And how many are from 2005 or older?

Just wait. Soon they want the boss of CDProjekt to be an overweight greedy bastard too.

94 were at least 10 years old when released, with 4 more being from 2005 but not 10 years old (Star Wars: Battlefront II, Star Wars: Republic Commando, Massive Assault: Phantom Renaissance and F.E.A.R. Platinum)

Considering how badly abused Steam Greenlight has become with people using it as a work around to get cash grabs or just pure garbage onto Steam quite easily (and showing Steam has no ethics or standards) I would say we don't need a Greenlight.

Wasn't that how those assholes who did the "Kill All F***" fps got their foot in the door?

I think it's a decent idea, including the "your vote means more if your library is bigger", or some other system to prevent abuse. Perhaps it's just "you can vote once you own x number of games" or "you get more votes if you own more games" - either isn't ideal but like you said some system to prevent abuse is important (though I suppose one could say the same about DRM :P).

Alternatively, perhaps GOG tests all the games first and allows voting on the ones that pass minimum inspection.

However, assuming GOG doesn't change and implement something like this or stop all the rejection, it may be best to talk to devs about other DRM-free options (assuming getting the Greenlight game isn't an option), like releasing on itch.io and elsewhere.

Great Jumpin' Jesus! That's a lot of titles considering DRM-free, older releases and the effort it takes to secure them and get them operational, and being the smaller store.

Not sure 52 more is going to make much of a difference for most of us.

No.

We already have the wishlist and i think that is all we need.
I think GoG did a pretty good job filtering crapware most of the time.

I think you're seriously overestimating the costs of selling a game digitally. Not to mention conveniently ignoring the upside of a more robust selection.

I really think a "Greenlight" equivalent on GOG would ruin the idea of Good OLD Gaming more. I like GOG's wishlist of pre-existing, mostly older, options, plus GOG does a great job handling the selections (see D&D Archives Vol. 1 with Eye of the Beholder 1-3, which I really want to get my hands on myself).

Plus how many really good games that get greenlit leave Early Access on a strong note, if at all? *coughStarboundcough*

I don't think i am. If you want to sell a game digitally, it will cost you less than it costs GOG. They have employees, servers that need maintenance, they need to update each game, to keep an on-going relation with the developer/publisher, to integrate it with their website/GOG Galaxy, update the website/client, design the artwork, write the description, write the announcement, keep track of the money, pay the developer/publisher, pay taxes for those money, etc. In this whole scheme, any game added will add expenses. They might be small things for you, and be like "well, how hard can it be to write an description?", it might not be so hard, but there is an employee that needs to be payed to do just that. That guy can work on a more profitable game in his working hours. And that goes for everything.

Selection would not be more "robust", it can be more messy. Have you ever entered in one packed-up store, with merchandise all over the place? It's a pain to find something, it's messy, it's not a pleasure to do your shopping. The same goes for trying to find some games on Steam. You need to cycle through hundreds of games until you might find something you like. On GOG searching whole catalog it's a little bit easier.

And how many of them are DLCs / DLCs packs / collectors or special edition upgrades ?

By your logic, GOG shouldn't exist. A game is costing them more money than it costs me? They would have been doing nothing but bleeding money for the last 7 years if that was the case. Let's not pretend like overhead costs like the ones you listed would skyrocket all of a sudden by virtue of them adding a few more games. Increase a little, depending on bandwidth? Sure. But they'd also be selling more products.

And while selection could be more messy, don't pretend like it there's no possibility of it improving as a result, either. And the qualm you have isn't with selection, it's with visibility. Nobody's saying GOG has to aggressively promote every new, smaller game that comes out -- maybe a brief mention at best -- the key is to surface the relevant content efficiently. And besides, there's a worse problem than cycling through hundreds of games to find something you like -- it's cycling through hundreds of games to realize that GOG won't even carry the games you like in the first place.

None or one, depending on whether you consider Blood & Gold: Caribbean! to be an upgrade or a new release.