I love GOG because they opened up a world of games for me that didn't require DRM or registration to play single player campaigns.

That being said, I really think GOG should have taken more time to think about the current circumstances around the globe before considering a release here. This pandemic is a raw moment in human history and it is still a situation that is not fully under control.

And I'm also curious why a developer would even consider creating a game based on an active real life pandemic that has affected so many lives and created so much uncertainty. It's not my place to tell GOG or the Dev what they can and cannot do, but I sincerely hope they take a long second look if the reasons were truly justified.

I do understand that the whole idea may have been well intentioned to help raise funds to help people during this crisis. Perhaps this was not the best solution or at least consider a larger percentage going towards the donations. A word from the Dev might not be a bad idea either to help us understand the motivation for this release.


I still have great affection for GOG staff and all of it's support team members. I'm not going to condemn them over one questionable action. I cannot and will not ignore all the joy I've had playing games bought on GOG and the wonderful Devs who made these games. To be able to play games with peace of mind is very important to me, one less worry to deal with in life.

There are a number of frontline workers here.

While I agree that there are many opportunistic games -- that revel in exploitation -- and show up on digital storefronts to little protest, it's valid that some people are bothered by this release. Heck, a number of people had issues with the teaser video Strategic Mind Blitzkrieg for what they saw as a glorification of WWII fascists.

Luckily, most game scenarios -- like war -- aren't a current reality for many here, but if it was current reality -- like COVID is -- you can imagine there would be many having the same issues with what they see as exploitation... no matter what the impetus or motive.

In my case...

Currently I can't see my 80 years old mother -- who had a stroke -- and is in a rehabilitation hospital. Not being home she's terrified of getting COVID-19 and I can't do anything but call her. Luckily, she can communicate somewhat effectively... otherwise I'd be beside myself. In a year or so I might be willing to look back on this specific episode through a game, but ATM -- with no cure and treatments of limited effect -- I'm not there. And yes, I'm saying this as a person who plays Pandemic, Outbreak, and who played Quarantine just 2 months ago.

In the end, I'm not overly broken up about this game. I can't imagine it being a hit and I feel like it's not worth further rumination, but when we talk about others' offense and try to minimize their feelings -- like their offense is "weaponized" and invalid -- I bristle (not saying your post was suggesting this... but some have in this thread). People have different sensibilities, and especially in this time of long quarantines and life disruption, I think it's beyond valid.

Now, does GOG need to remove the game? No. They are free to do what they will. But it's good to let them know that this release is bothersome to some. That's all.

You've said a few things more eloquently than I could. But I think we're on the same page here. I'm not trying to say people aren't allowed to be unhappy with a game. But some of the reactions here are blown completely out of proportion and some borderline speaking on behalf of others grief.

I'm not trying to discredit or dismiss people's opinions. Not at all. My only query is the exaggeration. There are people in here who criticise Steam for its lack of curation and culture it cultivates, yet here they are now crying wolf and participating in the review bombing this game is copping, without a verified purchase.

Then there is validity of the claims. A post above talks about it 'being too soon' or more specifically being a 'current event'. What is the metric for too soon? There are dozens of games on here that capitalise on current or historical real-world events. Why are they treated differently?

The only reason I mentioned frontline work, and again it's not to discredit others, it's to point out that any game with death, illness or physical trauma will always be a current event from my perspective, and this is the point I was trying to make: don't play it and don't support it. But don't exaggerate. There is no formal definition of when a game is too soon or too late to be released.

I had a similar discussion in another forum where someone tried to discredit my point of view by saying something along the lines of "I don't think frontline workers would agree with you". Well, that goes without saying because frontline workers aren't robots. But not all frontline workers have the same opinion of everything.

I suppose the ultimate point I'm trying to make is: there is a difference between disapproving a game for subjective reasons and exagerrating those reasons to disapprove a game.

This.........well said.

This is how the developers are coming across to me: "Hey guys, we're so totally worried about this pandemic thing that is going on right now, we made this paid game to help all the people that are dyinggg. I mean, why donate money directly to charity if you can buy our product instead? We're totally going to donate to charity and stuff, we're just going to help ourselves to 80% of the money, tee hee. ;) Aren't we the greatest?"

I know developers have to make a living and I'm all for supporting them, but this feels tasteless and opportunistic to say the least.

Well said indeed.

They aren't pocketing the other 80%. That's not how the split works on GOG, even without the charity pledge the developer made.

You're right. I had forgotten when writing, but it's not really 80% they get because GOG gets a cut too.

What I'm trying to say is that they are actively making a profit of a tragedy that is going on at this moment. They are a business, if they made a choice to market their game as a "Covid Outbreak simulator" it's because they think it will make the game sell more. They either developed this game in 3-4 months to make a quick buck or made a conscious decision to remarket it mid-development as the pandemic spread. Either way, it feels amoral.

Yes, I realize that the devs aren't seeing a clear 80% profit. The point is that no matter how many different ways you're slicing up the sales numbers the devs, publishers, GOG are all making money off of this game. That is the atrocity here.

I don't know if I could agree on it being an atrocity, given that I haven't played the game myself and am rather hesitant to immediately leap on board the idea train that the entire purpose was to squeeze money out of an open wound as it were.

Bad timing, I could agree with. But then I find myself at the same point others have brought up - when would it not be "bad timing"?

I found this game's page on GOG before official announcement was made. I thought back then "oopsh, this is going to cause uproar". Well what do you know.

Dunno, but maybe not during the pandemic would be a start.

If you want to play a game where you play the virus and not the saviors like in the Pandemic game, play Plague Inc.

This is just tasteless and trying to make a buck on current world issues. Even more despicable because they try to pitch it with a "good" cause.

That's the knee-jerk reaction. And it would be the most solid one to rely on if this game's entire mantra from the jump was to treat something as serious as the current event as little more than a mockery. Of the few people who have mentioned playing it for any amount of time, the impressions they've given don't suggest that was the intent.