It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)GOG apparently rejected UnEpic =((127 posts)(127 posts)
(127 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
This is my favourite topic
Posted May 12, 2012
avatar
wpegg: I don't usually do this, but I will call him a liar.

Not because GOG wouldn't reject his game. Simply because they're not that stupid. My guess is that they approached GOG a while ago, and are using an old quote.

Come on guys. We know TheEnigmaticT, he is at least above average IQ. Furthermore, they're referencing games they released a year ago. Why mention Baldurs gate when you've just released Syndicate?

All strikes me as a very malicious piece of press grabbing.
I would assume that it was either a misunderstanding or the decision had been made before GOG branched out. But who knows.
avatar
Leroux: No idea about this case, but I'd assume that even after signing indies GOG will still have some kind of objective and subjective criteria of what fits their catalogue and what not, not just the price. I recently learned they turned down "The Journey Down - Chapter 1", because of its episodic nature, for example. The good news in all that is that apparantly there's an interest among indie devs to get their games DRM-free on GOG.
They may end up working out a deal where some number of chapters get bundled together for inclusion here. But I can totally understand their not wanting to have to keep adding chapters ever couple months.
Post edited May 12, 2012 by hedwards
Posted May 12, 2012
avatar
PMIK: Yes I agree. I assume GOG is probably frustrated that when they realease new indie games people say "NO Classic games only!" and when they refuse so they can focus on classics games then people say "NO evil GOG why not have this indie game"

There will always be difference of opinion, and GOG is still in a period of transformation but I do think a more consistent policy is needed, otherwise GOG will start losing its credibility.
avatar
hedwards: I think that they botched the transition and a lot of people got angry about that. They really should have opened up a sister site to handle the indie gams and new games. It at least wouldn't have annoyed those of us that were concerned with the retro games getting buried underneath the newer games.
Looking at the reception of Soul Reaver and Quest for Glory, plus the sheer post counts of each threads, that really isn't the case.
Posted May 12, 2012
avatar
hedwards: They may end up working out a deal where some number of chapters get bundled together for inclusion here. But I can totally understand their not wanting to have to keep adding chapters ever couple months.
The main reason that Walking Dead is not selling that well... It's a lovely game and yet.... It can take 2 years to complete your game...
Posted May 12, 2012
avatar
hedwards: They may end up working out a deal where some number of chapters get bundled together for inclusion here. But I can totally understand their not wanting to have to keep adding chapters ever couple months.
Yes, that was the hope of the developers, too, and frankly I can relate to GOG's decision. Episodic game series also run the risk of eventually remaining unfinished.
Post edited May 12, 2012 by Leroux
Posted May 12, 2012
Too bad, Unepic would've been a coup, and shown GOG was a bit more serious about their Indie game collection. Something that isn't on Steam, hasn't been in a Humble Bundle, doesn't have a widely available DRM free version, and hasn't been like a dollar on sale by now. Kind of hard to really take GOG's foray into indie games seriously right now. Game is 10 bucks on sites like Gamersgate and Desura so it falls within the pricing format we've seen already.


avatar
wpegg: I don't usually do this, but I will call him a liar.

Not because GOG wouldn't reject his game. Simply because they're not that stupid. My guess is that they approached GOG a while ago, and are using an old quote.

Come on guys. We know TheEnigmaticT, he is at least above average IQ. Furthermore, they're referencing games they released a year ago. Why mention Baldurs gate when you've just released Syndicate?

All strikes me as a very malicious piece of press grabbing.
Because Baldur's Gate is one of the most famous old games of all time, and if you asked the average gamer what type of game they sell on GOG they'd probably say Baldur's Gate over something like Syndicate. Pretty simple.

And really, press grabbing? It's the guy's forum. And he waited over a month before his reply post confirming the rejection. Pretty strange way to attract press.
Post edited May 12, 2012 by Sinizine
Posted May 12, 2012
avatar
wpegg: I don't usually do this, but I will call him a liar.
[...]
All strikes me as a very malicious piece of press grabbing.
I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and just assume they're uninformed. It's quite probable, as you said, that they approached GOG when it was still "Good Old Games" and didn't take notice of the changes, or are too resigned to try again now. I can't read any bad intent from the comments, it's not even a complaint, and after all just a post on their forums in reply to SirPrimalform's question.

