I didn't dismiss them entirely, and I called it misinformation as you seemed to be touting the reviews/scores as 100% true proof of your assertions.

Data can still be manipulated or at the very least be subject to subjective likes and dislikes(people can and often do give overly high or low scores based on various factors that don't always coincide with how objectively good a game is), as such such data should always be weighed with such in mind....neither totally accepted nor totally discounted.

It's not always manipulation that affects the accuracy of said data....many might not like or dislike a game enough to bother rating it, but they still paid for it & that's what matters most.

i.e. The total you should be looking at is TOTAL SALES....to gog that would matter more than number of reviews(good or bad), as even if people dislike something they still paid for it and gog doesn't give refunds(usually) based on disliking a game, and even if they did most likely wouldn't bother to pursue such for various reasons.

I wasn't talking about this game in particular, and obviously games with larger amounts of reviews have a higher chance of having some reviews manipulated....in this case I was referring that the data cannot be held as accurate due to low number of reviews compared to sales....i.e. it doesn't paint a fair and clear picture across the user base.

Also even if it did that same data might not correlate fully with the wants and needs of the gog userbase in whole or in part(A good number shop here for differing reasons or hold different things more dearly than some on steam/etc).

I agree gog is a bit easier to manipulate reviews for games on, but that doesn't mean the data for steam is a heck of a lot better in that regard, even if it slightly better/more reliable.

Fans of a company could do so to help their favorite dev sell more copies and the competition sell less, or they could even get paid to do so(it can happen)....just to list some examples.

List the post and I will read it later(going to bed soon for the day/night).

Again, I never said not to trust any data....I ask genuinely: Are you accidentally misreading what I am writing for some reason?

Also I am giving you the common courtesy to reply civilly and debate on the points you present and not insult your intellect or make it personal....I would appreciate if you could at least do the same(as you seem to be trying to do a bit now) & also read what I write so as not to misframe or misrepresent by mistake what I say or infer. Thanks in advance and i'll see your reply(whatever it may be) when I come back tomorrow.

Look...
At the end of the day, we have a game with only 45% positives and only 162 reviews over 4 years. This is nowhere close to an "average" game let alone a good one.

Arguing that these facts taken straight off of Steam is "misinformation" is completely disingenuous. It's the absolute truth. Anyone can go to Steam and check those scores. So playing this "it's not 100% accurate because I say it can be manipulated, thus it's misinformation" is a bullshit argument.

Let me re-quote the end of my last post...
"But I'm sure you will respond with the same anti-intellectual response "but reviews are easily manipulated so no one should trust any data" as you completely ignore everything else said to repeat your poor and unsupported argument..."

I must be psychic...

That data doesn't matter as much here for the following reasons(as I said before):

1. Those reviews don't match/show those of all(or even the majority) of those who bought the game(too small a sample size), and might not accurately show how well it'd do on gog(differing user bases).

2. Those numbers don't/shouldn't count as much as the number of total sales....that is what gog would/should look at more when deciding whether to bring a game here.

3. (This is the least important reason, though it could still partially apply...the other two reasons matter more)Reviews can be(but are not always) biased due to various factors that might not include the objective quality of the game, thus they are not fully trustworthy in all cases(though they can be useful to help paint a picture of potential interest along with other data).

Maybe misinformation was too strong a word....more like the data cannot be held to fully reflect the potential desires of a different store's(gog's) user base, isn't a big enough sample size to be a good judge of even the steam user base's interest, etc.

As I said above the wording was too strong perhaps, but I don't think my argument can be dismissed so easily when one considers each point I presented and the context/etc.

Note the bolded bit, which I refuted and showed several time to NOT be what I was trying to say. Also note that I made several good points/attempted to make others which you tossed aside under the banner of "poor and unsupported argument". It would help the debate and your case if you would debate each point in turn and try to discredit each with valid counterpoints instead of saying essentially "look at the scores, they prove i'm right & also your argument is 100% wrong" before ignoring my points/counterpoints & moving on.


=========================

You got it, Lex. Have a good one/holiday season.

I'm looking to clarify and contextualize said data.

