GOG is a private company, but the devs/IP holders cannot tell us why GOG turned them down if all GOG gives them is a form letter, now can they? ;)

As for your ideas: I liked some of the twitter pics/posts. I wish they'd do some more of them but NOT bend the knee and apologize because a scant few people got offended by them. This would show GOG actually stands by it's team/promotions and doesn't let the easily offended dictate their policy/decisions.

I also think the site layout could be improved(bugfixes on some browsers/etc) as well, and that marketing could be done in better ways besides what they've been doing(maybe getting some game focused youtubers to talk good about the site?).

Everyone's entitled to their opinion and shouldn't be flamed or harassed for it. I sometimes wonder if Gog also wouldn't be better off scrapping the forum; especially given the negative way some members behave on here- less interactivity with the site more games ect.

If you think this forum flames and harasses/acts negatively towards it's members then wait until you see the steam forums...basically this community is miles better and it helps the userbase keep in touch, so I think it's just fine the way it is(barring a few bad eggs).

As for your ideas: I liked some of the twitter pics/posts. I wish they'd do some more of them but NOT bend the knee and apologize because a scant few people got offended by them. This would show GOG actually stands by it's team/promotions and doesn't let the easily offended dictate their policy/decisions.

I think a storefront should just be that and focus on being a quality one not getting involved in populist trends or political related topics. Yes I do enjoy some of their twitter posts from time to time and some of the game descriptions that come when a game is released.

I also think the site layout could be improved(bugfixes on some browsers/etc) as well, and that marketing could be done in better ways besides what they've been doing(maybe getting some game focused youtubers to talk good about the site?).

Nah Youtube shills are just that, stay away from that eceleb stuff imo, good products speak from themselves they don't need paid endorsements. I've seen plenty of people recommend getting the game on Gog 'because it's DRM free.'

As customers, we are constantly engaging in the behavior that your comment is critical of. Do I respect the craft of developers, as a person yes I do, but to put on my purely customer hat, it does not matter. In other words, why should I care about how much labor the developer went through with the game, if the game itself doesn't appeal to me? I can respect that they did go through the labor, but the fact that they labored on something is imo not necessarily indicative of its quality. I guess the perspective may depend on what you believe about the labor theory of value.

Imo it depends on if they do it to push a belief/agenda or just to get some press/exposure and why they're doing it.

======================================
Yes, but with a site/store as small as GOG some of those celebs can help move many more units/bring people to the site.

I'd like to see less of a "boutique", and more of a *marketplace*.

And FCK DRM! :o

GOG wrote a reply to this thread... and the complainers still were not happy.

So it would take much more endless arguments to go through the reasons, elaborating them over and over again, arguing back and forth whether or not the decision was "right" etc. Not merely "writing up a FAQ lol".

Where in that reply was there "clearly stated, objective criteria for game acceptance on GOG"?

If you're not going to read for comprehension, don't waste my time. And by the way, you're a complainer as much as anyone else here is. One of those peeps that loves to complain about "complainers". Which makes you a control freak. Which can cause a lot of stress and make you irritable. My advice is to learn about stress management, and utilize it. If you do, your quality of life will improve significantly.

You're welcome. : )

So simply because it doesn't appeal to a certain group doesn't mean you exclude the other side that does like it.
That way you just get into the zone as of your personal bias is stopping other people from enjoying the game, Not to mention that consumers are forgetting that one day it might be a game you like. Hence why I'd rather have an uncurated one so that the people themselves can decide what they want instead of a select few.

Your overall comment has already been answered if you read the older posts not to mention the Wizardry Forum topic which is the reason we are talking about Curation.

In the end, they might as well kill their so-called wishlist cause it shows votes don't help and they decide for us what we are and aren't allowed to enjoy.

No matter what they wrote, people like you would never be happy. You would just keep complaining.

Anyone with logic can understand that it goes case by case, it would be pretty much impossible to write a comprehensive acceptance rule that would always apply. For instance, I already mentioned that merely there being released too many similar games at the same time might be such a reason, or that overall the staff happens to be swamped with new (suggested) releases at some point.

I don't know what criteria my local grocery store uses for selecting new products to their store, and frankly I don't feel they should waste their time trying to come up with some kind of "clearly stated, objective criteria for product acceptance on the store" or even just "a FAQ lol". What purpose would it serve? I am sure they are already busy enough running the store.

You are wasting everyone's time with your inane and illogical demands on what GOG "should do".

As long as they are not breaking any laws, there isn't really anything GOG "must" do. If some rejected developer feels GOG has poor communication and will not contact GOG again because of that, that is GOG's problem, and GOG will take the hit from it.

Kids, don't try to tell adults how to run a business, ok?

Thanks for your explanation. Maybe GOG could implement a feature that, when a game is about to be rejected, that you can make a poll on the forum to allow the game or not? In that way you could involve the community in the decision as well a bit. I mean: GOG made a few mistakes in the past. To keep shovelware out: perfect! But some nice games where being rejected too and meanwhile we do get a lot of pixel roguelite crap I'm personally not interested in.

Basically what's already implemented with the community wishlist but is mostly ignored by GoG's curation.

True that actually. Although a lot of games on there are really wishes and not games which are being offered to GOG. A yay or nay poll with a threshold of votes could maybe GOG pursuade to allow a game appear here. It's not that GOG is actually hunting games down based on the wishlist. I think Blizzard contacted GOG then GOG contacted Blizzard for example while it where highly wanted titles.

In the case of a specific niche, it absolutely does mean that. IF not caring to maintain a specific niche identity, then yes, open the floodgates. Let me give an example of what I mean:

Say I want to open a storefront only selling survival horror games. Casual observers and even some customers demand I start selling Call of Duty in addition, and justify it with the flimsy excuse there is a zombie mode. I have a choice to make. I can either keep the vision of my store intact or I can compromise the vision of my store. Keep in mind that even by compromising my original idea and making more money in the short-term, does not mean that this ends up being best for long-term business and identity.

Even if GOG approved every game that they take under consideration to be here, what if I told you they would necessarily STILL be excluding games? That is to say, GOG has (thankfully) chosen to remain DRM-free, meaning they are effectively "curating out" any games that can't or won't meet this criterion. GOG has actively chosen to not be like another Humble that sells DRMed games alongside some DRM-free games. The fact that GOG tries to also be a selective store, within DRM-free market, does not strike me as altogether different from this, nor a bad thing.