rjbuffchix: That alone doesn't explain why other old games like the Styx games are happily released here while Agony isn't. In fact it seems there is little problem with "AA"-size games coming here, even late, UNLESS they are "
controversial" or include dungeon crawling.
I find it funny, that you quote the "day one release" part of my comment, but ignore the "bug-ridden" part completely.
You are aware that in case of Agony, the "bug-ridden" part may have been the deciding element for the rejection, and thus lead to the "no-day-one-release" part?
And do we know, if the devs tried it later
(after bugs got fixed) again?
I don't, but maybe you know more.
Point is: the game was a technical mess when it got presented to GOG. Also: according to most reviews I have read, the game is objectively bad. Feel free to disagree with that, but that doesn't change the opinion of a lot of others.
Btw - my opinion in that regard is irrelevant - I haven't played Agony (
or Florence and I also have no intention to change that - so I have no horse in this race).
Oh, and the Styx games were never bug-ridden, as far as I'm aware, and they are considered good games by most reviews.
rjbuffchix: The setting of Agony interests me way more than that of Florence, and if we're talking about "hide and seek" horror gameplay where the player is defenseless, there are already numerous games like that on GOG.
I'm not disputing the latter. And if you like the setting of Agony - fine!
But again: the majority of players obviously thinks otherwise.
rjbuffchix: You said it yourself...and to add on similarly
there are already some games here that some people would consider "
controversial" or "inappropriate" in other ways. The recently-returned Lula game appears to be one of them.
And again: you are picking the one point out of the whole, which is most supportive for the argument, that you are trying to make ("
Agony is controversial! - That's the sole reason why GOG won't release it!") and ignore all other, more decisive factors like: Agony was
(still is?) full of bugs, and an objectively bad designed game on top of that.
rjbuffchix: The bad reviews for games like Agony, Grimoire before it got accepted, etc are instances where I think it's important for GOG to gauge their own audience over reviews because the audiences are not necessarily the same across stores even on the same platform.
Well, about that:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_did_not_agree_to_publish_agony_unrated_on_their_platform/page1 rjbuffchix: I maintain that the audience on GOG is not the same as the audience on Steam, despite many dual-users. For the hardline "old school" users that refuse DRM, there is a much better chance of being able to look past flaws of a cool-looking game, in order to have it DRM-free.
If "cool-looking" is your best argument for Agony, you may find yourself standing in a corner.
I'd argue, old school users still prefer "good" games over "cool-looking" games.
rjbuffchix: And btw, I really didn't mean for this to turn into a discussion about Agony. I'll see you all in the next artistic unique indie new release topic I guess.
Same here. No need to turn this into a fight over personal preferences.
Again: I don't have a horse in this race...I'm neither interested in "artsy indie games" like Florence, nor in games filled with "shocking content only to stir up controversy", like Agony and Hatred.
I just think when it comes to rejected games, we shouldn't leave out the important technical factors completely, only because some people don't like GOG's decision, and automatically assume, it has something to do with "controversial" stuff.
As you said yourself: there are already other controversial games here. So that alone can't be the deciding factor.