On that I absolutely disagree, I would bet that if you made a forum pool now (or on reddit), asking if people would like to see a save system on CoG/HG games, the majority would say yes.
The people actively complaining about the lack of save systems are minority, but so is the amount of people that would oppose it.
I might be proven wrong, but I doubt, especially since ChoiceScript is one of the few in IF market that dont have such systems.
The response to “don’t like it, don’t use it” is there in the original back button FAQ. There genuinely are people who will use it if it’s there but find they enjoy the game less because of it, as their experience changes from “consequential choice” to “tiresome flipping through all the choices.” Perfectly fair for you to say, “Too bad, CoG should make games catering to my enjoyment rather than theirs.” But it’s not the obvious debate-ender that you and others seem to think it is.
Always worth remembering that the forum and reddit are a minority of Choicescript readers, and an unrepresentative sample, given the not uncommon gaps between what we like and what sells best. Our bubble of discourse isn’t the only thing CoG should be basing its business decisions on.
And yet also one of the few to be profitable enough to turn into a growing company and pay its authors well, without resorting to other tactics that we all hate like microtransactions. Those facts might not be unconnected.
I’ll believe in this connection when someone points out what it is.
Well, that’s just it, most people DON’T reread, they skip the bits by hitting continue and rely on recognizing the choices they picked earlier that were satisfactory. There’s no reason anyone would reread what they just read an hour ago when they can just skip the page.
Did you read what I wrote above, or in the linked thread, about the core experience CoG is selling? They’ve hit on something that was way more commercially popular than they’d expected when they started the company. Changing something as fundamental as having to live with the consequences of your choice is a commercial risk; anyone who thinks it’s a no-brainer is wrong.
…No? I mean sure, I skim sometimes too, but I also enjoy rereads if the story is good. The conviction that most people read these games the same way you do is questionable enough; when you start talking like everyone reads them that way, it may feel more rhetorically powerful but it actually weakens your case.
I have never met anyone, on the forums, on discord, on Reddit, anywhere, that thought this was a good part of the formula. Until now, I have met no one who actually defended the decision to not include saves.
It’s hard to enjoy the story if you have to keep getting the next part cut off. People get tired of it eventually. People may want to reread it but that’s what replays are for. Don’t need a lack of saves to facilitate that.
As Havenstone already noted, this forum and Reddit users are the vast minority when it comes to our readers as a whole. A poll here, while interesting, would represent a very tiny, very specific group of people.
The Choice of Games formula has made this company one of, (possibly the most) successful text-only interactive fiction seller in the English world. There’s something to be said for the old axiom of - ‘if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.’ History is littered with the corpses of companies that strayed too far from their winning formula.
Hi, I’m Joel. 
See also @GreekWinter and @AletheiaKnights above. Personally, I’ve watched dozens of people agonize over choices in a way they wouldn’t if they could save at will, and when they were asked what was best and most memorable about the game they’d just played, those were the moments they went back to.
I’m not an insane absolutist about it (I hope). I was I believe the first CoG author (and one of the first in HGs too) to code chapter checkpoints into my work. I didn’t want the frustration levels for XoR players to hit the stratosphere. But in part that was necessary because I was going against the CoG guidelines (and writing a game that I was always aware might end up as a HG). The role of failure and misery is thematically important in XoR; I have more of it than a good CoG game really should, and so make more concessions to letting people reset and try again.
But save-at-will? No thank you, as a reader and fan (though I think I’d personally be able to forgo the button, I also think it would lead to more games with unsatisfying stat fails), and as an author.
Look, I mean this with all due respect, as someone who rather enjoys your work, Choice of Rebels is the type of game that would benefit most from a save system. A lack of save system was a source of immeasurable frustration for me as a player. Agonizing to that extent over choices was not more fun by any means than had I had a save. And when I found a way to do it, I had much more fun. Were these dozens of people actually enjoying it more? Seeing people agonize over choices, including ones they’re meant to, doesn’t mean they’re having fun because of it. It’s a common fallacy I see with authors (speaking as an amateur one myself), that because the reaction is intended, it is good for the experience. Plenty of intended stuff isn’t good.
