Yeah, I'm sure buying a 20+ year old game from a long defunct studio will make devs think of it as a viable business model.

Jesus Christ, I know you're a troll, but you could try a little harder to sound like a sentient life form from time to time.

Myth busters proved you can polish a turd...
Seriously, they can patch bugs, graphical glitches and such like. Can they rebuild the open world, AI, the emptiness (i.e inability to interact with most things), etc. Probably not. Can they go back and undo the damage done by the lies, the brought reviews, the fake demos etc. Nope.

This is a bit off topic, but given you quoted me in your response, I'd say that there is by definition curation here. It's just providing different games to the games that you want. Personally, I think that Corridor 7 is a pretty decent game.

Personally, I think that it could be relaxed slightly, but again, I wouldn't want to be drowning in asset swaps or shovelware like you find on Itch and Steam (although some people like that, and that's okay too).

You got really butt hurt for something ... GOOOOD

Games preservation includes those that are good, great, classic, boring, average, awful. It's all worth keeping alive!

I don't think it's troll, but IQ that motivates him. That said, I actually just bought a game that tries to be retro from gog, so for once he actually has a point. That said, i think nethack's great fun and viable, too. People will fads to latch onto from anywhere, just look at all the games trying to copy minecraft's graphics instead of gameplay. However, i don't think that's really a problem, because any company that can't figure out what trends are not worth following probably wouldn't be making a decent game even with the right incentives.

Nah, in all honesty the idea of what is bad/boring changes on the person. If we allowed stuff to fade due to people's ideals of what it is, then we'd lose some curious stuff. Even more so with video games given the current voices of the media can't tell the difference between a concept and a mechanic

I think losing some is fine. If a game is liked by many it will have backupers and supporters, so it won't vanish.
When a game is just so bad only a very few likes it, then losing it is not an issue.
Pointless to save them when there are so many games more worthy to be played.
Just think about it like movies. There are many which is just bad and boring, nobody would miss em.

I think you have the ideals of reservation confused with 'what is liked and is not liked'.

Bad quality can be popular, great quality can be unpopular. It doesn't matter, it still counts. St.anger is a piece of shit, but it should still be preserved along side Kill Em'All.

Don't think so, i just cant see why we should preserve everything.

Agree 100% (to at least try)...

... but...

... would have to come from the non-profit or not-for-profit world.

Maybe. It could just be the "hunger" to create and innovate for some devs or groups of devs dies out as they get older and they settle more for a paycheck/whatever makes money.

Only thing that kind of bothers me is RWS doing the "our games are so offensive" marketing thing and related, when everybody loves them and from what I've seen of Postal 4 (admittedly I haven't watched a ton of YouTube footage) it's only offensive in the "blood and guts" sense and everyone's desensitized to that by now. Postal 2 had stereotypes and at least one slur, that's truly offensive today; does Postal 4 do that? Feels similar to Ben Shapiro claiming to part of the "Intellectual Dark Web"

But this is off-topic :p

We're talking about bad old games, not bad new games, so, no, buying failed games from the past (usually with generous discount) doesn't make devs/publishers lazy.

Agreed, a few of the most famous turkeys are here..."Daikatana" comes to mind.
The more notorious ones might have some sale value, since at six bucks people might wel ldiecide to blow a little money to see if a game is really that bad..the curiosity factor. But the forgotten turkeys..the ones that never got the kind of publicity,,even if negative..that the ones like Daikatana got..are a very hard sell. And I don't think it's fair to ask GOG tto spend money on something which has littler chance of returning it's investment.
The funny thing is no matter how badly, received, no matter how much it's regarded as a turkey, every gam ehas it's fanboys.
As to preservation, fact is there is only so money around for preservation, so it should be sepnt preserving the good games.

I thin none of the Postal games are very good....not because of subject matter, but because of poor gameplay. Playing as a homicidal maniac is fun for a few minutes, but rapidly wears thin..particularly since the humor and satire is not nearly as clever as the designers thought it was. Played One and Two , had no desire to play Three, even before the bad reception.
But I have no problem with GOG selling them.
I just wish the Postal fanboys would not scream "Prude" and "Censorship" at ANY criticism of the games the way many of them do.