While I agree there are people who still buy those crap, so gotta put this here:

However they've banned games without reason many times. Wanting to be a broad marketplace is fine, but I just wish they were either committed to the bit or went back to curation because they had a higher density of good games back in the days of Greenlight.

Agreed. Open publication, as opposed to gatekeeping publication, is desirable for creative expression in society.

Just imagine how many great works never saw the light of day or reached completion because publishers didn't bite. Obviously the internet and digital media broke this dynamic to a degree, but I'm sure it's a significant amount.

I would guess that he's looking for a response to someone pointing out that Steam has a larger game library than GOG.

Like, he's gonna say "yes, but a higher proportion of the excluded games aren't good".

Ah yes, the market will decide. And famously, the market has always been good at deciding.

No, I think that's bullshit. I think Valve should curate more of their games. I don't think they should allow Nazi trash and fucking hate crime simulators on their platform.

Yeah, I've enjoyed some games that wouldn't have made the cut if cuts were to be made. I don't want steam curating what is on there. Sounds like GoG does, which is another reason not to use it I suppose. (I guess I was being a little rhetorical there, I actually plan on checking GOG more often and even installed their store program on my PC last night to make checking easier. Still, I don't think throwing shade at Steam over being a platform for selling games that is more open is how to draw in business.)

No one likes a devil’s advocate.