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 discussionWho makes the game addition decisions over at GOG?!!!(100 posts)(100 posts)
(100 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Posted August 31, 2018
avatar
Sabin_Stargem: The big flaw of the proposed "Wish Points" system is that a developer/publisher can just buy a couple thousand bucks worth of games, and instantly hold a large amount of influence.

Not that it is a necessarily bad concept, it just needs a bit more refinement to prevent being gamed or totally overwhelming the power of Real People.


For example: Each person is initially limited to a maximum influence of 100 points. With each year that an account exists, the cap increases by $100. This means that someone who has frequented GOG for a decade has a max of $1,000.
Brigading could easily occur even with that in mind.
Posted August 31, 2018
deleted
Post edited August 31, 2018 by Darkzoid
Posted August 31, 2018
I think the big problem with GOG's curation is that the content-hunters lack two things:

1 - A love for the genre they judge.
2 - Ambition.

The first issue would require expanding the amount of Content Hunters to cover all genres. Someone who likes VNs, another who enjoys RTS, yet another who specializes in simulation games, and so on. Potentially expensive and problematic in that it would add a lot of red tape. On the other paw, the current curators seem myopic and slow.

As for ambition, I am of the mind that GOG needs to break away from being a defensive player. Steam is the 800lb gorilla and isn't going anywhere, so it would have to be on GOG's shoulders to prove their worth. Be it developers, publishers, or customers, GOG needs to demonstrate they offer something better than Steam.
Posted August 31, 2018
avatar
Sabin_Stargem: For example: Each person is initially limited to a maximum influence of 100 points. With each year that an account exists, the cap increases by $100. This means that someone who has frequented GOG for a decade has a max of $1,000.
Doesn't make sense. You're rewarded for nothing other than your account being old.

Maybe a system that multiplies the number of dollars spent by the number of rep points earned.

At last these rep points would be put to a good purpose: Become a helpful and constructive member of this community and get more of a say which games get released here.

Ohh, I can already hear some of the regulars cry out in pain. "I lost 500 rep points because of downvote bots!" Oh, rly? Fun fact: 99.9% of the "low rated" posts I saw on this board were low rated for a good reason. Your rep points counting towards your wishlist vote status would greatly disincentivise off-topic political banter, trolling, general rudeness, passive-aggressive dickishness and all the other forms of undesirable behaviour.

That being said, yeah, rep points would be way easier to game than the amount of money spent. Which again would be an incentive for gog to fix that system.

avatar
Darkzoid: Groups will pop up (popped up on steam) that offer their users free games or giveaways if they upvote a particular game so this voting system would be flunked.
This is already happening with the old wishlist. "Game X was rejected, vote on wishlist pls!"-giveaways have been part of gog forum culture for quite some time now. At least the system I proposed might help in creating something of a vetting process for said giveaways.

avatar
Sabin_Stargem: The big flaw of the proposed "Wish Points" system is that a developer/publisher can just buy a couple thousand bucks worth of games, and instantly hold a large amount of influence.
If a dev really is THAT eager to sell their game on gog that they'd be willing to spend thousands of dollars, I say: Go for it!

Go spend a couple of thousand bucks on gog, I sincerely hope your game will do well enough here to justify that investment!

The only people who would have that kind of money would be medium-size to big publishers anyway and gog wouldn't really turn those away anyway. Smaller indie devs could make a new Kickstarter stretch goal: At $10 000 we'll bribe our way onto gog! ;)
Post edited August 31, 2018 by fronzelneekburm
Posted August 31, 2018
avatar
Sabin_Stargem: For example: Each person is initially limited to a maximum influence of 100 points. With each year that an account exists, the cap increases by $100. This means that someone who has frequented GOG for a decade has a max of $1,000.
avatar
fronzelneekburm: Doesn't make sense. You're rewarded for nothing other than your account being old.
The point is to offset zero-day influence, and to ensure that GOG veterans get a bigger but not overwhelming voice. The cap is for determining the maximum amount of weight an account may hold. If you want your vote to have power, you still have to spend money or participate in the community in some fashion.
Posted August 31, 2018
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Who GL votes would come from is worth considering.
avatar
fronzelneekburm: I have shilled for the implementation of a Greenlight-like system in the past, so I'm quoting this from a post I made on another gog-related board in the not too distant past:

[i]"Can we get gog Greenlight now, please? I honestly have lost all faith in their "curation" and all that "too niche" "not a good fit" correspondence they're sendings devs is an embarrassment. At least with a Greenlight-like system they'd have a far more valid and badass-sounding excuse: "Our community turned you down, lol"

How about this then: Introducing WISHLIST 2.0!

