I have noticed for a while now that for some odd reason, many games do not make it past the GOG vetting process. I have no idea who is in charge of that process, but they need their head examined. I just asked the developer of a popular indie title that just released on Steam by the name of Fearmonium if there would be a GOG version. The game has already been received well, it is being called the sister to Cuphead and it's done very well on that platform.

He was more than willing to put it here and even requested that the game be brought over. But he replied that no one ever responded. I'm starting to wonder if GOG likes money. They sold me a broken remaster of a game (Saints Row 3) which has a far lower overall score than the original, but will not sell me a highly rated and enjoyable game that I will buy again on GOG just to have a DRM-Free copy. It's right up your alley with games like Cuphead and Hollow Knight already being on the platform.

Ultimately though, I really want to know who does the vetting for this site. I know there's a silly boycott still going on which does absolutely nothing because people are still buying a lot of games like myself. I think it should be the buyers who have more control over what gets sold here, because after all, it is our money that keeps this place going. And I intend to spend more money to keep this place going, I assure you.

I do realize that some larger AAA licenses are tough to get and I am not complaining about that. But when you let good indie titles that will actually make money fall by the wayside, that is a problem. So instead of one person being in charge of what games make it to the site, I think it should be the consumers who get to choose the games offered up. Yes, all of them. You have no idea what people are willing to play and test for quality control these days.

I'll personally play anything at least once, and I've done that for a few decades now. I actually had a physical copy of E. T. on the Atari 2600 way back when, and trust me - I tried to get into it. But those are just the lengths I will go to testing the quality of games being offered. I think that's very important, especially with the quantity of shovelware available today.

A bit of a rant, but somebody reads these things. So hear me out on this one at least.

1. If you want to be heard by the people responsible, do you think it's a good idea to start by personally insulting them ("they need their head examined")?

2. What does the "boycott" have to do with anything? It certainly doesn't have any relation to what games are released, nor to GOG's long reaction times. So yes, that part does indeed sound like a weird rant.

3. There already is a wishlist where GOG can see what customers are voting for. You don't seriously suggest they should let their business be run democratically by their customers, without doing the calculations though, do you?

Anyway, the main problem here seems to be GOG's painfully slow response or lack thereof in all kinds of matters. From what you say, they didn't even reject the game, they just seem totally overwhelmed and unresponsive atm, for whatever reason (allegedly covid, but these issues were visible before the pandemic already, so it's probably more to do with being understaffed). And I agree that it does not make them look good.

There are quite many good titles rejected and people really want to address the team behind the game curation process. It seems that is not possible and likely they are not even reading GOG Forum. Moderators will not tell us but they might forward our appeal to reconsider one game or another on case by case basis. The system is broken, or it looks that way. Wishlist might help, but I beleive less than 1000 votes is not even taken into consideration. As far as I know that Boycott was meant to address the issue with DRM elements in some games, not games curation/vetting process. I agree. I don't know the capacity of that team, probably it's more than one person, but GOG end users (buyers) should have more control over that process. I propose to have a communication manager which will act as a *middle man* between us, the buyers, and GOG Curation Team. Thank you, I feel young again. Rant is our only weapon I'm afraid. But maybe sometimes it requires some polishing to sound more polite.

That would be the head curator. Here is an artist rendition made when similar questions surfaced about a decade ago (and continue to resurface every few months to this day).

That's a lot of assumptions in one post, I'll give you that

A small group, understaffed and overworked ... possibly limited in experience and broad taste and needing to stick to a priority agenda, which may have elements of bias etc.

That's not to say they aren't doing a good job, just that they have a seemingly limited narrow focus due to circumstance.

I should be that one , no more lame visual novels only good games

1. I've been working in the retail industry for well over a decade now. If you think I've come across too harshly, you haven't heard anything yet. When the customer is displeased, the customer will let you know it, and everyone else for that matter.

2. The boycott is a joke.

3. The wishlist is a joke. The most highly asked for games should have been top priority and they still sit on the list for years. The company should at least come out and explain to fans why these games will or won't be coming to the store. Some initiative would be nice.

