If the remake ever gets a significant update, you better release a demo.
People are now more than cautious to grab it blindly.

I've seen screenshots of removed reviews that were very polite, concerned the experience from playing the game and not even strayed in the direction of anything remotely connected to piracy and they have been removed because they supposedly violated the terms. So the Reprsentatives (cool nickname, btw.) seem very flexible in their haste to defend Mr. Kick's outlet.

Was it this one?
https://i.ibb.co/1fYHj2q/gogbladerunnerdeletedreviews.jpg

Because, while I appreciate the clarification, I'm having a hard time seeing a lot of advocacy for piracy or offensive language here myself.

That's one of them

How does pointing out flaws and bugs with a 'enhanced' edition of the game fall afoul of guidelines?

Sometimes it's just better to admit fault rather than dragging heels to the courtyard.

It's a welcome sign seeing the BR classic back on the storefront. Since it's still included with BREE, it is kind of a bandaid solution but probably easiest / most logical one to implement in this situation and definitely a step in the right direction. Despite the way it's advertised still incentivises the purchase of BREE, for the age old saying "2 is better than 1", but it's up to everyone's own decision. By getting rid of sort of a middleman here (Nightdive), the IP owner (Alcon) and the store/platform (Gog) are both better off with classic version.

It's also a good lesson for future enhancers... if we could get both versions on the store from the get-go instead, it would put more responsibility on the enhancer's shoulders to do a good job, because the safety net of having the original removed at EE's launch would be gone. Or at least having some transitional period where the userbase can get access to both versions, reviews or even get to try the game/demo and decide which version to buy (standalone classic, standalone EE and possibly some upgrade deal/bundle to get both), instead of some sudden classic removal.


I thought so too tbh and I'm quite sad it's not the case as it seem, as we clearly saw that some companies won't shy away from asking compensation for objectively much worse job with straight face and their hand reaching for money. However after all the unfortunate events surrounding the release, the things are seemingly heading the right direction at least.


Cheers for checking it out but dude, let's be real here here - thank YOU for all your contributions to BR and for cut-content restorations! I'll check the wiki page every now and then whether the ref/affiliate links gets updated at some point. It might be not much, but seems only fair to use these partner links esp. in this very case, as details slowly unravel and true colors are shown.

I agree to this statement 100%. GOG explained removing certain reviews with the same non explanation they already did to the affected users themselves.

Since some blues obviously do have problems with reading, I will try it in bold this time:
We are aware that some "reviews" were against the review guidelines and we don't mind that you removed those reviews - we all have to follow guidelines to keep this civil. However we have a problem with the removal of those reviews that were NOT against the guidelines AT ALL (proven by screenshots) . So reevaluate those reviews, learn your own review guidelines and at the very least admit your mistake ... even better to restore VALID(!) reviews as well. You are so losing the trust of your customers right now and I don't know anymore what I could still do to make this clear to you. Stop ignoring those who are the reason that this store actually still exists ... they have a reason to tell you when you've done something wrong. Not every complaint is a rant and in the end we all want to love GOG again - but with such things you are making this really hard ... at least for me.

This could be seen as a bold statement or an outright lie, but everyone should judge for themselves:
https://i.ibb.co/1fYHj2q/gogbladerunnerdeletedreviews.jpg
(I know that it has been posted here before, but it might get buried.)

Thanks for that clarification.

Hey mods. So, when are you going to ban MarkoH01 for directly insulting you by saying that you "obviously do have problems with reading"?

I never said anything about the point. I said about the insult, which is a violation of the Forum rules. Keep up.

The term "obviously" means that events happened that led to this conclusion from my side. Those events (completely ignoring what has been said before) did in fact happen and therefore are proven facts. I've never insulted anybody - I prefer to use arguments instead and I have plenty of them. I don't really know why you want to get me banned but I am sure you have your reasons so I do apologize that I've done something you "obviously" (see how this is working?) disliked.

No matter how much you try to spin it, the fact is that you directly stated that the mods have "reading problems", which is why you bolded your statements. That is an insult. If you were on any other forum site, you would've easily been banned for that.

That's great news, thanks!