EDIT: Whoops, ninja'd by Sinizine on that topic. XD
Post edited May 12, 2012 by Leroux
Posted May 12, 2012
avatar
Sinizine: Because Baldur's Gate is one of the most famous old games of all time, and if you asked the average gamer what type of game they sell on GOG they'd probably say Baldur's Gate over something like Syndicate. Pretty simple.

And really, press grabbing? It's the guy's forum. And he waited over a month before his reply post confirming the rejection. Pretty strange way to attract press.
Fair point, I thought after I posted it that Press Grabbing was a bad term. Whining / self pitying would have been more appropriate. Still, I just don't believe that statement. It would just be too stupid, GOG are blatantly selling more modern games now, and wouldn't use such a defence. The quote is very obviously old.
Post edited May 12, 2012 by wpegg
Posted May 12, 2012
avatar
htown1980: seems crazy. if steam doesn't sell it (and i understand it doesn't), then it would seem like the perfect game for gog.

unless it is a lot worse than it looks...
No, apparently it's great. I've only heard good things about it.

There was a time when I was going to buy it, but it has online activation so I passed. That's partially why I was happy to see he'd submitted it to GOG, because it'd be DRM free. He's now said he plans to remove the DRM eventually anyway so I'll just get it on Desura when that happens.

You're throwing money away GOG.
Posted May 12, 2012
avatar
wpegg: Fair point, I thought after I posted it that Press Grabbing was a bad term. Whining / self pitying would have been more appropriate. Still, I just don't believe that statement. It would just be too stupid, GOG are blatantly selling more modern games now, and wouldn't use such a defence. The quote is very obviously old.
Yeah, I think you have a point. It doesn't seem like something they'd be likely to say. Still, I don't think he has an ulterior motive. It is entirely possible that he didn't realise they've recently started selling indie games.
Posted May 12, 2012
Never heard of the game before, but I wonder why GOG rejected it? Honestly, they are "re-branding/restructuring" with newer games that emulate games of yore (Treasure Adventure Game).

I would love it if they added it to their growing library, though. Hopefully they reconsider after the game is unDRM'ed officially!
Posted May 12, 2012
I have to admit I didn't read the thread carefully enough. Now that I did, I noticed that the dev was still waiting for an answer in April and that was after the launch of GOG's 'indie shop'. So I think I believe him that they turned the game down, but they probably used a different wording when they gave a reason - I'd assume that either the dev or we readers misinterpreted the statement.

Regardless of what you think about UnEpic, isn't it possible that GOG thought it's not quite classic material like BG or the other indie games they're selling, that it's not outstanding or popular enough? Or that they thought the ties of UnEpic to classic games are not strong enough (meaning it's not undoubtedly a game that would appeal to all retro gamers or something)? Just because they started selling some indie games doesn't necessarily mean they're not going to be picky about their selection ...
Post edited May 12, 2012 by Leroux
Posted May 12, 2012
avatar
mushy101: Looking at the reception of Soul Reaver and Quest for Glory, plus the sheer post counts of each threads, that really isn't the case.
Hmm, you do realize that QfG has a pretty massive following, right? I'm less familiar with Soul Rever, but it's silly to point to those two releases and say that it isn't something to worry about. You're already seeing it on days where there are no retro games released in lieu of newer games or independent games.

I still maintain that it was a bad idea to rebrand the site and lose focus on retro gaming. It may work, but I'm skeptical about how long it will work for.

I question how any of the hidden gems here could possibly compete with some of the newer games being released.
Posted May 12, 2012
I don't get it.
Posted May 13, 2012
avatar
Sinizine: Pretty strange way to attract press.
Just chiming in that there are folks that have grabbed the front page of reddit or been mentioned on PA that way.
Posted May 13, 2012
If it's true, that's too bad. UnEpic is a very interesting game with an original ending. The game perfectly fits GOG catalog.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)GOG apparently rejected UnEpic =((127 posts)(127 posts)
(127 posts)