Are you serious? Do you really think GoG SHOULDN'T look at the number of reviews, the number of players playing a game on Steam or the review scores before deciding to accept a game?

If a game is only getting 56% positives to 67% positives, it's a bad game barring some negative review brigade. In this case, the only brigade was from the developer himself which raised it to the still pathetic score of 67% positive.

Basically this is an entire thread where a handful of people are calling GoG out for declining a poorly reviewed 1 1/2 year old game that hardly anyone bought for good reason...

Are You really trying to ask a reasonable argument of a corporate shill? seriously him and ''morrowslant'' seem more triggered by the fact you'll criticize GOG for rejecting it so they try to use strawman arguments for GOG or trying to change that subject. Seem even remotely making fun of GOG joke of a curation system is enough to trigger some people at GOG.

its a forum
postin' doesnt mean you actual lee care verr much

evidence:: me

ps teh game looks crap

If that is not obvious by now, any further discussions with you will just fly over your head.

That GOGs "curation" is somewhat a joke is something most of us can/do agree on...

The problem with the "look at Steam reviews, look at Steam sales" arguments is simply that GOG doesn't do that. There's a bunch of games here that sold poorly or are poorly reviewed (or both) on Steam.

BEFORE they released here? Or day 1 releases? GoG cannot time travel...

This case is pretty obvious, they had over a year of data to look over to see that there is little actual interest in this game. Poor review score. Low number of reviews, Low Peak concurrent player count, etc. And if you look at reviews elsewhere, you see a lot of bad reviews of the game.

I'm certainly not saying GoG should use Steam as a canary and just rely on Steam reviews, but for games that didn't submit their games here for day 1 sales, they definitely should be looking at how well that game is selling elsewhere. One can get clues by the number of comments, or number of reviews, or as I have pointed out various metrics which are publicly available about games on Steam.

I present you... Jagged Alliance Rage https://www.gog.com/news/release_jagged_alliance_rage

A game that was released in December 2018 on Steam, went two months gatering below average reviews from both users and critics and then got a GOG release on February 2019.

It literally proves your "they look at Steam reviews, they look at Steam sales" argument wrong. It's not the only game I could mention, just a very recent and very obvious example.

Then they used the fact that Grimoire is just a horrible game...
What's your point?
Either way, this game is undeserving of being in the catalog.

Ever consider that GoG thought they'd try filling in some of the series and gave this game a chance because it's a Jagged Alliance game?

But no, you will cherry-pick one example that certainly doesn't make this game worthy to be in the catalog...
And maybe that game was approved before it's release but they ran into compatibility problems which delayed it.

The goalposts are moving like VROOM, VROOM! "Give an example" [example is provided] "okay well that's just one example". Unbelievable. What is the magic number of examples? Kudos to samuraigaiden for providing an example and providing patience that I cannot see myself providing. But to RWarehall, I would still like to see the basis for the "fact" that Grimoire is (supposedly) a horrible game. Let me guess, Steam reviews prove it, right?

Go away troll!
Talk about someone constantly moving goalposts. My God, you are such a hypocrite!

You can provide no good reason for GoG to accept this poorly received game after it failed to impress for over a year.

CASE CLOSED!

You people are just making fools of yourselves...

Then why wouldn't they go after the other Jagged Alliance games like Black in Action and Crossfire?

Also, by that logic, wouldn't they want to have the legendary spiritual successor to the long lost Wizardry Stones of Arnhem?

They might, or maybe Rage was a test to see if it's worth it. Or maybe the developer Coreplay GmbH are hard to deal with or require DRM as that is the one thing in common for both the Crossfire and Back in Action titles and GoG wants them too. All the rest of the Jagged Alliance titles have a different developer. Are we missing any other titles besides the Coreplay GmbH ones now?

As discussed in that thread which you clearly missed, there seemed to be some rights issues to be cleared up about the Wizardry release. There might be other issues, maybe the IP licensor isn't completely on-board with DRM-free.

But it seems like people like you want to always think the worst about GoG no matter what. Every time a game is rejected, we get the same handful of people crying about how "stupid" GoG decision-making is. It doesn't matter how bad the game actually is, like Grimoire or the two games from low-tier Steam developers who had their games rejected as their other games use stock assets and retail for $0.99 to $3.99. Every time a game isn't here, it's somehow GoG's incompetence and can't possibly be an issue from the developer over DRM or the revenue cut or terms.

I'll go back to...80% of GoG rejections make complete sense from what us uninformed users can determine. Grimoire is clearly one of them.

this is your copy/paste for everyone, ever. probs even yo'self

The legendary spiritual successor to the long lost Wizardry Stones of Arnhem is Grimoire. Read about it, this game has a lot of history despite being relatively new.