http://www.gamersgate.co.uk/DD-WRACK/wrack

Thanks for the link. I will have to check with the dev and make sure that's not the alpha version.

It's not. Take a look at its release date.
Edit: Nevermind. It's not mentioned. Still, it's the final release, as can be seen by the 10% launch discount that the game had on [url=http://isthereanydeal.com/#/page:game/price?plain=wrack]isthereanydeal[/url] on 1 October.

Won't happen. Making public the results of private negociation would be terrible.

If they couldn't reach an agreement, it's because one of the parties thought that what was offered was inacceptable : The game was not good enough, it is a copy of another game on GOG, it's community-driven which is not a GOG strong point (no workshop), someone thought it was not worth the price that the other wanted to charge, there is some sort of sneaky DRM, games of this type are a dime a dozen, or maybe simply there was a clash of personalities during negociation (devs and GOG reps are people too, with their likes and dislikes. I know, shocking).

All these things are kept private for a good reason : If one "side" starts making accusations against the other (and make no mistake, explaining why they rejected a game would sound like an accusation), that would create a tension between them that would be very difficult to overcome for any future negociation. Especially when fanboys of the two sides would start spamming the other for concessions. That's the reason they are covered by non disclosure clauses.

Worse, the reputation of being a store with such an attitude would outright prevent any serious publisher to see GOG as a viable outlet. There's NO WAY IN HELL Lucasart/Disney would have accepted to come here if they thought GOG was unprofessional enough to rat on them about their private dealings.

So, they give a very generic reason instead. "This game is too niche / would not agree with our current offering" is a way to say "We don't want this game here, but we don't want to be offending about it, because we could still make a deal with you in the future".


EDIT : Ninja'd 18 hours ago by RandomGal. Who put it far more clearly than I could, might I say. ^^

http://www.wrackgame.com

Current version is 1.1.0

It's the alpha the full release is only on Steam currently.
What's the point of having a wish list if you're not going to use it, or allow people to continue to wish for a game that you've decided has no future. Wrack is not the only game rejected.

What part of 1.1.0 don't you understand?

Sorry it's Beta. The full release is exclusive to Steam. No need for rudeness.

Do we have a history? Is there a reason you want to be irritating? I really don't remember you.

You forgot, like, the most important reason, the one which makes demands for TRANSPARENCY DAMMIT!!1! really intellectually offensive.

A public "this game isn't good enough for us" will hurt the dev's business with this game ("oh, that's the game GOG said sucked; let's not publish/promote it") and future games ("these guys? their first game sucked enough to be rejected from GOG, screw 'em"). And we the customers should know it from our own experience with banks and employers.


"I really don't remember you" should link here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlhOUyy4wbs

ah so its my fault then is it ?

i was sneering at your posts and making fun of your posts and bullish opinion along with no new tale to tell

because they come over as a bullish way to make your opinion mode valid whicl mocking and disregarding games other people like

wether you think gone home is a game ro not wether you think its good or not is your opinion andothing more

you prestented those opinion as facts tried to shove them down peopels throats as either facts or "common sense"

and insulted people who like those games and then you act surprised when people call you out on that

and if you dont know what to say how about not saying anything at all ?

it is after all just common sense

At what point did I insult anyone for liking those games. I don't like the game myself but at what point did I even say or imply that people who like these games are some how less. Oh that's right I didn't.

You posts have been condescending, off topic and hostile. In short, you're trolling; and yes it's your fault for no one can take responsibility for your own posts but you.

Let's take a look at some of your previous posts and a closer look at your argument.

The first thing you say is “no its gog now
not good old games any more

gog is now the name of the company and games of any kind are welcome here”

1. you don't work for GOG so you can't speak for them
2. implying that GOG is nothing more then a formality is stupid argument. Using the same “logic” you could say that GOG has nothing to do with games at all and only sells T-shirts.

For this reason I stopped taking what you said seriously, how could with things like “so your going to decide what others think are fun ?

alright then” Yes I am the guy on the internet who shall decided what others will like; and then I'll raise the dead and over through Westeros, and take I rightful place place on the iron throne.

I haven't presented my opinions as anything other then opinions. Strong beliefs if you really want, but I haven't tried to prove anything. Unless you can prove something is a fact, it's nothing more then an opinion. At no point did I say or imply that I could prove that Gone Home wasn't a game, I just don't believe it is one.

If you like Gone Home and Hatoful Boyfirend, that's fine you're welcome to enjoy them.

Remember these products of software don't have feelings, so you don't need to get upset just because some random guy on the internet doesn't like them. Is that common sense enough for you :)



The full release is a Steam exclusive.

