Does consuming shadow get more than 5000 votes?

Working on JMich claim that GoG need to make $1900 to break even the cost of bringing a game to GoG, we need 4.4K people that honor their votes.
Can we know the cost of bring a game to GoG?

Have you ever played Mad Dog McCree? :-P

I'd rather they revamp the community wishlist. Make it so that community can easily add screenshots, gameplay videos, or review links. Also add a more robust filter like the catalogue (sort by release date, publisher/developer, genre).

No vote from me. You can get your shovelware on Steam or itch.io. I am not Keane (see what I just did) to see the floodgates open here

What people often forget when they go on and on about why such and such a game is not here (Barry?) is that such stringent curation allows them to provide direct support for the games that they provide. Contrast that with Steam, where Valve only provides support (if you want to call it that) for the client and the service - for any problems with the games, you're left to deal with the publisher or developer.

This is fine if you're talking about a AAA title from a publisher with a reputable support service, or even a one-man indie developer that actually cares about his or her user community, but it's not so good when you're dealing with one of these idiots who releases freeware-grade crap solely for the money or one of the scumbag middle-tier publishers like Strategy First.

How about letting the clientele speak for themselves?
I am one of your customers. I would very much prefer a 2-tier system: A curated first tier and a second tier which is not curated.
The primary advantage would be access to games I otherwise could not get here.
Also: The way you are currently handling things does not inspire confidence. See the "defcon" thread. You would have an obvious instant improvement for problems like that: Downgrade the game to tier 2.

Edit: I am strictly against the encroachment of DRM into GOG games and the second tier should not be abused for that. So IMO downgrading is better than pretending that nothing is wrong - but it is not suitable as a permanent solution.

Is that not what we are doing? And so far, most people commenting prefer the curated approach. I am one of their customers too and one of the reasons I am is precisely the curation. You can't keep everyone happy.

I agree. Also, there is already a second tier, its called steam green light. There are a lot of games which are not on here I would.like to see (Dr. Dungeon) and rubbish I don't think should be here (hatoful of bollox) however generally they do a good job.

Yes, a "no questions asked" refund policy can help. I guess that's one reason Valve decided to go that way.

I agree with this 100% Besides, judging on how many "why does GOG sell X instead of y" or "already have on Steam, will pass" comments you can read on release pages, I even doubt there would be that many sales to be honest.
And even then, I prefer the security that if a game releases on GOG, it will not be a Unity crap made in 10 minute or a really bland and uninspired Metroidvania that only exists because the developer knows a lot of us love that genre and will probably rise to bait.

You can count me on the side of the people liking the current system.

It does not mean that it does not have to be improved and be more open to a wider range of game genres (hint, hint :p - http://www.gog.com/forum/general/for_those_interested_in_sports_games_support_needed).

Thinking about it, I'm for a non-curated approach because it will do a lot to promote DRM-free amongst indie devs. As is devs have no real reason to go DRM-free, no indication that it's even worth thinking about. Many don't even consider this point or aren't even aware of what it means.

If GOG wasn't that hard to get into, indie devs would make their game DRM-free to be able to get into it. They would better understand what it takes to make a game with both DRM-free and Steam versions, they might realise that there's a market for such versions, and there's a chance that awareness of DRM-free in general will rise.

Only for games already offered here. The impetus for this topic is games that GOG rejects. Given that they aren't available for purchase, the check-out page cannot say much if anything about these missing games.

It's clear that many GOGers don't want a flood of bad, unfinished, or broken games bloating the catalog. But there's also a significant number who feel that GOG rejects games in too arbitrary or subjective a fashion.

To get some kind of relevant voting via sales, you'd need to run an experiment: Take a few games rejected or ignored by GOG (There Came an Echo, Age of Fear: The Undead Kind and Age of Fear 2: The Chaos Lord, any number of others), add them to the catalog, and see how well they sell.

A two-tier system doesn't sound ideal to me, but I would prefer more lax standards for accepting games. If a game is finished quality, has a decent reputation or following, and is already DRM-free (or would require very little work to make it DRM-free), then I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be here. I'd chance a few bad apples for a better of chance of seeing the majority of games that interest me being accepted.