You can buy what you want -- just not necessarily here. Just as any given store can sell what they want, and refuse what they want. And if you find that the store fails to carry something you really want, you can and should take your business to a competitor who offers what the other lacks (though just because you shop at one store doesn't mean you can't also shop at others). Competition, after all, is good for consumers. :)

If GOG heavily automated everything, and ceased its rather picky curation, it would lose a crucial part of its personality. The idea that humans (GOG humans, not just developer/publisher personnel) are involved in most stages in the acquisition and distribution "pipeline" is one of the things that sets GOG apart from Steam most sharply (not only for customers, but for many developers, too).

If you'd gladly accept GOG becoming the next Greenlight, hosting all of the creatively and ethically bankrupt games fit for Jim Fucking Sterling Son's takedown videos, just so that you couid get your own pet game on GOG, then...well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that front. I don't even see where your anger came from in the first place; no one is forcing you to limit your game purchases solely to GOG. You already have all of the freedom you want to buy all of the games you want, wherever they're made available.

I'm not sure what your argument is...is it that somehow I'm in the wrong for buying a game on Humble if it's not available on GOG? Or that other stores like Humble are dumping grounds because they offer games that haven't been accepted under GOG's curation policy?

I basically buy the games I want (or can afford), at the places where they offer them. I have that freedom. As long as they're offered DRM-free. If it's not on GOG, most times I'll buy them direct from the developer, both because the developer has made a game that I feel is worthy of recognition and support, and because they were good enough to offer a DRM-free option and should be rewarded for it.

As for Humble, the only reason why they haven't had the same issue as Steam with respect to quality control is that they aren't nearly as big as Steam, and sadly, for a fair amount of their catalog, all they sell are Steam keys anyway. Those games I ignore (for the same reason that I ignore any Humble Bundle offer that uses DRM, be it Steam-only games or eBooks through a DRM service). If there's a game there that I want, and is DRM-free, and is not offered on GOG then sure, I'll buy it there.

All of that doesn't really have any bearing on what GOG is doing. GOG's decision to accept or not accept a game isn't a commentary on the game's quality: it's on whether or not it will GOG's management feels it would be profitable enough to justify the cost of supporting it and putting it on their store.

I guess you're too good for SWAT 4, System Shock, or Emperor: Rise of the Middle Kingdom, huh? ;)

What are you even talking bout?
Should I care about games being released on GOG just because I could buy them elsewhere? Then why buy at GOG at all?
I like GOG more than the other stores, that's why are rather buy games here. I never said I didn't bought games elsewhere. In fact, I said I did. Unfortunately, for several games, there is no drm-free versions around. And that happened with games rejected by GOG. Mainly because the other other big store that offers drm-free games, doesn't make it mandatory. So they don't have to.

GOG is in dire need of automation, yes. I already pointed out to areas where it should be automated (I don't know if it already is or not, but many people point out how much work making the installers is. And as I miss myself many update notices, that doesn't look automated to me either). So, you know, this, as many other things, don't need to be an all or nothing approach.
It's funny that you cite a particular developer for GOG's interaction with devolopers. As many others have complained -even in this very forums- of the heavily scripted and unpersonal nature of rejections, on how it seems to them that they didn't even try out the games, and sometimes even were left unanswered and ignored.
That's why automating some systems is so important. So that you can free people to work on what can't be automated.

Oh, I love me some hyperbole.
I can't see my anger either, so maybe you can point it out to me.
We don't have the freedom to buy all the drm-free games we want. As you pointed out -and so had I-, other stores like humble mostly sell Steam keys. Which is why GOG's rejection are more damaging.

But in the end, yes. I'd deal with annoyance over the chance of good games being left out or forgotten.

I think it was pretty straight forward that I was pointing out the irony of relying on a scarcely curated store to fill out the gaps of your heavily curated store of choice.

Humble does have curation. They don't have the problems Steam have, because their curation is not relying on their customers, nor they have a keys-for-votes system in place, and they don't deal with trading cards and other things that can be exploided to achieve release status.
And yet, they feature a lot more games than GOG. So maybe there even is a middle ground on curation. You might even have more games without having to deal with "creatively and ethically bankrupt games". Although, to be fair, JFSS's business would be a lot harder without those games.

In fact, I think GOG knows that also. And many of their rejections come from the limit on game releases they have. The more games they can release on a weekly basis, the better their curation will work. I already estimated it would pretty much cover all professional game releases by upping it to 10 new games a week.

Steam had those issues too. When GOG is able to automate and streamline their process better, then they could be able to release more games. People are buying games from humblebundle, so it's not as if selling more games isn't working.

I'm not too good for any game. My examples mainly point out that most media that sells well, is not precisely the one with the most recognition, or that better handles the pass of time. In fact, we could be dealing exclusively with sequels and remakes if we give the charts too much credit.
But I'm an advocate for releasing as much as possible, so that noone gets left out on what they like.

And i wonder how that games plays out when using new games. You know, the ones actually being rejected by GOG.

Whoops, I got your posts muddled in my mind with reative00's, who actually was angry about A House of Many Doors not being on GOG. Mea culpa.

I'm not sure why this is at all confusing -- You said: And I was pointing out that everyone already can buy what they want -- if not here, then elsewhere. Preferring to buy a product from a particular vendor is immaterial if that vendor can't or doesn't want to carry that product.

In any case, I've participated in this argument before, so I'm not gonna get sucked into it again. :)

this topic is giving me congestion.

Some hyperbole, FUD, and the Slippery Slope Fallacy walk into a bar...

Let's not forget that A House With Many Doors, when released, had a bug that deleted files off players' computers. I hear it's gone now, but if I were curating games to sell in my store, such games would not survive the first cut.

I used to be repulsed too. Nowadays I just detach myself, pretend the discussion is not about something I like and get entertained by the conflict.

Wanna popcorn? It wonderfully masks the taste of bile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAO2urG23S4

Looks good to me. Might get this day one.

I know it's not the proper thread for it, but it's where it was discussed, so...
A little rough and quick and unofficial quick thoughts on the project by the creator before a real postmortem:

Reflections on HOMD’s Launch

I still hope this game ends up in GOG, as this are the kind of personal project that need help promoting, and for which a store like GOG could be really useful.
Perhaps, but then I wouln't. There's a potential to games. So maybe a better way would be to point out the issues you find with it and maybe postpone the decession instead of directly reject it. (I'm not talking necesarily about this game. I think it's good enough, but maybe they didn't even if fixed).
You know what game was a mess when they made a demo for it? Falltout 1.

I don't mean permanently write it off, I mean I would deny the game from selling in my store as it was then. Games can change, then reapply. I think indiscriminately deleting users' files is a very good reason to, at least, delay a game being released on a curated store. It's certainly not cause to accuse the store of being a hollow corporate machine, as a purely random example.