Posted May 26, 2021
Well, like it or not, the Mass Effect Legendary Edition is the number one most requested game on the platform right now. Clearly people don't care. Which is odd, but again, if they sell it, people will definitely buy it in droves.
Let me give an example of transparency. Mass Effect 1,2 & 3 have been requested in their original forms for a very long time now. A number of years. And by requested, I mean that they have stayed at the top for the same amount of time. People really want these games on GOG.
I cannot say as to whether or not the team responded, but I will say one quality that makes fit good business is communicating with people who desperately want a product and are willing to pay for it. I understand that this game is a cash cow for the publisher, so they may not be ready to give it up just yet. But what GOG can do is at least tell the fans, "We've appreciated all of your support for this title and we want to bring it to you. However, the publisher is not yet ready to release the DRM on it and you may have to wait a few years before that happens."
Yes, this may not be what fans want to hear, and of course you will have some angry, mad at the world people who try to attack the publisher on Twitter or whatever. They'll just get blocked and life will move on. But this is absolutely better than complete radio silence.
Or perhaps even, "We know that you want Doom and Doom Eternal on the platform and have been talking with Bethesda about it over the past few months. While Bethesda may not be ready to give up Doom Eternal just yet, there is a good possibility that we could get the original. Keep your fingers crossed. "
What this says to people is, "at least I know the company is hearing me out, I know they care and they want to bring me good products. I understand that this is a long process, but at least there is some possibility that these games might come soon, so I'll be patient and not worry about it."
Good PR that listens to people and addresses their claims professionally, no matter how unprofessionally they're asked is worth it's weight in gold.
Let's use Bloodstained as an example. For the record, I love Bloodstained. I think it's a tremendous game. But it used to look very ugly. And people pointed that out. So Iga listened to people that he knew backed or were at least planning to buy the game on day one. The whole thing got an overhaul and now it looks beautiful. And he didn't stop there. He's still making content for the game, which means people have a reason to keep it installed, so that they can have something new to come back to. That's good PR and good game development. Delivering on your promises and making the best product you can by taking in all of the legitimate critique.
Now we look at a game like Mighty No. 9. Yes, I backed it. There were multiple reports from people that the person in charge of PR for the game, where all the critiques and ideas were supposed to be input into the design of the product were either outright ignored, or the people making these critiques were booted from the forums altogether because of their personal beliefs or values. If they did not align with the PR manager, that person was not allowed any input.
And what did we get? Mega Man 11. Because no one even wants to acknowledge the existence of Mighty No. 9.
Good PR is extremely important for any business. I think these examples prove that.
kai2: My guess is...
... that GOG was meant to ultimately be built around exclusive CDPR content, but other than Witcher 3, they haven't been able to string enough critical and financial hits together in order to make an exclusive store marketable (Thronebreaker certainly fumbled in that regard).
Without those big exlcusives, GOG just kinda hangs -- not wanting to hire too many people or spend too much money. The store is an afterthought... biding their time for the day when the CDPR exclusives flow and happiness returns to the realm! But for now they try to use data-mining to keep things afloat...?
As for vetting... that's a whole level of chaos no mortal will ever understand. Good games with devs who want to be here are left out to dry while unfinished games and games with devs who don't care for GOG get in.
Now, that's not to say GOG doesn't get good additions to the catalogue... but if you do try and watch / understand the process... you'll go cross-eyed... and then mad... terribly, terribly mad
LiquidOxygen80: I've not been here for as long as the '08ers, but I can tell you this much: Good Old Games was built around two core principles, as far as I remember. 1. Preserving old games and working them to operate on modern operating systems. 2. DRM free.
Over the years, they had multiple polls on their policies, such as changing their core philosophies to start bringing in newer games, as well as independent games that shared the design philosophies and stylistics of older games, like the retro boom, etc. We voted to broaden their scope, because before, it was strictly limited to old games, with the CDP catalog being the lone exception to that rule for at least a few years. It was a very small split, because there was a pretty large and vocal group who absolutely hated the idea of not only dealing in classics. The argument was made that game age had nothing to do with game quality, which ended up being one of the prevailing viewpoints, and one I happened to share, as evidenced by what was in the catalogue at the time. Some of this was attributed to their deals back then, which required them to accept games like Master of Orion 3, if they wanted MoO 1 and 2, along with several other examples, most of which it's been so long that I don't remember.
So, the curation process has had to change multiple times over the years, as GOG has moved from serving one particular demographic of customer to a much larger one, beginning to compete in the same areas as Steam. I also feel like GOG's particular success in bringing more audience and attention on classic games such as Baldur's Gate and many others, which is what convinced other platforms that carrying old games was a viable market strategy, and begin to also serve that same demographic. Ultimately, their diversifying their catalogue added a much larger potential workload on whoever does curation, but also unfortunately has the added complexity of other, much larger, platforms to begin serving the same audience that old school GOG had a lock on.
I don't mind the extra games or dealing power, because it DID actually lead to GOG getting their hands on many classics that they didn't have the clout to bring prior, but it did come at a cost, both to what they brought outside of that scope, as well as curation issues. I'm sure life was simpler when they were only dealing in old games.