Surely we can all agree that is important. My issue is that the Scheme data is not able to account for at least a portion of GOG's audience. For example, I'll take your word that the game has been on sale for pennies by using key sites; however, this still does nothing to "capture" a more hardline GOG user who refuses to have a Scheme account for any game, no matter how cheap. In other words, even paying pennies for a key, is unacceptable to such a user. So, in turn, they miss out on buying the game (unless there is some other non-Scheme way to buy it like direct from a developer's site). Btw, even games that are supposedly "DRM-free" on Scheme (after extra hoops the user jumps), wouldn't "capture" such a hardline user who refuses to have the client in the first place.

And I'll try asking again. Are these 18,000 other games you mention all open-world RPGs? Are these 18,000 games all able to come to GOG DRM-free without developer/publisher refusing or having already refused? The thing I'm getting at with these questions is to try and find an honest point of comparison. "18,000/36,000" games or whatever ratio you give, is inherently inaccurate when we know full well nearly all of these games have no chance to come here. To the untrained eye, one may get the impression that your argument is that it is possible for GOG to get whatever games they want from your "certified fresh" 18,000 number. Great! I pick GTA, Resident Evil, and Final Fantasy VII. Surely their devs and publishers are all on board with DRM-free, right?

Thanks. Is there any way to look into the rampant downvoting going on in this thread (if it hasn't already been, that is)? Have a good one.

As was I in part, and to also point out that the data he was/is using isn't infallible for various reasons, and cannot be used to simply say "i'm right based on this" as he seemed/seems to be doing.

This...the audiences for both stores/sites aren't a 100% overlap on the good old venn diagram, so while such data can help to build a picture of possible interest on gog it cannot be 100% accurate for various reasons such as the ones you state and others, and thus other data should be used as well(by gog) to make such decisions.

Gog have told me on other users that they cannot check who is rating what, and are discussing the rep system(but have no plans to fix it for the time being), and that is the best they can offer/tell us, sadly.

Since posts in this topic continue to be downvoted for no reason, even after LexRust appeared here, I think forum moderators should pay attention to this downvoting abuse.

I think it's obvious that a user with a single account can't make posts low rated, so it's definitely some kind of script (which I think violates the forum rules by default) or group of people who do it intentionally.

Please pay attention to it. Thanks in advance!

From what i've heard there are talks on the rep system but nothing planned, and they cannot see who reps what currently....which essentially means that rule is basically unenforceable(as they cannot track who reps what).

It is either a "fan" of rwarehall or his stances on such topics(note how anyone who disagreed with him is now low rated), or someone else.

:\

Voted for Vendetta - Curse of Raven's Cry. I would like to buy it without DRM, even if it is not a bummer.

Yes, there would seem to be a lot of reputation abuse. Various people from this thread (including myself) are being targeted by what seems to be multiple people across multiple threads.

Thanks and here's hoping we get it. :)

Hey, now that's an idea...Why didn't I think of that?.....Thanks for the laughs.

Well, at least we can finally talk about the game again.

Hope always dies last! (:

Look, there are about 36,000 games on Steam. The Median game has 81% positives. That is where 18,000 comes from.

I think it's silly how you think that GoG can't possibly find games to bring here out of the 18,000 that are average or better and instead should be stuck accepting a 5 year old game with 45% positives which is way below the 81% of a middle-of-the-road game.

And we are back to the GoG's tastes are different McGuffin. Are you trying to say GoG users really want games where enemies constantly get stuck on the terrain, with bad voice acting, a silly plot and crashing on many systems? Out of 18,000 games, I'm sure one can find many games way better than this one, with much higher review scores and a lot more interest shown through the number of reviews. And actually, GoG probably shouldn't even just accept 81% because that is just average. They should be shooting for much higher which 45% clearly is not...

As to Gamerager, all he ever does is make excuses. In every rejection thread, he just wants the games here, doesn't matter what they are, nor their quality. And all he makes are fallacious arguments in a vain attempt to throw out years of users review scores and the number of reviews. There is absolutely no reason to believe this silent majority of users who don't post reviews thinks any better about the game. In fact, the very inaction of not posting a review just shows how little they really care. Why are you so certain that all this "bias" you talk about means the game would get rated higher? Since you show no evidence, it's just as likely any bias might mean the scores should be lower.

And as astutely posted above. Vendetta IS supposedly the fixed new and improved game that was once called Raven's Cry...so if that Youtube video you are looking at says Vendetta, that's AFTER all these supposedly great fixes...think about that for a second...