Developer reversing, keep clear...GOG said:So just to clarify something from that GamesIndustry.biz article. At ~450 games we will NOT be done. We'll just have a packed catalogue!
Perhaps, but "Good Old Games" sounds way better than "Games that, in the past, were lauded by both fans and critics".Digikid said:The definition of what is or is not a good game depends on the USER...not the site.
Here is an example. I hate the game World of Warcraft. It is a horrible game that sucks in mindless zombies around the globe. HOWEVER there are people out there that love it.
I love the Halo games.....but then there are people that hate them as well.
That said a site cannot say what is a good game or not. It is in the eyes of the person that chooses to play that game.
One problem, on their way back, they're going to stop off here and call it 2 min before you and due to the whole relative time thing, we won't see it until they actually do it.Hubilub said:Then when they finally get 500 games:
"PSYCH BITCHES! WE WENT BACK IN TIME AND MADE MORE OLD GAMES! WE CAN CONTINUE FOREVER!"
I'm fucking calling it!
I think it was to be taken as semi-subtle criticism...they're probably -playing- these "good old games" and then comparing them to the new shit.SteelStallion said:That makes no sense. The good old games library grows larger as more time passes and more titles are considered "good old".
Another few years and a lot of the early-mid games of this decade will be good old stuff.
What if they want to be undead?strum4h said:They really need to decide to be dead or alive. Not both.
To be fair it makes perfect sense to clarify their position especially since people reacted in hilariously adverse ways to their last big PR announcement.Delusibeta said:Via Twitter: [http://twitter.com/GOGcom/status/25712063962]Developer reversing, keep clear...GOG said:So just to clarify something from that GamesIndustry.biz article. At ~450 games we will NOT be done. We'll just have a packed catalogue!
Sebenko said:Yep, because the games we have now will always be new or terrible.
Ironic Pirate said:But, every year more games become "old", so this statement is invalid. In ten years, they could have Mass Effect.
Sgt. Sykes said:Exactly. Every year/few month they can add good games which are already, say, 2 years old.AndyFromMonday said:Won't new games become old by the time they fill their catalog
'Old' is not really a problem. 'Good' is the problem.
But the games coming out today are available on Digital Distribution platforms such as Steam. In theory these games will never be lost because the games will always be available there. From that standpoint I think he has a point. Once they catch up to the games being released today they will have nowhere to go.Straying Bullet said:How is this logical? PC games keep coming out thus there will be always some classics that linger for years to come. So in all honesty they won't cap unless PC games aren't developed anymore.
Grim Fandango? Noooo...NOOOOOOO!Lordmarkus said:That is, sadly, not happening. None owns the copyright to System Shock 2 in its entirity so no one can release it legally. The same thing goes with Grim Fandango.Starke said:Honestly, I just want to see System Shock 2 on their list.
I totally believe it, too.Hubilub said:Then when they finally get 500 games:
"PSYCH BITCHES! WE WENT BACK IN TIME AND MADE MORE OLD GAMES! WE CAN CONTINUE FOREVER!"
I'm fucking calling it!