I do not see any possible downside to including such a feature that people can simply ignore. I do not see how that could be a dealbreaker for any Signiant part of the playerbase. It’s not enough to say “change is risky”, there needs to be an identifiable risk.
Besides, several authors, such as @FatedFlame above, have voiced a desire for such a save function. Just because you think your own projects benefit from this restriction doesn’t mean all authors who use the system should be beholden to it.
Because when it’s there, it’s there. The tension is gone.
At the risk of beating the comparison into the ground, there was a similar controversy with Dark Souls. ‘Add an easy mode! There’s no downside since people can ignore it!’ Except they wouldn’t. Once it’s there, it’s there and the formula is irreparably altered. Fromsoft knew that, and they said no. Now they’re one of the most popular devs ever with a popular franchise that is beloved precisely because it didn’t compromise.
How do you know people wouldn’t? The comparison doesn’t work because Fromsoft never tried. I do not believe this was a good decision. They thrive in spite of it, not because of it.
I disagree.
Fromsoft’s fan base is rabid for their games because of their uncompromising nature. You seem quite intent on aruging against observable success. That’s your prerogative, but that didn’t make you right.
Certain people are simply determined to not support adding a save system. Whether they think that supporting the COG position will see them rewarded, or they legitimately believe that there shouldn’t be one for whatever reason (like they don’t want it in their particular game because they don’t want people to be able to play it that way). No amount of polls or feedback or anything else is going to convince them as it will be hand-waved away as a minority, knowing that we can’t exactly go and get additional feedback from other players not here or on other COG communities. Sample data means nothing. It can’t possibly be representative of the larger group, surely we’re just a loud minority.
Yes, the formula works so let’s not ever try to make any improvements to it because a basic save system would stray so far from the current formula that surely the whole ecosystem would become unrecognizable and COG would crash and burn.
I mean why did anyone even support being able to delete saves? That was never there before and it became successful. Are we straying too far by allowing people to delete extra save data? I shudder to think. These small quality of life changes will be the death of Choice of Games. /s That’s the way these arguments sound.
Except that adding easy modes, dynamic difficulty, and accessibility options has provably led to games selling better. One company not failing because they didn’t do it doesn’t mean there’s wisdom in not doing it. People survive not looking both ways on the crosswalk all the time. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
Lol 
@ suggesting that I’m lying about agreeing with the formula because im seeking reward. That’s adorable. Especially when I already detailed how I personally made slight changes on my own.
My opinion is that a back button is trash. If it makes you feel better for me to add a dissenting opinion, I’ll add that I loathe the app’s overall aesthetics. The bargain basement HTML approach really grinds my gears, but i got over it because for whatever reason, it sells.
I can’t presume to know what’s going in on someone else’s head so I just listed the two most likely reasons I could think of. Wasn’t a direct accusation against you or anyone else.
And I think that’s a legitimate concern as well. I don’t think we should just accept it because “it sells.” There’s not a lot of great alternatives out there, that’s why it sells in my opinion at least; that shouldn’t mean we accept that certain things be mediocre or bad when they could be improved/fixed.
Finally~~~ 
I mean, i can agree with you there for the most part. There’s nothing wrong with aesthetic improvements. Then again, CoG got a LOT of hate for adding portraits. If the reception for that had been better, they’d probably have already done more to pretty up the apps.
Now THAT was a vocal minority. I haven’t actually met any people who hated that addition that I can recall.
It was so popular to hate on them that there were numerous memes, particularly on Reddit. You couldn’t have missed them if you frequent the place.
Oh I don’t frequent the Reddit. I’m fairly cautious about getting into subreddits. Site’s a nightmare.