Works the same way as the wishlist before it, with one crucial difference: Your vote will be multiplied by a factor of x for each dollar you spent on gog. For example, if you spent 1000 bucks on gog games in the past and choose to vote for, say, One Finger Death Punch... BOOM! Those measily 155 votes immediately jump to 1155!

The more I think about it, the more I like this idea. It would immediately put an end to this bogus "not a good fit with our core audience" horseshit, as it would immediately help gog determine how much interest there ACTUALLY is for a game. If people spend more money on this platform, they should get more of a say than your average forum trolls, spambots, pirates and gog connect freeloaders, since the amount they spent in the past is indicative of the likelyhood of them purchasing the title they voted for.

OF COURSE we'd exclude empty accounts! Multiply your vote by the amount of dollars spent. $0 spent means your vote gets multiplied by 0. Whoops, better luck next time! You want your one million alts to vote for some shitty game? Cough up the dough first! Then we'll see if some voting fraud shenanigans are actually worth it for you. It's so simple. So effective. So beautiful.

Personally, the gripe I'd have with this system might be that customers from regions with heavy regional discounts would be at a disadvantage, since they'll naturally spend less on gog overall. But then again, they get the regional pricing advantage and every day for them is a summer sale, so it's fair and square that they get a tough break for once.

I seriously can't think of any downsides to this idea, except the obvious one that gog's webdevs would be incapable of implementing something this intricate. If any of you can think of any downsides, I'd like to hear them!"[/i]
One little problem: you'd be replacing democracy (all votes are equal and voting majority wins) with plutocracy (only wealthy people get to call the shots).
Post edited August 31, 2018 by Wolfy777
Posted August 31, 2018
avatar
Linko90: Steam Greenlight worked really well ;)

I understand the frustrations people have with the curation process. There is a ton of things that go into this beyond whether the game is good or not. I'm currently working on creating something that will hopefully shed some light into the process without giving away key information.
Yes. Please do! That is going to be interesting. Thank you!
Posted August 31, 2018
avatar
fronzelneekburm: I have shilled for the implementation of a Greenlight-like system in the past, so I'm quoting this from a post I made on another gog-related board in the not too distant past:

[i]"Can we get gog Greenlight now, please? I honestly have lost all faith in their "curation" and all that "too niche" "not a good fit" correspondence they're sendings devs is an embarrassment. At least with a Greenlight-like system they'd have a far more valid and badass-sounding excuse: "Our community turned you down, lol"

How about this then: Introducing WISHLIST 2.0!

Works the same way as the wishlist before it, with one crucial difference: Your vote will be multiplied by a factor of x for each dollar you spent on gog. For example, if you spent 1000 bucks on gog games in the past and choose to vote for, say, One Finger Death Punch... BOOM! Those measily 155 votes immediately jump to 1155!

The more I think about it, the more I like this idea. It would immediately put an end to this bogus "not a good fit with our core audience" horseshit, as it would immediately help gog determine how much interest there ACTUALLY is for a game. If people spend more money on this platform, they should get more of a say than your average forum trolls, spambots, pirates and gog connect freeloaders, since the amount they spent in the past is indicative of the likelyhood of them purchasing the title they voted for.

OF COURSE we'd exclude empty accounts! Multiply your vote by the amount of dollars spent. $0 spent means your vote gets multiplied by 0. Whoops, better luck next time! You want your one million alts to vote for some shitty game? Cough up the dough first! Then we'll see if some voting fraud shenanigans are actually worth it for you. It's so simple. So effective. So beautiful.

Personally, the gripe I'd have with this system might be that customers from regions with heavy regional discounts would be at a disadvantage, since they'll naturally spend less on gog overall. But then again, they get the regional pricing advantage and every day for them is a summer sale, so it's fair and square that they get a tough break for once.

I seriously can't think of any downsides to this idea, except the obvious one that gog's webdevs would be incapable of implementing something this intricate. If any of you can think of any downsides, I'd like to hear them!"[/i]
avatar
Wolfy777: One little problem: you'd be replacing democracy (all votes are equal and voting majority wins) with plutocracy (only wealthy people get to call the shots).
and in short it wouldnt contribute to a better curation

many ppl were raving about how awful is steam not having curation, well there ya go folks; here you got what so many ppl want to see back on Steam.

Not sure when ppl realise that having a gatekeeper also means their favorite game may not be up to that mandatory curators taste/etc other factors
Post edited August 31, 2018 by Zetikla
Posted August 31, 2018
avatar
Wolfy777: One little problem: you'd be replacing democracy (all votes are equal and voting majority wins) with plutocracy (only wealthy people get to call the shots).
avatar
Zetikla: and in short it wouldnt contribute to a better curation
Agreed.
Posted August 31, 2018
avatar
fronzelneekburm: [...]
Maybe a system that multiplies the number of dollars spent by the number of rep points earned.

