Butcher, Masquerada, Reigns, Turmoil, Clustertruck.

Looking either unoriginal or like a mobile title, hence, for me, crappy (always relative of the viewpoint)
And that's only over the past 6 days. Can't give you more because the list on the front page is not going back more than that.
Oh and clearly, No Man's Sky for 60$.
The opener also forgot that some are crippled, like Clustertruck's mods are only available with Steam I hear.
In my opintion that would be better than the half-assed approach right now. Let me have my Gal*Gun: Double Peace on here!
Hmm.. do you have low resolution on your eyes or something? ;)

" ...while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."

Ok, so now I check user reviews on Steam (since it has more of them than GOG):

Butcher: 100% of 7 reviews are positive
Masquerada: 80% of 15 reviews are positive
Reigns: 92% of 1291 reviews are positive
Turmoil: 89% of 1145 reviews are positive
Clustertruck: 90% of 862 reviews are positive

Based on that, it doesn't appear there is any consensus those games are crap, quite the opposite. Of course you (or me) might not like them for a reason or another, but opinions are like buttplugs, everyone has one in their ass.

It is a bit like how I've seen some people complain why does GOG release so many strategy, and especially RTS, games. I say keep them coming, I love strategy (at least RTS) games! I guess you can never please everyone.

Letting "all" games into GOG would mean that the developers should take care of releasing the games, updating them on GOG etc... which in turn would most probably mean no more offline installers for GOG games, only downloading and installing with the Galaxy client, because it is apparently the GOG staff who maintains those offline installers. The more there are new releases on GOG, the more work for GOG to maintain the offline installers.

It is a bit like the complaints why hasn't GOG released each and every old PC game there is? There is also the work involved, both figuring out the owners, and then doing all the compatibility work and testing for the old games... it is obvious there is some limit how fast GOG could keep releasing such games.

Also, how about the complaints of some GOG games not getting updates in a timely manner? Should GOG somehow try to curate that games from publishers who don't seem to support their earlier GOG games that well, shouldn't maybe release more games on GOG? Or should GOG let the publishers decide what they release, and later support, on GOG?

How much do we want GOG be involved in all this? I personally like it that they are involved, even if it means they can sometimes be a bottleneck for new releases.

This.

I know arguments about "GOG releases to much of X which I hate" arise quite often, and I myself have been a part of them on both sides :D

But I think it's hard not to wonder about GOG's curation. I mean, I'm trying right now, here to be as impartial about it as I can, and still I find a few things about it that baffle me. Like the fact that once rejected games are released here often way, way later, after they have been bundled and discounted to death elsewhere. Plenty of diverse, original indie games, that would certainly help with the impression of an annoying trend of pixelated retro "crap". A lot are actually even available DRM-free, just not here. Or finally, the in-development games. It's really hard for me (and maybe here my attempt at impartiality fails me) to justify rejection of finished, complete games, when unfinished ones are sold here. I just cannot wrap my head around a finished, well received game being rejected, when something that's maybe half-complete can be sold here and it's all hunky-dory.

Curation: Salesmanship by another name.

Seriously, the people shilling for curation keep saying that it is for the sake of quality control, but the catalog and (un)known methodology does not back the claim.

Much as I want DRM-free to be the standard, Steam's lack of gatekeeping gives me a freedom that GOG doesn't offer: The ability to readily buy and play the games that suit me best.

Would it be ok to you if the price for "no gatekeeping" would be that there would be no offline installers available for GOG games anymore (because "no gatekeeping" would in practise mean GOG staff should keep their hands off from releasing the games and let the publisher to that all for their GOG games, and it is not feasible that dozens or hundreds of different publishers would maintain the offline installers, at least not with the current level of quality)?

Maybe the Humble Store approach would be possible too, the publisher may sometimes also release an offline installer and even keep it updated if they feel like it, but then you'd see a similar messy naming and installer practises like in Humble now.

I think there are now two opposite demands for GOG: some demand that GOG should keep their hands off from the process of publishers releasing games on GOG (no curation, let the publishers decide what to release here and do it all by themselves, GOG is just a middleman keeping the infrastructure up and taking a cut from sales, just like Valve on Steam), but on the other hand many complain GOG is not curating their games enough, like making sure all updates and DLCs come to GOG, or making sure that the old legacy GOG Downloader links for games work.

First, they cannot curate the price, that's obviously in the realm of the publisher, so cheap or expensive it's not up to GOG. Second, what you think is crap might be really good stuff for others, opinions differ. Third, even some or many of the classic games which have been released on GOG are crap, so crap you'll find everywhere, the question would rather be if there is much more crap than usual and that I don't know, please provide data for that. Fourth, do you know how much crap there is left out, probably shitloads of shitloads more than there are on GOG, look for example at Steam. Fifth, do you really care? Just don't buy the stuff then and be done with it.

I very much like that there are more releases lately. They might not be AAA games but at least they offer some choice and they are definitely much better than what you want them to be. For the price ... well who buys outside of an at least 60% sale anyway?

Seriously, I don't understand the problem with the installers. It should be pretty easy to make it and automated process out of it. As developers use galaxy to submit their games, galaxy should automatically generate the installers from the supplied files.

It means that gOg selects ('curates') which games they want sell in their store. So exactly the same as all stores...

Thing is, curation is not an objective, normative practice; I guess that is why it's not called, say, the GOG filter or the GOG catalogue system or something like that. They probably have some guidelines about what to accept and what to reject, but ultimately it's up to a (I assume) team of people like you or me who not only ostensibly like very different things but also take these decisions based mostly on contingent criteria (this is key) that are inaccessible to us because, on one side, they're personal, and on the other, an issue of GOG's brand. I think that in this case 'curation' doesn't strictly mean QA or a fixed set of objective criteria (finished/not finished), but a selection process that attempts to reflect GOG's brand values (whatever that might be to them) through decisions made at a personal level.

It might be puzzling to us (it is to me, in many ways), but I guess that's not an issue for them, because they're not offering a standardized gatekeeping but something that aligns with what they believe the platform should be or stand for, on one side, and on the other, simply with what their staff likes, at a very precise moment in time. Because of this, the same criteria that made them accept some game might not apply when judging another, which results in situations like having only [i][most/i] of Arcen's games, and not all of them, even though their quality overall is mostly the same.

Some old titles may be hard (or impossible) to run on a modern computer. GOG makes that possible for the titles GOG releases. This side of curation is important for many gamers. GOG guarantees that the titles will continue to be playable. That is no small feat.

Besides, there is the selection of new stuff, the one you seemed to be concerned with.

yes how funny, if this would be true, gog wouldn't sell no mans sky and other shit here. gog curation doesn't mean anything. just avoid buying on gog, they turned into a shitstore.

huh?

So then why are you still here?

If I think a restaurant has shit food I just don't eat there. i don't hang out all day pestering the people that do.

a good question, gog forum doen't make much fun, you sure know why. and i stopped buying games on here, as gog decided to spend their resources with shitty realizations of stupid ideas instead of being useful and patching their released games to make them work. there will be probably some rare exceptions of me buying games on here. i'm pretty upset how the whole situation here on gog slowly turned into shit since 2014.