I think it is a solid idea. If Steam is pulling from the adult games, GoG picking up the slack could be a good way of increasing sales.

Didn't GOG refuse to sell Hatred when Steam allowed (after initially removing) it? Sure this one was controversial due to violence and these games due to sex but i doubt GOG will sell these games Steam is thinking about removing when they gave in to the people demanding for Hatred not be sold here while Steam allowed it (in the end) despite these people.

Thats why the OP suggsted GOG After Dark. It would be a spin off from GOG.

Still no paysafecard for mangagamer or jastusa any reason why? Or any good prepaid alternatives?

It is such a farce... I'm sure GOG would jump at the opportiny to sell the GTA games. Where people fuck whores and then kill them for the money.

Apparently dating is worse.

They refused to sell Hatred because it sucks. :P

Hey if that's what GOG needs to do to feel comfortable selling certain games instead of censoring or outright not selling them like Hatred then i don't mind. Just on principle it still really sucks in my opinion that Steam was willing to sell it and GOG backed down.
That might be true (haven't played it), but i don't know if i believe that that was the reason they denied it.

I put that :P in there for a reason. XD

I have it and I think it sucks, but that's TOTALLY subjective. I think the System Shock games suck so my taste is questionable at best.

That'd be actually brilliant hahaha

I think it's less that Valve is against games with sexual themes or T&A, and more that they see it necessary to protect their store as a platform for developers that are more mass-market and have relationships with companies and interests that consider themselves mass-market and wish to avoid certain types of content that can cause problems with that. Basically, it's safer. I also think Valve doesn't necessarily trust the development community of such titles completely from a quality standpoint.

Also keep in mind that Valve doesn't just talk to people making games. They get talked to by people making games too. I'm more interested to see how this will affect things that are not heavily niche.

People's (In my opinion ridiculous) reasoning was that in Hatred you were compelled by the plot/story/main character to commit acts of violence on the innocent and police whereas in GTA it's all optional. Not sure why that supposedly makes GTA better. Shouldn't it be worse if you're committing those acts of your own free will? Or are we supposed to believe people go through GTA never killing innocents/civilians, intentionally or otherwise.

I sure hope that GOG becomes a store that is not only DRM-free, but also censorship free. They are ideas that go together like a glove on the hand.

If that were the problem they'd also need to do something against the tons of asset flippers and shady cashgrabs.
Besides one of the games which were hit was one were the developer let valve approve every single content manually and Steam approved the game.

I agree such reasoning is quite dumb. It's more likely that people were just uncomfortable with the idea of Hatred and then tried to come up with arguments against it to support their instinct. Naturally such arguments are quite forced and inconsistent.

Fiction is fiction, and many if not most games put us through more or less morally questionable things. Thankfully it's fiction so we can play the bad guy without actually being a bad guy.

And honestly I don't think it's all optional in GTA. Well, at least it compels you to kill people. And they're certainly not terrorists or foreign armed forces. Sure they may have some dirt on them. Maybe they're "bad guys" too. Maybe they're gang members. That's a shallow justification for killing. They're still, ultimately, civilians. And you go and kill them. And the cops come after you. Sure you don't have to engage them but.. the game *kinda* compels you to. And then there are the missions where you steal state property and get the military on your tail. And what about rampages? Yeah, the game compels you to kill people (be it gang members or not) for reward.

Then we have games like Thief and Hitman.. where, well, you steal and you murder. Maybe your targets are not pure of heart, but then who is? And we have RPGs where you can play chaotic evil, and the game rewards you for stealing or being evil. Light people on fire and piss on them in Postal 2? Oh the game doesn't *force* you to.. but sometimes such confrontation can be hard to avoid. There's Evil Genius where you commit acts of malice around the world and trap & kill inspectors that arrive on your premises, storing their rotting bodies in freezers... Heck, even Deus Ex hands you a gun and puts you in an organization that compels you to kill people who are fighting for their right to a cure against man-made virus.

It really is a farce. Games are just games, and the moral outrage over a select few titles is quite inexcusable. Especially the outrage that was caused by HuniePop. It's no porno, it's not violent, it's a rather tame game of match three with a dating theme and some consensual "fun" at the end.

Unquestionably. :P