Well then, you are stating that those who enjoy creativity aka the smart are a minority of people.
I'd agree with that. But I still see a majority of Indie Games as not playable, done before copy cat, too retarded, could've been, pretentious, over achieving and un-optimized, time travel to 1985. I even offered creative help for that Beaver game that came around 2-3 years ago. Not a peep from them.

We won't buy from Ste*m, but do refer to the reviews posted there, before making a purchase decision here. As for EGS, we do avail ourselves of their freebies. As for EA, or Ubi, we'd sooner buy from Ste*m than those soulless money pits. GOG ain't perfect, but we'll rub along here for awhile until something better comes along.((;--))

We could name Persson here, erven if he released his game free and the money came from selling Mojang.

I agree, MOST indie games (there's just so many) are not worth a second look. But just for the sheer amount of games alone, there's plenty of A+ games worth playing.
And yes, these guys don't have the funds to invest in advertising and reaching new markets like the big players have, all these guys have are their game. They will never make as much money from lootboxes like EA does with their sports games. If you can't invest much, you also - usually - can also get a limited amount of money out of it.

There is no strict line between indie and non indie anymore anyway. There's companies like Devolver who put invest money into indie developers, allowing them to polish their games.
Many companies started as indies. Both Katakis versions (C64, Amiga) which were developed completely independently from each other were meant to be R-Type clones. To avoid a law suit, the Amiga devs then would create the Amiga version of R-Type for free, they basically only had to replace resources anyway. Also Gianna Sisters was nothing but a clone (and a good one, I might say). And from this whole mess the team evolved that we came to know as Factor 5, responsible for some of the greatest Amiga games ever, later creating LucasArts N64 projects.

Yes, a lot of inides are poorly done - so are a lot of AAA games. However it is not proven at all that the majority of indies are made poorly and are not really enjoyable. It all depends on the individual players. If you'd say that it is proven that AAA games are more successful financially I'd agree but enjoyment imo is too subjective to state it as a proven fact.

Personally... I'm not even sure if this topic is truly about the item presented.... I know i'm pretty wrong with treading unknown territory with speculation but.... You can't seriously expect from another reasonable person to accept you have problems with the offering of another person's store vault????

Then you should understand, that curation is as much about managing the flow as it is about choosing what comes to GOG or not. To manage, GOG need to stay in control. To do that they need to reduce things to manageable numbers, which means setting other criteria beyond just DRM-Free.

Yes that means they are making decisions that would not be yours or even mine at times, but that is the price we all pay to have a store like GOG.

There is some irony, that you and some others overlook, when you recognize GOG's worth, but then want GOG to be you essentially, to do things your way.

GOG are not perfect and can never be perfect. That is the name of the game. Just as they can never please everybody. GOG could easily be far worse than they are, and I am thankful every day that they are not. That does not mean I or we should accept all they do without criticism, it just means we have to be realistic about their challenges.

Opening the floodgates is not realistic. They need to vet every single game, with the skilled staffing levels they have or can afford.

Idealism and Realism are not the same thing. The bigger picture needs to be taken into account, and involves a lot of factors.

I've said enough now. To say any more would be repeating myself, and I hate doing that, it is unintelligent.

So for better or worse we are going to have to agree to disagree.
When folk have made up their mind about something, it is rare to change that.
At best one can usually only sow seeds, that might grow into some future change.

Good, now that the unintelligent and repetitive handwaving has subsided, people who understand basic economics such as supply and demand can finally continue the discussion without being constantly interrupted by bullshit. I hope the "open the floodgates" strawman stops being repeated too.

Hopefully gog just reviews games instead of forcing submissions that they oftenly decline. cause all i see from others is getting denied, but have amazing games and stories

And what exactly is GOG's worth? That probably means different things to different people. To me, it means DRM-Free games with offline installers. I never cared for their "curation" and I never will.

So once again:
The only other thing that I could potentially add here is to check whether a game is very clearly unfinished then maybe bar that. It would have to be very obviously and objectively unfinished though, like placeholder textures and models all over the place in every single level. Not a single level that looks complete, that sort of thing.

I could be convinced to accept objective and clearly defined curation parameters, but not something that's subjective, inconsistent and unclear.

So for example "bad" games, like Postal 3 and "unoptimised mess" like Gollum or Forspoken should get a pass.
If it looks like Unity Starter Assets, then maybe bar that.

Of course I could still live without this curation, 'cause I research what I buy.

I voted in the wishlist entry linked a while back in the thread.

Though at 30+ votes, there's so little a push to get the game here.

You can always contact the developer. After all it's also up to them to reach out to GOG.
It appearst to have become somewhat easier lately.

Prolly not. This thread was started late April this year. I don't expect things to have massively changed in that time period, unless something did happen after all?

Well, in June something did happen indeed.
https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2023/06/gog-made-it-simpler-publish-on-their-store-plus-their-pride-month-celebration/

Clearly you misunderstood what I meant by 'irony', and it is pointless to repeat things at me, as I read it the first time, and properly. When folk start to bash me by repeating things, as if they only need to repeat them often enough and then I will believe or get it, then that is a strong message to me, that further discussion has no merit.

That said, the irony, is the fact that clearly GOG has worth to you, you came here and joined in 2013, and I presume you've bought games from them and enjoyed being a customer, so stayed. But that is not enough, you also want them to be you and do things your way.

All things considered we are lucky to have GOG, the biggest DRM-Free store for AAA and AA games etc. Until ZOOM Platform came along, GOG were pretty much the lone wolf of DRM-Free, a few Indie stores aside.

I'm not saying it is wrong or bad to want more, but clearly GOG have a way of doing things, such as curation, and wanting to change that, insisting it even, is a bit like someone coming into your house and telling you how you should wash your dishes or clothes or what TV channel to watch, etc, etc. For me it boils down to a respect thing. It is not just about your desires either, it is the way you label and box GOG and criticize them and employees.

Sometimes you just have to accept what is, just like you would do with a partner you love. Despite their seeming flaws, you accept them for who and what they are. That's life.

EDIT
And clearly you care more about DRM-Free games than GOG, so it doesn't feel like you have GOG's best interests at heart or appreciate the blessing they still are, despite their flaws. In this world of games, DRM-Free is not a given, not the normal way, and not even expected. GOG have been a pioneer and are still a light in the dark.

Along with DRM-Free, curation is a big part of what GOG is.