Well no, but the thread's wandering off into general discussion of curation.

Daedalic has been a long time partner for GOG, and usually their games are good. I just did a quick search and was surprised how many of their games I own. That gives them some plus points I guess and rightfully so. I guess GOG will take about everything they offer and that would be a wise decision, despite a failure like Gollum being in their repertoire.

which off course opens up the floodgates to every asset flip and showleware games ever made, if the only criteria is if the game works, it is complete and it is bug free. however, for example most Bethesda games could not be sold here, nor any other AAA games which have some bug or whatnot.

edit - heck, gOg could not even sell the Witcher games or Cyberpunk 2077 with those criteria

I would not say 'most' Bethesda games, after all we got most of the big names, including the greatest part of the Wolfenstein catalog, The Elder Scorlls series, Quake and Fallout.

Doom 2016 was not even in Bethesda's own shop, only on Steam. I guess it has something to do with the network/DLC technology. I would rather expect Doom Eternal here than Doom 2016.

Death Loop would be nice, but that one is heavily based on multiple player experience, so I don't really get my hopes up. At least I was able to get it on Epic and don't have to play it on Steam.

So does that mean GOG shouldn't offer e.g. in-dev games, as they certainly have bugs and shit?

Please read what I said and don't project onto me. I listed those criteria as examples of curation criteria that would be objective (which they are). I didn't claim they are a complete/optimal set or suggest they should be the only ones. I also did not suggest that all games should be bug-free - I said "a large number of noticeable bugs", i.e. to a level that would impede enjoyment of the game.

Although, in my opinion, most modern AAA games (including Bethesda games and Cyberpunk) are so sloppy and bug-ridden that they probably shouldn't be released on a curated store like this until they have had several years of patches and community fixes.

No. Because they are flagged as 'in development' games, so the expectations and rules surrounding them can be different. There is an expectation there that an ID game may be unpolished and incomplete. I'm talking about criteria for full-release games.

Imo though, there should be some quality criteria being applied to in-dev games on a curated store. There should be some evidence that the game is being worked on and progressing, and ID games that are found to be stagnating for a long period of time should be booted (i.e. if they have effectively been abandoned).

i read what you wrote, and i replied to what the problems with your criterais are. as they are completely tehcnical, then there is no room for quality. which means that if we follow a set of objective criteria, we will have no curation on quality, only on thecnical aspects. that is the problem with curation on purely objective metrics. i should say - "please read what I wrote and don't project on me". (and if you think I said anything, you need to have your ears checked :))

If you think purely technical/functional issues like bugs, performance, stability don't have an impact on a game's quality, then you are working to a very different definition of the word 'quality' than I am.

I likw how you completely ignore my main point. but then, I should perhaps not expect anything else. enjoy your diluge of crap showelware games, but at least - they do not have bugs! QUALITY, AHOY!

You haven't presented any point worth addressing. I can only assume you are trolling, as usual.

Well obviously GOG can reject games, hence their inconsistent and undefined "Curation".

My point was that GOG did not release Gollum instead of Doom 2016. Daedalic/Nacon released Gollum on GOG. Period. Id/Bethesda did not release Doom 2016 on GOG. Period. These two facts are completely unrelated and it's not like GOG was sitting there, trying to choose one over the other. If Bethesda was willing, GOG would not have blocked either game. The Publisher still has to be willing though. GOG may ask, but it is for the publisher to say yes in the end.

So while GOG may have the final say when it comes to denials (to release here), publishers have the final say when it comes to willingness (to release here). Nacon and especially Daedalic are already willing, they probably don't even need to be asked. Bethesda is very selective on the other hand.

Of course not, but they did act as sales platform for Gollum.
Did someone seriously claim that they had to chose between the two games and chose Gollum? Maybe I missed that.

Releasing a game on an online store requires the mutual agreement of both the publisher and the store. If one of those two says no, then it doesn't happen. GOG markets itself as a store that is 'hand-picking the best in gaming' and 'a curated selection of games'. To me that implies that GOG has some control over choosing what games are released and therefore should bear some portion of responsibility for bad games that end up here.

It is interesting to read what people associated with a different store think what GOG should do or not. It becomes hilarious when you realize what the other store is selling. Maximal trash like The Fortress of Dr. Radiaki or Postal 3.

GOG can do whatever they want here. If they haven't accepted Gollum then people would complain about it. GOG should have given the game a chance. Now they have accepted Gollum and people are complaining about it.

Whatever GOG is doing here, GOG is wrong.

No-one's talking about any other store here - you're trying to do that.

I assume your sudden appearance will act as the usual pretext for locking the thread (since it has become 'inconvenient')?