I'm not sure what you mean, but wouldn't something like say a list of rejected games be a useful thing. Even if the reasons for rejection weren't disclosed, it could at least bring about discussion and appeal. Right now it seems like the community wish list might be redundant, because while legal rights are an obstetrical in their own right, if a game was turned down doesn't that make future requests of said game redundant.

Errr. I think that's a reason for them to AVOID doing such a list. Because for each and every freakin' game, people would whine, protest, ask for reasons, and generally become a nuisance. GOG would have to defend every one of its business decisions.

If the discussion has already be done, if no agreement could be reached, there were reasons, and those reasons won't magically go away, and GOG has no interest in having the subject being the center of attention. An "appeal" system would be a terrible waste of effort for them. Worse, it would draw attention to those failed negociations, and would create mad rumors and speculations, like what is happening right here for the 2 games you want.

Add to that what Starmaker said implies that the very existence of that "rejected" list would cast a very poor light on rejected games. For many, it would be the "list of games not good enough". IT would publicize a conflict betwen GOG and the author/dev/publ. No self respecting publisher or dev would want to be on such a list, and those failed negociations are probably very confidential.

The wishlist can already be seen as the appeal system : If GOG sees plenty of votes for one particular game, they know that this game will probably sell (at the condition that the voters didn't buy it in a bundle elsewhere afterward, of course). It will not completely drive their decision (because it is still a business decision, and GOG is a business, not a democracy), but it tells them "Many people would like that game here, so we could be a little more compliant during that particular negociaton", or "We rejected that game because we thought it wouldn't sell, but the wishlist seems to say the opposite, so maybe we should have another round". It won't magically eliminate any other problem they may have, but it will be one of the numerous factors that will be considered.

I have been disapointed myself to learn that some publishers that I was interested in, like winter wolves, were rejected. But those are GOG's decision, and I can still vote with my wallet and get those games at another store. Being pissed off because they are not all here would make me the same as those guys who get angry at GOG because it doesn't sell Steam keys...
Although it would be mighty convenient to HAVE all my prefered games here ^^

People have only so much time in their lives. No one acts on perfect information; decision-making is a recursive process where you find a quantum of info about an issue and make a quantum sub-decision whether to arrive at a definite verdict right now or research moar. "This game was rejected by GOG" is one such piece of info, and it isn't good for the game's prospects. You as a hobbyist player can independently decide to allocate some time to independently verify the game's quality once the game has been brought to your attention via a personal channel; a professional cannot afford to do this for every game evar.

Data mining, automating and dehumanizing data handling has been a contentious issue just about everywhere, and that self-perpetuating shit can completely crash a person's life through a net of automated positive feedback unbroken by actual independent human eyes. In the same way, it can hurt a game's chances of success and the dev's chance of sustaining a business. If you're unemployed and have had no luck finding work, the longer you stay unemployed, the less likely you are to get a job any time soon, because employers start thinking there must be something wrong with you and won't give you the time of their day to prove otherwise in person. If your application for a loan is rejected by a bank (for example, because you found out about the scammy opt-out hidden fees and opted out), the bank can shit on your profile and get you blacklisted by other banks.

GOG's rejection list is markedly different from a random internet user's list of games they didn't like. Because you're a player and looking for highly subjective fun; GOG is a business and their main criterion is profits for their business, which is substantially less subjective: every other business is also on the lookout for profits. Sure, a game's success might vary between services, but it is bound to correlate WAY more than your tastes and my tastes. Your proposed rejection list might as well be titled "here be bad games and/or difficult people we consider unprofitable to collaborate with".

Even the effectiveness of a hypothetical hidden rejection list which is nevertheless open to "the community" would be nil. GOG has an internal curation process which is evidently working; user votes are already a factor, as GOG has stated multiple times. GOG isn't ideologically driven; they want profits, they go DRM-free because it's a profitable niche, and it's in their best interest to sell games they think are going to sell well. "Rescuing" a rejected title through voting would be, best case, a grassroots campaign at least partially influenced by ill will toward GOG, it isn't good for business by any stretch of the imagination and GOG has no reason whatsoever to officially trigger it.

Yes, it's probably frustrating to find out a game you were interested in and wanted to buy here was rejected -- everyone, tautologically, likes the games they think are good. But every other user has their own opinion obn what exactly is good, and when you leave it to popular voting, you have Greenlight. And lo and behold, the GOG forum community doesn't actually like Greenlight and the results it outputs. Every single user in the forums [naturally, tautologically] thinks things would be better if GOG agreed with them personally, but we as a community vote against decision-making by popular vote.