StingingVelvet: Curate and people complain, don't curate and people complain.
fronzelneekburm: 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.
TentacleMayor: 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.
fronzelneekburm: 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.
It would be a huge problem. Imagine you buy a broken game, or a game that exists purely to troll players, or a game that has false advertising on the store page. On Steam, you can get your refund, no questions asked, and it's removed from your library. On GOG, the DRM-free policy makes this impractical, so you'd either be stuck with the game, or you'd have to deal with a
massively overloaded customer support system (because of all the broken/troll/fake games) that GOG simply cannot afford.
Also, as a customer, I'd much rather miss out on a few good games than have to wade through tons of shit every time I open up the store. And yes,
good indie games get lost in that shitheap too. Valve can't fix the inherent problems with their mountain of cash, what makes you think GOG can do it better?