I'll agree with you on the last part. Yeah, more or less. Strong disagree, that's an extreme bias. Are there a lot of crappy visual novels with no real effort put into them? Yes. But there are also a lot of good ones and anyone who is looking for quality media to be placed on a site doesn't need to have such biases. You may not like the medium, but that does not mean that it does not have fans, because it does. Just like with any other game offered, there are well made experiences and badly made experiences. The goal is to separate the wheat from the chaff.

There have always seemed to be serious issues with GOG's game vetting... and the entire vetting process has only become "worse" with COVID.

Seeing that the process is opaque, we can't say exactly what's happening...

... but...

... staffing, management, and communication issues seem to abound.

IMO it's as sad as angering. I really appreciate DRM-free content and want GOG to succeed... but it seems to consistently stumble over its own feet.

Well I definitely wouldn't want them curating my head.

I'm done being polite here, folks. I've spent thousands over the last number of years and I know how retail works. There is supposed to be a certain level of transparency between the customer and the storefront. All of the time, customers come in and ask for things that we do not have. But we simply tell them that we either do not have them, or that they can order them online. This is the online storefront, they should have everything or almost everything available that a customer wants. That's why online retail is such a massive industry right now. GOG is treating online retail like a brick and mortar store, which is absolutely ludicrous.

You said it yourself. They don't read the forums. So if anyone has a legitimate complaint, it goes unanswered. The store simply does not care about it's own customers. So you can see why gamers are still primarily on Steam, because it appears to me that the steam staff does respond to complaints and they have more than five games uploaded a day.

Let me tell you who else offers transparency as a store - Groupees. I've worked with the staff personally and was a curator on a few bundles. I know how this vetting process works, I have done it myself. They are a very small staffed store that offers an array of media products, mostly music, comic books and adult games at the moment. Sometimes they get big names, but like here, there are a lot of indies. The difference between Groupees and GOG however, is that if you have anything you want to address, you can simply email any member of the staff about it. They'll get back to you quickly, which is how I got a gig curating some bundles for them, which I suggested. So yes, having a voice does lead to some great things. We sold thousands in the bundles I curated and helped several charities in the process.

In all honesty, GOG needs to stop spinning plates and split their focus between CDPR games and the store as a whole. If we literally have staff working in both areas at the same time, that could be the issue. A store of this size needs to be ran with a much larger staff and that's a fair assessment.

My guess is...

... that GOG was meant to ultimately be built around exclusive CDPR content, but other than Witcher 3, they haven't been able to string enough critical and financial hits together in order to make an exclusive store marketable (Thronebreaker certainly fumbled in that regard).

Without those big exlcusives, GOG just kinda hangs -- not wanting to hire too many people or spend too much money. The store is an afterthought... biding their time for the day when the CDPR exclusives flow and happiness returns to the realm! But for now they try to use data-mining to keep things afloat...?

As for vetting... that's a whole level of chaos no mortal will ever understand. Good games with devs who want to be here are left out to dry while unfinished games and games with devs who don't care for GOG get in.

Now, that's not to say GOG doesn't get good additions to the catalogue... but if you do try and watch / understand the process... you'll go cross-eyed... and then mad... terribly, terribly mad

He doesn't frighten me. I've worked for and with worse. I don't discriminate against demons or any other denizens of the abyss. They're people too. Just keep the tentacles in check and the angry grunts and screams to a bare minimum and we're good.

Groupees are a dreadful company. They had some kind of problem with the hosting for the earlier bundles and they never fixed it. I am still, to this day, unable to download those files. The links are in my account and have been dead for many years. I gave up writing to them about it after a while because it became clear they were just fobbing me off.
My point is I certainly wouldn't consider them an organisation to look up to. GOG, for all it's flaws, is far better than Groupees.

EDIT: Apparently I have angered the Groupees hardcore for relating my experience with them.

This is a good idea for users, but I can also see this as a possibly horrible idea for whomever takes the role.

The face of the curation team will be on the receiving end of unfair, baseless, and relentless criticism from vocal minorities ranting over about why X games should be allowed and why Y games shouldn't out of self-interest and biases. I can foresee it devolving into a tragedy of the commons situation unless the middleperson can stay impartial at all times, serves a communications-only spokesperson for the team, and/or the discussions are heavily moderated.