Well, I guess at some point, that's what it comes down to. I don't particularly care or want GOG, specifically. I want a DRM-free superstore. The only distinction between the two is a few idiosyncrasies that GOG insists on maintaining that arguably don't amount to much for the end user except for "fewer options."

What gets me about that choice is that according to SteamSpy, none of the Raiden releases on PC have done as well as Mushihimesama. Raiden IV, which is the most recent and best ported of the bunch, has seemingly sold less than half of what Mushihimesama has despite being on the market two months longer. If this was a matter of sales, then Mushihimesama was arguably a more viable choice over any of the given Raiden games.

Even at the expense of accountability and quality control? Because, hypothetically, if they did what you want and transformed into such a store (probably by automating a lot of things and giving devs and publishers a direct way to upload and update games and store page info), you would start to see a lot of the same complaints about a lot of the same problems that other stores have (broken/unsupported games, tons of shovelware, devs/pubs abusing their access by deleting critical reviews/comments, etc.). Then people would complain, and go to other sites like Fireflower, and the cycle would start all over again, only with GOG in Steam's role, and Fireflower (for example) in GOG's role.

GOG has always been a boutique store. If you shop at a boutique, you should do so with the knowledge that it is always going to have limitations. It will never be able to be everything to all people. This may be especially tough to bear if you really like a lot of the ideas the boutique espouses, and think they have a lot of really cool, interesting products, but that there's just one or two product types missing which, in your opinion, would make the store almost perfect. The problem is, EVERYONE ELSE that shops there has the same idea -- only their opinions of exactly what those essential products are collectively cover pretty much everything that the store doesn't currently sell. ("Seriously? You don't have X [where X = an amazing product you would sell your own grandmother into slavery for]?! I mean, come on! You sell Y [where Y = a no-good product made by talentless doody-heads that only a moron would sell his grandmother into slavery for], yet apparently X is Z [where Z = "too niche"...because that phrase is totally not overused here and needs to appear at least 3 times in each and every release thread]!") Unfortunately, this problem of conflicting demands will probably continue to get worse as more people continue to become aware of GOG...especially since GOG doesn't make it as clear as they probably could that they are a boutique.

Despite the naysayers, there actually are a lot of people who dig GOG's tastes -- and they do have some pretty identifiable tastes (which -- as with any kind of boutique -- necessarily means they are somewhat biased toward certain types of products, and against some others). That's an unavoidable side effect of having a fairly small number of people choosing what to sell. It does lends a sense of character and quality to the store, but, yes, at the expense of selection. The reverse seems to be true for Steam (unless "We'll take anything!" counts as an identifiable taste). BUT -- there's always the wishlist. Suffice it to say that any game that makes it into the thousands of votes will probably be considered by GOG, even if it's one they've previously turned down.

That's fine. People are always going to complain about selection, but at least with that system, someone with even a modicum of intelligence can find something worth buying. People complain about Steam's overabundance of software (mostly due to a terrible UI, but that's another conversation), but on the whole, people like having a place where they can buy whatever game they want. They build their whole PC library on there, and won't buy something that isn't on Steam. They're mildly inconvenienced, I suppose, when it comes to browsing the store without the search bar, but they are overwhelmingly better off by being able to buy the things they actually want. GOG is not a boutique. A boutique carries special items. GOG carries the same items... just way less of them. It's like going to a grocery store, but realizing they only carry Raisin Bran. Up and down every aisle you look, but it's just more bran. That's probably great if you like Raisin Bran, but why would I shop at a store that only sells Raisin Bran?

Do they publish anything else by Mushyhymensesame's publisher? They already have a business relationship in place with the publisher of the Raiden shooters, so that's probably part of the reason games from that series keep showing up.

Boutique goods are generally individually hand-crafted and unique; a boutique store is often one that sells such goods (especially when speaking of a physical shop, which is the most common use, obviously), but the term is also used to refer to a store with a carefully hand-picked selection of products, or catering to a niche clientele -- both of which are the case here. (And I can't imagine you'd argue that PC gamers who only buy DRM-free games aren't a niche market. :P ) Anyway, I'm hardly the first person to use the word in reference to GOG. I could just about swear that I've even seen it used in some interviews they've done with various gaming sites, but you'll have to Google it yourself if you want to follow up. :)

If you change "Raisin Bran" to "cereal", that's an okay analogy. As to why you'd shop there: if you don't like or don't care about cereal, you wouldn't. If you like certain kinds of cereal, you might pop in occasionally and pick something up. But if you LOVE cereal, and love the brands and types the store carries? Well, then, that might just be your favorite store. =)

As for the rest, I'm afraid we'll have to "agree to disagree". There are a lot of things wrong with the site -- missing/broken functionality, for example, and communication gaffes aplenty -- but the last thing I'd want is for them to try to release a dozen games a week, every week, just so they can say, "Look how many games we offer! Some of them might even be decent! You be the judge!" I can absolutely be the judge -- but it's more fun and less of a chore when the store has a general minimum standard of quality in the first place. Occasional site glitches aside, shopping GOG is fun...what little browsing I've ever done on SteamPowered, on the other hand, felt more like a chore.