At last these rep points would be put to a good purpose: Become a helpful and constructive member of this community and get more of a say which games get released here.
[...]
makes only regular forum users available to vote - which is only a small fraction of gOg's customer base.
Posted August 31, 2018
avatar
Wolfy777: One little problem: you'd be replacing democracy (all votes are equal and voting majority wins) with plutocracy (only wealthy people get to call the shots).
1) I wouldn't call it a plutocracy. Plutocracy implies that you'd have a bunch of dim bulbs calling the shots for no reason other than them being loaded with money. Call it a meritocracy: However much (or little) money you have, if you decided to support gog, you should get more of a say in gog's choice of releases. After all, you're more likely to buy them.

2) It's not like the current "curation" system is democratic either. Quite the opposite. A bunch of "curators" decide which games to accept (or reject) for arbitrary (and sometimes rather ludicrous) reasons. What's democratic about that? The wishlist is nothing other than a tool for the "curators" to determine "Oh, this thing we're about to turn down might sell after all".

3) This is about getting good games here, we're not electing a government or anything. It doesn't even have to be democratic.
Post edited August 31, 2018 by fronzelneekburm
Posted August 31, 2018
avatar
Mawthra: Oh... and I finally found the link to where the Unexplored dev said about his attempts to get a hold of GOG about putting the game here...
https://steamcommunity.com/app/506870/discussions/0/135514287302997221/#c1489987633995248850
It's insane they wouldn't even reply to him after several attempts
1) you seem to automatically assume, that the dev always tells the truth - why?
2) from your link: "No the game is not drm free, but essentially the DLC are. You just download a couple of extra files. The game never checks for the DLC on steam. It checks for the files on your disk."

That could be part of the problem here.
None of us knows, if the devs have an actual DRM free version of their game ready.
None of us knows if GOG actually did not respond - so far it's just the dev's word in a Steam comment.
And we had some devs in the past who claimed, GOG would not talk to them - but afaik never with actual evidence to back those claims up.
Btw: in the business world, it is usually frowned upon to talk negative about (desirable) business partners. Doing so, is definitely not suitable to establish said desired business relationship.
Posted August 31, 2018
avatar
BreOl72: 1) you seem to automatically assume, that the dev always tells the truth - why?
2) from your link: "No the game is not drm free, but essentially the DLC are. You just download a couple of extra files. The game never checks for the DLC on steam. It checks for the files on your disk."

That could be part of the problem here.
None of us knows, if the devs have an actual DRM free version of their game ready.
None of us knows if GOG actually did not respond - so far it's just the dev's word in a Steam comment.
And we had some devs in the past who claimed, GOG would not talk to them - but afaik never with actual evidence to back those claims up.
Btw: in the business world, it is usually frowned upon to talk negative about (desirable) business partners. Doing so, is definitely not suitable to establish said desired business relationship.
All the DLC for the game is free... not sure what you were getting at there

And what reason would I have not to believe what he says? What's he got to lose? Besides, this kind of thing you hear quite often from devs regarding trying to get their game on GOG, so his word is not an isolated incident
Post edited August 31, 2018 by Mawthra
Posted August 31, 2018
avatar
Mawthra: All the DLC for the game is free... not sure what you were getting at there
What has free DLC to do with anything that I wrote?

avatar
Mawthra: And what reason would I have not to believe what he says? What's he got to lose? Besides, this kind of thing you hear quite often from devs regarding trying to get their game on GOG, so his word is not an isolated incident
Sure - only afaik they never back their story up.
I can also claim, GOG did reject my game...who will check if that's true? You? Surely not. My word is enough.
GOG won't say anything about it - that much is pretty clear. They don't talk about their business partners (current or future ones).
I've seen a lot of guys like you, who are all too willing to believe any small dev immediately, but will meet any statement from GOG with deep suspicion and/or disbelief.
Posted August 31, 2018
avatar
BreOl72: I've seen a lot of guys like you, who are all too willing to believe any small dev immediately, but will meet any statement from GOG with deep suspicion and/or disbelief.
And on the flip side, I've seen a lot of guys like you that do just the opposite... what's your point? Thing is... GOG is so vague or doesn't say anything at all about the process, so... either all these devs just got together and said "let's all say they never even responded to make them look bad"... that makes no sense
Post edited August 31, 2018 by Mawthra
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionWho makes the game addition decisions over at GOG?!!!(100 posts)(100 posts)
(100 posts)