And what do you do except being a jerk?

Strawman much?

I've made my point. It's disingenuous fools like you complaining about GoG's curation all the time, when it's painfully obvious that most of these are are not great games and any rational person doing GoG's curation would find these games lacking.

Now either you have data, with reliable source, or not. If you have - post it. If not - your arguments are not arguments but opinion, guessing, theorizing.
I know of some devs who stated their were disappointed by sales on GOG. Shit happens. Good games it were too, who knows why they didn't work here.

With "What games did you have in mind" I meant games that were accepted by GOG but performed badly.

AS for "ip holders we have on board which gog could likely get running easily" - you really have NO clue how these things work, do you? Maybe you should sometimes read the "Quest for rights" thread (https://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_search_for_game_rights_a_diaryesque_thread) - completely - and for once be silent and accept that you're a bit ignorant about things.

That's just how I associate that term most times.....also saying there's a lack is a bit misleading as it is making it out as if there are less than a dozen reviews.

Steam and other sites aside, many people usually associate that number with above average & also your own tastes(and mine) are subjective and don't represent everyone.

Heck, I like Daikatana...one of the most hated games there is.....everyone has different ideas of what is good or bad(barring bugs of course).

I assume you mean the lack of reviews? That is simple....on most games not everyone reviews them, and on above average or below games less people review them(unless they are realllly bad, that is).

Read the above bit where I answer this.......Within a certain range(maybe 40% score to 65% or so) many less people bother to leave a review than normal as the game didn't likely leave a very good or very bad impression but was still somewhat ok-ish...in this case there is less manipulation as there is an unreliable sampling size of the overall player base for said game.

==========================
To babark/rwarehall: My bad earlier....when I said steam games reviews were manipulable that is true, BUT I should have said the sampling size was unreliable(as it is too small) instead of bringing up the ability to manipulate the reviews scores as much as I did.
==========================

Yes, did your mother not teach you how to be polite?

I am trying to hardest to stay civil here....you could at the very least reciprocate even if you disagree with every point I make.

*citation needed* on the bolded bit.....again anyone can buy a game cheap, run it long enough(to simulate time played), and then give it any score or review they want within reason.

BOTH systems can be manipulated(although now I am talking about sampling size making such unreliable, see above reply to the other poster), that is the point I am trying to make....yet you tout one set of data over the other because it supports your points better.

I didn't say it was....just that it CAN BE....and if there is the potential then there will be doubt cast on said data's veracity.

I think I do...you just disagree with them it seems....you either don't want to break out of your own predetermined viewpoints on this matter or you dislike me personally and don't want to agree with me on anything. Which is it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at Babark for example of how to debate....he seems to disagree with me on many points YET he does so more civilly and I can respect that even if I disagree with him. Him doing so also makes me want to reciprocate with him and continue the discussion whereas your own replies mostly make me want to hit my head against a brick wall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Grow up and act your age....I am beginning to wonder about your age given your lack of maturity so far itt.

Also for the last bit *10 additional gog fanboy credits have been placed in your account*
---------------------------------------------------------
(To everyone else: Sorry yes that is rude, but he deserves it at this point)

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

I was more trying to show that rwarehall is touting one data set that proves his point while dismissing the other, when both are as reliable for various reasons.

And as for my arguments, that could also be said for most of rwarehall's replies so far(unless he has an in with gog that I don't know about and/or more substantial data to prove his claims?).

Windward, some of the newer sim games I would expect(how more niche can you get?), etc.

And maybe you could stop treating me like i'm retarded and like rwarehall is the smartest person itt?

I admire you for that, GameRager. Nevertheless I would like to urge you to report this user to GOG. Also see the Code of Conduct of the forum: https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001814049-Forum-Code-of-Conduct

It's clear that this user has severe psychological problems that need to be treated.

He seemingly thinks he is the smartest person and anyone with opposing viewpoints isn't worthy to even speak to him.

If I were conspiracy minded i'd wonder if he was a gog plant to promote the store's decisions.

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

It's not worth it......even if it is warranted after he has kept insulting my intelligence and other things with every name in the book for around 5 pages.
--------------------------------------------
I just want this game and some others to come here, and at this point it is clear he doesn't want to even try to see where i'm coming from so i'll likely drop it in a bit.

(Addition: His replies are basically boiling down to "You're dumb, i'm smart, gog's decisions are good, my data that supports me is much less fallible than this other set of data that doesn't support my claims"...over and over and over)

Less than a dozen? Who came up with that number? It seems purely restricted to you. EVERY time I spoke about a lack of reviews, I gave the example of a game with 80 reviews over a period of 5 years. I wasn't misleading anybody.

Many people? Who many people? Almost universally on the internet (to the point of it being a joke), "7 out of 10" or "70%" is considered a bad score for a game.

Not on most games. On all games. And that doesn't change anything. If one takes reviews of a game (in any range, again, that is irrelevant), the number of reviews would be indicative of the number of sales/owners.
Taking 4 games released in 2011 (just a random year),
Hyper Fighters, with a Mostly Negative 28% score, with just 32 reviews
Two Worlds II, with a Mixed 50% score, with over 3000 reviews
Steel Storm, with a Mostly Positive 78% score, with just 66 reviews
SATAZIUS. with a Very Positive 89% score, with just 127 reviews
Guess which one is on gog? A hint: It isn't the one with the highest review score.