Huh. Might just come down to the individual impression(s) of the GOG staff person(s) who might've tested it out, then. Well, that and sales figures from other shmups they sell, I would imagine. (I would guess the latter being low would carry more weight than the former being high.)

There are two Congos, but there's only one "The Congos" ;D

I don't think of GoG as a boutique for the same reasons given. For the most part they don't sell a whole lot of things that are different from other stores (they used to when they were Good Old Games). If we were to use the grocery store analogy, I think of GoG as more of a Mom and Pop grocery store that does not sell most of the same products say a Walmart or big box grocery store does. But they sell some and that appeals to a certain type of buyer that doesn't like big grocery stores.

The problem here is in the retail world, most of these MoM and Pop store cannot compete with the big stores because more and more are going to big stores. They either eventually start carrying more products or they fold up. I don't see why it would be any different in the digital world. I make the point all the time, since GoG has come into existance, it's not like people have stopped buying from Steam in any sort of measurable numbers, quite the opposite actually. So GoG has tried to devise different ways to be competitive, whether that's regional pricing, development of Galaxy and now Early Access (GID). I think the next step to be more competitive is to continue to grow their library and if that means sacrificing curation to a point, then so be it.

Hello again guys and girls if we have any!

First of all, please, KEEP DISCUSION ON CIVILISED LEVEL. No reason to be asshole, no matter if you agree with your oponent or not. We're not politicans to be assholes and yell at each others. Okey?

So, going back to posts from page four - no, I do not except GoG to accept "every pice of crap" available on the market. This post insult me - and I think several other peoples in this thread as well - because I've never suggest such thing. All I want are CLEAR RULES about WHAT and WHY can be on GoG, and what cannot be. Because right now their "submit your game" doesn't mention anything like "you have to sold at least half milion copies on steam". So this post is about "I've created some vision that didn't appear in thread at all and I'm going to say it's stupid". Well, please, NEXT TIME READ WHAT PEOPLE WROTE. Your post is about nothing we mention in this thread.

About subscibtion of games you "buy" - yes, that's true, GoG can as well cut you off. But, while on GoG you're free to download your whole library, you don't have such option on steam. They cut you and you have backup? Well, without your account it's worthless.

Another user made fair point - some games are released on GoG as platform of second category. Games either doesn't get updates, they doesn't get Mac/linux versions, and so on. This is not about quanity or GoG taking care of it, that's - again - pickiness based on unknown criteria. Sometimes it's number of copies sold, sometimes it's "unique" game, sometimes it's... Yep - something else.

There's another thing I'd like to mention and bring to table - almost all "new/big" releases on GoG are games from Kickstarter - where Kickstarter was not business option but rather a fan/bakers demands for DRM-free version; Divinity: Original Sin, Wastelands 2, Pillars of Eternity, soon Torment:ToN. Then there's Witcher series made by CDPR themselves. Except for CDPR games, mostly it was community wish to bring this or another game to GoG. If small games with small communities will be ignored you'll stay with big-but-not-biggest kickstarter titles and games you picked by yourself based on unknown standards.

Also, here's quote from your "submit your game" page:
What you need to have is a great indie title - just that. There are no special requirements for us, which means there’s no need for any submission fees, publisher, or anything else. Just please put special care and focus into filling our submission form.

There are very clear rules about what GOG accepts and why. They accept games they think will sell well. Graphics style doesn't matter, game style doesn't matter, age of game doesn't matter. If they think the game will sell well, they will sign it.
There is also a second category, games that come here as a requirement for a game they think will sell well. A publisher may wish to include all titles in a series for example, even if not all of them are good.

Partially true. For some Steam games, having the files is enough, no need for client and/or internet connectivity. Not for all games, and only way to find out if a game falls in this category is to try it.

If you mean both big and new, you may be right. But considering GOG has had about 100 day 1 releases in 2015, I highly doubt the majority of those were from Kickstarter.
If you meant something else by big/new, do elaborate, will try to pull the numbers for you.

And what you seem to ignore is that GoG is still a business and they have to make the business decision whether an individual game will sell enough copies that they make money rather than lose it after accounting for all the time and overhead they have to do on their end.

