Posted September 14, 2021
All good points. I guess when it comes to the distinction between devs and publishers, all we can do is go one of two ways:
- Punishing a new developer by labelling their publisher "unreliable", even if the dev still has everything to prove.
- Allowing newcomers to run into problems with new developers published by unreliable publishers because we have no data on the developers themselves and we don't judge them based on their publisher.
BTW: Can anyone give a good example for a highly reliable dev combined with a highly unreliable publisher?
And just to make a suggestion for the discussion: Maybe it would make sense to only consider developers and then just have a few rules which are draconian but easy to understand for newcomers to GOG and don't require the people collating the list to count every single game of every developer against the number of issues they have. Something like:
1. Any developer selling a game on GOG that is at least x months out-of-date compared to Steam is considered "unreliable".
2. Any developer selling a game on GOG that is missing a gameplay-relevant DLC for at least x months after its release on Steam is considered "unreliable".
3. Developers can lose their "unreliable" status by fixing all issues derived from points 1 and 2.
4. Developers who can't/don't update their games as per 1 or 2 can be deemed "rehabilitated" if they publish at least two more games on GOG which have received at least one update each and which do not themselves trigger rules 1 and 2.
5. Developers who trigger 1 or 2 while considered "rehabilitated" as per 4 will be considered "unreliable" and lose the ability to become "rehabilitated" again.
- Punishing a new developer by labelling their publisher "unreliable", even if the dev still has everything to prove.
- Allowing newcomers to run into problems with new developers published by unreliable publishers because we have no data on the developers themselves and we don't judge them based on their publisher.
BTW: Can anyone give a good example for a highly reliable dev combined with a highly unreliable publisher?
And just to make a suggestion for the discussion: Maybe it would make sense to only consider developers and then just have a few rules which are draconian but easy to understand for newcomers to GOG and don't require the people collating the list to count every single game of every developer against the number of issues they have. Something like:
1. Any developer selling a game on GOG that is at least x months out-of-date compared to Steam is considered "unreliable".
2. Any developer selling a game on GOG that is missing a gameplay-relevant DLC for at least x months after its release on Steam is considered "unreliable".
3. Developers can lose their "unreliable" status by fixing all issues derived from points 1 and 2.
4. Developers who can't/don't update their games as per 1 or 2 can be deemed "rehabilitated" if they publish at least two more games on GOG which have received at least one update each and which do not themselves trigger rules 1 and 2.
5. Developers who trigger 1 or 2 while considered "rehabilitated" as per 4 will be considered "unreliable" and lose the ability to become "rehabilitated" again.