You notice how I'm providing specific numbers and examples to your "that's how I associate"s and "most people"s?
Since we have now established that a lack of reviews cannot be gamed, perhaps you would indulge me and provide some numbers representing your argument?

I was using 12 as an example of a number I would consider(in review numbers) to be a lack of reviews...of course that is subjective and not what everyone considers a lack of such.

Also I didn't mean you were trying to mislead anyone....just that the term lack used in this case seems a bit misleading in general when used in such a context, based in my own use of the word lack.

That's mostly due to gaming mags and such using that as their low point for most games and giving most games between around 7-10 scores for various reasons. In other usages of such scales before such game reviews and even for other things nowadays 7/10 is not considered or should be considered a bad score(out of 10).

Two worlds has 50%? That shows that taste is subjective and that reviews don't always match everyone. I love Two Worlds and knew a good number of others who do/did as well.

================================
(To the thread: I am low rated on post 201 in less than 19 minutes and others who keep insulting people are left untouched.....that alone speaks volumes

UPDATE: Everything else is going high rated....GOG fix this mess.)
================================


To be honest I just wanted to say my peace to others and move on and not try to defend my side all week long. I am done with this for now, but would welcome chatting with you and others on this in the future perhaps. Thanks for staying civil, at any rate, and have a good day/night/evening.

Well, for your future reference, 80 reviews over a period of 5 years is a lack of reviews. You can, with 100% certainty, say that such a game was not particularly popular, and did not sell very well.

It is not my tastes or your tastes. It is the aggregate of everyone's tastes, which is a very reasonable data point. The fact that you might like a game that was rated 40% is irrelevant to a storefront's decision to have or not have it. If they think it will sell, they will stock it, if that 40% was from a total of 30 reviews over 8 years, they definitely won't.

Not the original Two Worlds, Two Worlds II. A game I very much enjoyed, which I also very much acknowledge is incredibly flawed. Which also gog was smart enough to realise, that despite not rating well, it would be popular enough to sell well here.

No I cannot, as review numbers do not equal sales numbers or indicate overall average like/dislike of every game to the same level of accuracy.

You mean the gaming scores? Because again that isn't as accurate as not everyone or near everyone reviews their games...so not big enough sample size.

They make some good choices, and they make some bad ones....what I mean is their choices aren't perfect as they(like all of us) likely let bias slip into their decisions from time to time.

Who said equal? I said indicative. And they absolutely are. I gave you examples. Feel free to point out counter examples of highly popular games that sold very well, but had a similarly tiny numbers of reviews.

It is absolutely as accurate. The fact that it has such a small sample size is an indication of a lack of popularity. Yes, not everyone reviews their games. Absolutely. I never disagreed with that. In fact, I agreed with that. Not everyone reviews their games EQUALLY OVER ALL GAMES. Thus, with everyone not reviewing their games, games with significantly fewer reviews are less popular and had less sales than games with more reviews.

Sure, nobody is perfect, and I'm certain they've made a lot of mistakes and decisions they regretted in terms of games they accepted and rejected from their store. If you have specific examples with data, where bias motivated them, feel free to share.

GameRager

You have no clue what you are talking about...
We have 2 to 5 years of sample size for reviews...
The fact is the number of reviews and the average review scores do significantly suggest the lack of interest in the games.

As I said, maybe you need to learn something about statistics because you seem to be completely ignorant about them and are just talking out of your behind.

How many times do people have to tell you that nebulous claims about possible "manipulation" that you have shown zero evidence for, doesn't change the fact that the review scores are bad and the number of reviews indicate there is little to no interest in these games?

You act as if this negates the scores entirely which is a dumb argument.

You seemingly can't get your head around the fact that games out for 2 to 5 years with only 80 to 400 or so reviews are money losers. And the fact that the review scores are below average just proves it more.

Yet you continue to go on about GoG curation when ALL the facts point to these games not being worth it to GoG.

And just because insulting jerks like Jan.Teubel back you up, while showing exactly what a hypocrite he is by violating the very rules he's trying in invoke in the very same post, doesn't mean you have any real support, just a bunch a lemmings who cry about every rejection, insult GoG staff with ridiculous claims about bias when every reasonable person on the forums can see they are doing their best to bring truly popular and interesting games to the storefront.

But sadly, the "cherry-pickers" are you and these annoying people who try to make out every game rejected as the most brilliant game in the world when they clearly aren't.

Pic related...

Guy in pic: Me
Wall in Pic: self explanatory

(As said I am out, and am just waiting to hear good news on the game this thread is about to get here so I can buy it)

It is irrelevant how good or bad it is. If there is a game with only 80 reviews after 5 years, and every single one of those reviews is positive, it would be just as irrelevant as if every single one was negative.
It is not relevant whether the reviews are truthful. If there is a game with only 80 reviews after 5 years, and every single one of those reviews is a lie, it would be just as irrelevant as if every single one was the truth.
You can't lie about number of reviews. If the number of reviews is that small, it indicates the game did not sell well.

*shrugs*
I take no stock in speculation, and cannot address conjecture. If you have something more than feelings, please share.