As to clear rules, no business is ever going to do that. First, they probably aren't completely clear. GoG will playtest the game; gather information from the web, reviews, sales figures, has it been bundled, etc. They will look at all the available information and decide if they think a particular game will be profitable here.

It's not as complicated as people make it seem, but also, hosting a game here undoubtedly has a great deal more cost than the average person understands. I'm sure the main reason they bring a lot of Kickstarters here is because by getting Kickstarter in the first place proves a certain level of demand for the title.

It should be noted that other companies, for the most part, in trying to provide space for all those "small communities" you've mentioned, have either gone bankrupt or changed their business model into selling Steam keys.

Whether you want to think of them as a boutique or as a "mom & pop", it is their curated approach that defines them, just as much as their DRM-free-ness -- I recently heard a blogger I follow mention their identifiable sense of taste (my words -- I don't recall what words he used) in Comparison to Origin and Steam in a conversation on his podcast that wasn't even about GOG. So it isn't just me. : )
And as has already been explained, they probably cannot release many more games per year and still be able to test and support what they sell. It would just not be logistically possible.

I do think something Chacranajxy said earlier is what it boils down to: either you like GOG, dig their style (even if you don't care about a lot of the specific games/genres they release), and are willing to buy DRM-free elsewhere if there's something you want that they don't have (and buy DRMed or simply not buy if the game isn't available otherwise); or, you find GOG the least distateful of the various not-quite-right stores, and want them to become that one shining store where you can buy every game you want (or at least, everything that's available DRM-free).
It's entirely possible that the second camp will eventually "win", and GOG will significantly change the way they operate so they can release as many titles as possible (and if that happens, I will be almost as sad as many of the Good Old Gamers were when their classic games store started branching out). But, if digital DRM-free is seen to be a successful enough business model (and if that happens, it would probably be because of GOG), it's also very possible that some other DRM-free games service will rise to fill that "superstore" role that Steam fills for PC gaming overall. And while that would probably be bad for GOG, it would be good for consumers. Competition in business always is. If GOG becomes the Steam of the DRM-free market, it would be every bit as bad for that market as, say, a Walmart supercenter moving into a smaller town -- most smaller shops offering the same types of products and services are not going to be able to compete, and will close, effectively ending competition in that market. Superstores are fine, I suppose, but only if they have competition.
Anyway, just some more food for thought.

And with that, I think I'm gonna bow out of the discussion while it's still civil (yes, OP, this has been a mostly civil thread -- Crosmando and Starmaker don't really count, as they're always rude :P ), since I think most all of the coherent arguments have been made (on both sides) that can be.

I'm very happy that GOG curates their games. No, it's not perfect. Yes, there's a definite sense of taste and style at work. That's OK. I have several games of every PC genre that I like available through GOG. My backlog is large enough that I don't need to buy another game for years. Possibly ever. I value technical support over being able to get every single indie game out there.

If GOG's selection was seriously limited that would be different, but there are options for every genre I can think of, so I feel like GOG is doing a good job of providing options for customers while sticking to decent games.

That would be a terrible idea for a lot of reasons.

1) Many people vote for games that look interesting but wouldn't actually buy them at full price. See all the begging threads that send people to upvote a game - those upvotes are not someone who's dedicated to the game, they're someone who heard a sob story and want to help out a fellow GOGer get their favorite game here.

2) Many people don't use the wishlist. It's not an accurate representation of GOG's userbase.

3) Devs and publishers would rightfully laugh in GOG's face at the thought that they should participate in a minority storefront's wishlist. This is not something that would be valuable except to the very smallest devs / publishers whose games can not get traction on their own.

4) GOG already uses the wishlist to help prioritize which games they pursue. Trying to make it binding or in some way force GOG to go for certain games completely ignores the fact that GoG can't get all the games they pursue, that people often vote for games that wouldn't be profitable, etc. Devs reject selling on GOG just as often as GOG rejects a game. GOG is a minority store, and it's perfectly logical for indie devs to not want to put in the extra work a DRM-free build needs, or to deal with the standardized testing that GOG runs on all games. This idea ignores the business realities of publishing games.

I understand and agree with most of your points. However, I still think that the ideas mentioned by Darvond have some merit.

Some publishers wouldn't mind trading a rejection for a "maybe", and a "route B" for acceptance would provide just that. Maybe people would have to "vote with their wallets", and "pre-buy" the game (in whole or in part) they wanted accepted. If not enough people showed interest, that money would be turned into store credit and moved to the bank account if unused for 6 months.

What I mean is that I think this could be done. However, since my current tastes align with GOG's, I don't feel trapped with the choices that are presented. But there is always one more game I wish was available. Also, with more momentum, maybe Sega will consider coming to GOG.