only about getting their cut, not about selling quality products. Even if they did abandon curation, it would be way, way worse than Steam because of GOG's refund policy.

When devs have to beg to people on Twitter as to why their game got rejected by GOG, that tells you that their 'process' is stupid opaque and doesn't benefit customer or devs when GoG wont even tell the devs WHY they got rejected beyond "the hell if we know"

https://twitter.com/zachtronics/status/949408278659792896

Again Opus Mangum should have been approved immediately. What 'process' would you go through to say "well you know we have all their other games on our store and its an award winning studio but nah we don't wan tthis here". Then they have the gall to come back 3 months later like some kind of savior and say "oh look now its approved hurray aren't we awesome"

There are simply too many instances of sheer STUPID curation 'decisions' and they feel leaving not only the public, but even the developers in the dark means why would a dev bother with GOG when they can be rejected with no way of knowing why, and no way of even trying ot address what the 'problems' with the game suposedly are.

Are you saying even the developers don't deserve to know why their game was rejected? Don't you think the DEVELOPER IS OWED A REASON beyond "meh we don't wanna tell you"

Another decade of this discussion on the forum and perhaps there'll form some better understanding why Steam curation was eventually done away with. (aside from the, probably significant fact, that it became technically possible to actually do so)

WTF, are you suggesting that Pop Tarts aren't a cure for cancer or that Pauly Shore didn't walk on the moon!?

Are you sure the game publishers (which were either rejected or accepted) are also fully ok with the idea of publishing the reasons and the private discussions they may have had with GOG?

From GOG side, such "reporting to the public" is extra work, which costs money. I personally don't believe GOG would really benefit anything from that. What would most probably just follow is useless ire from the "entitled users" who would demand GOG to reverse their decisions or explain in more detail why they felt some game didn't meet the whatever standards they have etc. More arguments over the curation, not less.

Unlike you, I don't think such transparency would lessen "community anger", but increase it, and also increase GOG's work, a lot.

I fully agree with StingingVelvet, and I get a feeling people demanding "more transparency" where GOG should tell them their 5-year business plans and private negotiations with publishers, are just naive. Like a 5-year old kid thinking he knows how things work or should work. It may be sincere, but it is still naive and unrealistic.

No other big international company has such overall "transparency" either. for very good reasons.

They get it when they offer their game to GOG.

Quite often the decision to reject or accept a game might be simply due to timing. Ten other similar games being released at the same time? Sorry, but we'll have to reject your #11 game for now.

I say it again: such "transparency" would just cause even more anger and arguments among the entitled customers who think they somehow should have the power to decide how GOG runs its business. If GOG said a game was rejected due to "not suitable to the store" or "bad timing", these same people would demand GOG to elaborate, or reverse their decision.

GOG would really not benefit anything from all the extra work they'd put into achieving such "transparency".
Off-topic: I recall when I once used that same "Mother Theresa" argument, it was quickly pointed out to me, with references, that actually Mother Theresa and her methods and motives were quite questionable, even evil.

Maybe it is a matter of opinion, but after that I stopped using her as an example of a real-life saint and philanthropist.
They don't "need" to do anything. They have some views how they run their business so that it makes profit, and at least at this point it doesn't include opening the floodgates by abolishing curation.

If you want to change that, then buy GOG stock. Lots of it.

Here's what really happens

Curate and people complain and you don't make any money, don't curate and people complain but you'll make shittons of money.
No, gog refusing outstanding games under the guise of "we know what's best for you" discredits the store and insults the customer.

And the refund policy would not be a problem. Steam is much more lenient: played the game for 2 hours or less => eligible for a refund. Gog won't give you a refund the instant you downloaded (let alone played) your game. I don't see the problem.

If it was that easy and a sure money-making machine, why don't you build such an uncurated game store?

Hosting games (that don't sell well or at all) does cost money to GOG both as hosting expenses, and the extra work it causes to GOG staff (e.g. related to maintaining the offline installers etc.). It is a fine line whether hosting a game will bring you extra profit or extra loss.
That is just silly. Whether a store takes a product to their store is not an insult to their customers. If a grocery store is not carrying a certain brand of cheese in their store, it is not an insult towards me (their customer), it is just their business decision what they offer in their store. If I want that cheese very badly, I buy it somewhere else.

They don't owe me to explain why they are not carrying that certain brand of cheese. Transparency shcransparency.

False equivalence. If the grocery touts itself as "only the best cheese in town to be had here" and all you find is the standard shit you can buy in every supermarket, at some point you will call them out on their bullshit.

Yup, that's exactly what I did. All my gaming budget went to Fat Fuck Gaben. I'm not proud of the fact, but gog forced my hand.

They don't owe me, I'm just being kind enough to explain to them in no uncertain terms why they won't be seeing any business from me in the forseeable future. Besides, no amount of explanation would excuse the fact that they have refused certain games.