Games I don't want on GOG?

*Five Nights at Freddy's series
At best it looks like some low-budget title that's overhyped. At worst its a mess.

*Left 4 Dead series
If Valve is ever going to drop a game here, then anything but this. Most of their titles are mediocre to begin with save for the Portal series and Team Fortress 2, but allowing Left 4 Dead is just simply too much for a yet another zombie game.


I think that's it, for now.

Everything by DotEmu.

"... but..."

EVERYTHING.

Did you misread the title of the thread, pal? It's asking about the games you DON'T want to be on the site, not the games you DO want. Little Big Adventure, Another World, and The Last Express are all on here, and don't you DARE try to tell me those are bad games.
Edit: Forgot to mention Gobliins Pack and Sanitarium, although I haven't played the latter.

I'm throwing in another vote for FNAF. Hatred might have been dull schlock that was able to see as dull schlock from the trailers (I called it, basically), but FNAF is literally a jack in the box simulator, except you don't know when jack is going to pop out and you have to do arbitrary things to prevent the inevitable.

Also, it doubles as an idiot simulator. As no idiot would have stayed there the moment they found trouble.

I'm aware of that website, although i don't use it. Like you, i prefer to have a catalogue with a certain quality as you say, and i believe that GOG does a good job on this (mostly anyway) but in any case, i always do some searching/ gathering information about a game before buying it so i guess i'm safe of "unknown and possibly crap games".

Another reason i don't venture in unknown waters (that is non-GOG territory) is that, given my less than ideal free time, i prefer to play the games i already bought on GOG and those i had bought on retail ages ago. No way i'm spending my time trying unknown stuff.

That being said, even if GOG starts releasing "crap" games sometime in the future (GOG is able to do it if they want to), the reviews are a nice tool to use and in the end, i guess our wallets will talk. :)

Thankfully, i didn't had that kind of experience on GOG so far and i'm pretty much sure that i won't.

Oh, and yes, GOG's picking of games for release is a mystery... and i like mysteries! :P

Only games that were never going to sell - Steam must have dozens clogging up the search results that have sold literally tens of copies.

I see no reason to waste mental energy on worrying about games coming to GoG that I dislike. If I don’t like them, I don’t buy them. Funny how that works.

I want GOG to be a store, not my curator.

Overall I'm not particularly opposed to any game coming to GOG. At the same time, every game that comes to GOG consumes some of their developer/packager/QA and other resources too. With some games they may have larger up front commitment of resources/manpower and a smaller ongoing commitment to maintain. Other games may have a smaller up front resource/manpower commitment and larger ongoing commitment. It's likely to vary from game to game depending on what they have to start out with, and what they have to personally do to offer up a game and provide the level of support for it that is part of their business model.

This differs from many other storefronts such as Steam for example. From my experience and understanding of things on Steam, they simply provide the store front and leave it up to publishers/developers to get their own games to work with Steam adequately, and for customers to contact the publisher/developer if they need support for a given game. With GOG though, they're much more involved in both processes with the majority of games in the catalogue, and the older games require that much more effort to keep them running on newer OS releases also.

Stores like Steam really don't have to deal with this, they just provide a storefront really and it's up to the publisher to deal with making the game work and choosing what platforms and OSs to support.

So based on GOG's finite resources and the fact that their manpower has more work to do for most if not all titles in the catalogue, I'd rather see them be more selective with what titles they bring here than to just open the flood gates and allow everything in as Steam has done. This not only improves the overall quality of titles offered (as a generalization), but also allows them to get the most out of their finite resources and manpower while retaining the business model that has worked out so well to date and allowed them to grow into what they are now.

There are a tonne of games that come to GOG that I personally have no interest in, many of which for example I consider to be "indie shovelware". That doesn't mean I dislike indie games though, I actually love many indie games such as The Witcher 3 for example, or Torchlight, or Trine 1&2 and many others. But there are many that I don't personally care for but which many others may absolutely love. If there's a big enough market for a given game for GOG to bring it on board and grow profit, I can't fault them for that whether or not it is what I'd call "indie shovelware" per se. So, I just more or less ignore those type of games and I'm unaffected by it ultimately.

If we had a huge gardenhose of 100s of them showing up here and a decline in games I actually care about then I might spend less time keeping up with the site and sales etc. because they'd automatically be of less personal interest to me. So overall I like GOG's balanced approach they have now, because while they are bringing some shovelware here, they have never slowed down at all with bringing old classic games nor newer titles. We're getting more of just about everything as time goes on, and an increasing trend towards getting big unexpected surprises too.

Exactly this

I wouldn't exactly call CD Projekt Red an indie developer. Especially since Witcher 2 had many people call it Game of the Year, especially with the Enhanced Edition, and the third one is doing the same.

The only difference between CDPR and most other "AAA" developers is that they want to make a really good game so that even if the game is pirated, they might pay for it since there's so much to love. Hence no DRM.

"Indie" isn't a magical word though, it is just an abbreviation for "independent". This simply means that a video game developer stands on their own. Independent companies can still produce huge blockbuster games as evidenced by CDPR. They would stop being independent if they were for example acquired by Warner Bros or Ubisoft and put under the iron grip of the whims of one of those companies. Independence is not about the size of a company or it's number of developers or how many awards it has won or money it's made, it is about the company's independence from a controlling larger puppet master.

As far as I'm aware they remain independent of a puppet master, so they certainly qualify as an indie game studio.

Well, Bastion got published by Warner Brothers and Witcher 3 by Bandai/Namco afaik, which doesn't make them really independend, does it?

That's largely an individual opinion I suppose. The game industry at large apparently considers Bastion to be an indie game however, at least according to reference on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_game#Overview

"Further, indie games do not need to be completely isolated from large publishers to be considered indie. For example, Bastion, developed by Supergiant Games, was published by Warner Bros. Interactive. Though Warner Bros. paid for the distribution and marketing of the title, Supergiant Games refused any funding for development costs, building the game on their own, and the resulting title is considered an indie game by the industry."

http://www.pcgamer.com/bastion-developer-talks-indie-publishing/

The Wikipedia article on Indie games also states that there is no official definition of what constitutes an indie game or indie game developer, just loose generalizations. So it really depends on what factors one considers when contemplating what independence means. Naturally that also means that different people may have different views about what constitutes independence.

Without an industry-wide agreed upon definition of "independence", ultimately becomes impossible to reconcile unambiguously, although I'd question whether not it actually matters outside of petty word games.

Hmph. I wouldn't want any game to be excluded. What is the damn point of DRM-free, if you can't buy something in the first place? It boggles my mind that people want to be deprived of the freedom to choose their media.