I don't judge them too harshly, as it is what it is. (If my memory is lacking in some type of way, I'm sure someone older will chime in and correct me, as needed.) Absolutely. And people seem to forget this. GOG actually has more clout now than ever before. Not only did they get the rights to more age old and forgotten classics, but they also brought us all the Arkham Batman games. Those were on my wishlist.
So they are listening. All that I ask is for more transparency. That's it.
Let me give an example of transparency. Mass Effect 1,2 & 3 have been requested in their original forms for a very long time now. A number of years. And by requested, I mean that they have stayed at the top for the same amount of time. People really want these games on GOG.
I cannot say as to whether or not the team responded, but I will say one quality that makes fit good business is communicating with people who desperately want a product and are willing to pay for it. I understand that this game is a cash cow for the publisher, so they may not be ready to give it up just yet. But what GOG can do is at least tell the fans, "We've appreciated all of your support for this title and we want to bring it to you. However, the publisher is not yet ready to release the DRM on it and you may have to wait a few years before that happens."
Yes, this may not be what fans want to hear, and of course you will have some angry, mad at the world people who try to attack the publisher on Twitter or whatever. They'll just get blocked and life will move on. But this is absolutely better than complete radio silence.
Or perhaps even, "We know that you want Doom and Doom Eternal on the platform and have been talking with Bethesda about it over the past few months. While Bethesda may not be ready to give up Doom Eternal just yet, there is a good possibility that we could get the original. Keep your fingers crossed. "
What this says to people is, "at least I know the company is hearing me out, I know they care and they want to bring me good products. I understand that this is a long process, but at least there is some possibility that these games might come soon, so I'll be patient and not worry about it."
Good PR that listens to people and addresses their claims professionally, no matter how unprofessionally they're asked is worth it's weight in gold.
Let's use Bloodstained as an example. For the record, I love Bloodstained. I think it's a tremendous game. But it used to look very ugly. And people pointed that out. So Iga listened to people that he knew backed or were at least planning to buy the game on day one. The whole thing got an overhaul and now it looks beautiful. And he didn't stop there. He's still making content for the game, which means people have a reason to keep it installed, so that they can have something new to come back to. That's good PR and good game development. Delivering on your promises and making the best product you can by taking in all of the legitimate critique.
Now we look at a game like Mighty No. 9. Yes, I backed it. There were multiple reports from people that the person in charge of PR for the game, where all the critiques and ideas were supposed to be input into the design of the product were either outright ignored, or the people making these critiques were booted from the forums altogether because of their personal beliefs or values. If they did not align with the PR manager, that person was not allowed any input.
And what did we get? Mega Man 11. Because no one even wants to acknowledge the existence of Mighty No. 9.
Good PR is extremely important for any business. I think these examples prove that.
... that GOG was meant to ultimately be built around exclusive CDPR content, but other than Witcher 3, they haven't been able to string enough critical and financial hits together in order to make an exclusive store marketable (Thronebreaker certainly fumbled in that regard).
Without those big exlcusives, GOG just kinda hangs -- not wanting to hire too many people or spend too much money. The store is an afterthought... biding their time for the day when the CDPR exclusives flow and happiness returns to the realm! But for now they try to use data-mining to keep things afloat...?
As for vetting... that's a whole level of chaos no mortal will ever understand. Good games with devs who want to be here are left out to dry while unfinished games and games with devs who don't care for GOG get in.
Now, that's not to say GOG doesn't get good additions to the catalogue... but if you do try and watch / understand the process... you'll go cross-eyed... and then mad... terribly, terribly mad
Over the years, they had multiple polls on their policies, such as changing their core philosophies to start bringing in newer games, as well as independent games that shared the design philosophies and stylistics of older games, like the retro boom, etc. We voted to broaden their scope, because before, it was strictly limited to old games, with the CDP catalog being the lone exception to that rule for at least a few years. It was a very small split, because there was a pretty large and vocal group who absolutely hated the idea of not only dealing in classics. The argument was made that game age had nothing to do with game quality, which ended up being one of the prevailing viewpoints, and one I happened to share, as evidenced by what was in the catalogue at the time. Some of this was attributed to their deals back then, which required them to accept games like Master of Orion 3, if they wanted MoO 1 and 2, along with several other examples, most of which it's been so long that I don't remember.
So, the curation process has had to change multiple times over the years, as GOG has moved from serving one particular demographic of customer to a much larger one, beginning to compete in the same areas as Steam. I also feel like GOG's particular success in bringing more audience and attention on classic games such as Baldur's Gate and many others, which is what convinced other platforms that carrying old games was a viable market strategy, and begin to also serve that same demographic. Ultimately, their diversifying their catalogue added a much larger potential workload on whoever does curation, but also unfortunately has the added complexity of other, much larger, platforms to begin serving the same audience that old school GOG had a lock on.
I don't mind the extra games or dealing power, because it DID actually lead to GOG getting their hands on many classics that they didn't have the clout to bring prior, but it did come at a cost, both to what they brought outside of that scope, as well as curation issues. I'm sure life was simpler when they were only dealing in old games.
I don't judge them too harshly, as it is what it is. (If my memory is lacking in some type of way, I'm sure someone older will chime in and correct me, as needed.)
So they are listening. All that I ask is for more transparency. That's it.
Post edited May 26, 2021 by thefallenalchemist
