No one knows exactly what GOG's curation criteria are, so how are they "picky"? And what does "picky" mean? I'm sure it has no universal objective meaning. I read the OP's post but where are his/her arguments?

Picky means fussy. GOG is very fussy about what games come here.
They reject a lot of high quality games, but they let in a lot of questionable stuff.

Thanks, but I didn't need a translator - I know the meaning of the word. And I also know that "high quality games" and "questionable" are just your personal opinions.

With rights comes responsibility, so if you cannot handle responsibility (you have no agency), you should not be given the rights. Him doubling down says that we shouldn't have the right to choose what games we buy, which if you actually elaborate on that standard, means we really don't have the right to choose what we buy even on a curated platform, which means he's setting himself for a spectacular failure.

So if users don't have that agency, they should not and cannot be held liable for the bad decisions. Meanwhile, that also means companies have an obligation to then not sell video games if they don't want to have to fight that policy (since that's how the law works: contract who do not have agency are protected against contracts, and all products are returnable, regaradless of condition). In other words, ultimately, you're saying we shouldn't be allowed to buy video games at all, because we can't make our own decisions on what we do and do not want. Or am i wrong somewhere in there?

Don't like it, don't buy it.

I'm kinda on the fence with absolute abandonment with curation, actually. The main argument holding me back is that GOG supports everything brought here.

Quality is difficult to qualify, however we could point to histories of customer reviews for a particular developer (which seems to influence GOG alot when it comes to Devolver, whom i don't hate, but they're just a classic example, but at the same Zachtronics doesn't get the same treatment). On one hand, i want to say something like VNs is clearly low quality, but in actuality I ended up buying one as an experiment and i sat through narcissu, so I can't make that case from any honest standpoint: just because i like something doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to be here, and the converse is also true.

What would help GOG alot more is having a more explicit standard (which may include difficulty in support, since they do support the games here), but I get the impression that they don't use one internally, either. Based on what we're getting and not getting, it seems reasonable to assume there's a group of people that simply get together and vote on it after the potential terms of the contract are laid out.

One that might bring up some blood temps might be Senran Kagura, which the company said "we have problems with the DRM build," but historically that excuse is used when the company rejects GOG's terms and conditions (and for other reasons). We don't know the true story, there, but that one is a particularly interesting litmus test. You'd think they'd still try to fix the code issues and bring it here, but it hasn't happened.

Dear GOG please continue being picky.

1) The games you reject can be bought elsewhere (sometimes DRM-free)

2) The games you accept have an added value. Knowing that (unlike steam, etc), the GOG staff is vouching for a game makes me more attentive to it, even when my first impression is negative. I try to see what they saw in it, because I know that they saw something in it. Sometimes I don't get it, sometimes I get it but it doesn't appeal to me, whatever. The point is, it makes my dismissals much less knee-jerk than on shops where I know how trashy the trash can be. On GOG, I always have a second look, and a somewhat indulgent mindset (in the sense of giving it a chance, trying to find its interest, because there's a reason to assume it has one).

I chat with indie devs from time to time (i 'encouraged' King of Dragon Pass to contact GOG before they arrived here, for example), and while i have less time to do that these days, i keep an ear out and i just posted the impression i am currently getting. Is it 'true' in absolute terms? Not sure and that is difficult to tell and only GOG and those devs that have had a game turned down can know for sure.

But really the bigger issue is the part you did not quote, over the reputation a 'harsh' curation policy is building for GOG with the devs (specifically indies) and how that projects going forward. That IS the issue really.

Just to be clear, no-one is arguing for an un-curated GOG, just a more sympathetic and flexible policy so that the future reputation that GOG is already building on it's current approach leads to less indies getting 'locked-in' to Steam (and thus locking GOG out).

Steam does indies AND old games, they are working hard to make them the only platform to consider, GOG needs to counter that before it is too late imho. Making it a platform attractive to indies, rather than a potential chore, should be a top concern.

The game i used as a quick example (Star Traders: Frontiers) is just a good example of a great Indie game that is not even CONSIDERING using GOG, in part because that reputation GOG is building with devs like them has already had an effect on their choices. This should not be a thing.

I did not quote it because all you said imo is depending on the prior question: how representitive is your "impression". If your impression in fact is nothing more than a feeling supported by one or two devs there's no need to discuss the "harsh curating" since it simply might not be the truth that most devs are afraid to submit their games to GOG.

GOG themselves even admitted it. Devs are indeed looking at GOG's curation as too harsh, including devs that support GOG like Zachtronics. This is definitely a growing concern, and it's easier to build up this negative narrative than it is to mitigate it, which is the path GOG's running into. Bringing VNs here has helped alot, but I don't know how much. I don't know how much that would deter devs from even trying, but if you're trying to fulfill a "drm-free" checkbox for your kickstarter, i'd be far more likely to try it on a more open platform (like humble or itch [most likely humble since it's a bigger name]) or just release on steam but allow it to work without actually running steam, rather than trying to fight with GOG to make that goal a reality, especially if i have a deadline to fulfill that goal before i get lynched.

GOG response:

Okay, but only when our users will stop being "picky" too. O.o

It's one thing if we do it, but GOG has to remember that debs selling games are customers, too. GOG is a middle-man.

The primary argument on GOG's behalf would likely be regarding support issues. GOG gets stuck with support, as per agreements, unlike steam and other middle-men, which is what makes GOG most unique.

Do you have a link for this?

If you really want one, i can find one, but, iirc, Opus Magnum was the most recent case of admission.

Gog=DRM Free non-Gog > steam

It's enough that it's DRM-free as long as we have that option a Gog release is only secondary!

I remember the discussion but I cannot remember that they ever admitted they were too harsh. (Maybe I oversaw it).

Here we are

It was rejected for quality/niche concerns. After enough community outcry, they changed their minds. This is direct admission that they screwed up. Given the context, that means they judged the game unfairly. I could see you overseeing this, since they didn't directly reference their curation in this tweet, but in the proper context it's clear.

EDIT: To clarify, too, there was alot going on at that time, and there was alot of talk about lack of moderation, updates getting rejected, etc. This was one of many issues that were hot button at that very moment.