well the main thing they can do is just try and incorporate more Steam api functionality into Galaxy. this might be why there's been a delay with some of the additional features. perhaps they decided to rework much of Galaxy to make it more like Steam to accommodate developers designing against Steam.

They could at least promise to bring the definite version of the game here as soon as they're done with updates and stop major support for it. It's not an ideal solution, but it might still work if they were open about it and announced it as soon as possible (as opposed to GOG's secrecy tactics), and if they'd refrain from becoming hypocrites by releasing the DRM-free version in a $1 Humble Bundle first.

But why should they? How does it make sense? Neither money nor attention spans are infinite. If no one, even the dev, thinks the game will sell well enough to compensate for hosting it, why promote it over a game which will sell well enough on its own and even better with promotion?

Now, I'm a little foggy on the overall math, but aren't the hosting costs for a your typical file somewhere in the rage of 'so insignificant that it doesn't even reach fractions?' on a per day basis?

that would attract the kind of drooling tinfoil-hat-wearing idiots who made steam greenlight a cesspool of absolutely terrible games which should die in a fire.

i rather not see more spammy topics defending z-grade games like HATRED or even worse... HUNIEPOP. it's CD Projekt/GOG's own damn business, and secrets are useful.
it is, if the game doesn't sell at all. heh.

What is there to maintain? I'm totally in the dark on this one.

You mean disk space. That's on GOG. But there are also legal costs, extra coding, and manpower to assemble and test a build. Now, I'd eat the relevant cost on my side if it meant selling my game on GOG, but I'd also watch porn for 20c a clip.

There is the issue with this entire thread.

Some games just aren't going to sell because the dev (or publisher) just doesn't have a marketing budget or the game is incredibly niche. Games without marketing budgets or too niche go absolutely nowhere 99% of the time. GOG could try to promote it and it might make a difference but then again it probably won't.

For the devs who have made games that ARE making money, you would still have to spend a bit of money to bring your game here (lawyer fees, altering the game, etc), and you very well could be ignored after your initial promo is over.

Like I said, I don't really have an answer. I can see how a lot of devs see GOG as a lose lose situation though, unless they're already a cult (or higher) level game.

Even on Steam many games get buried and die right after being published. What can GoG do to address that issue?

Nothing they can do is the answer. If the giant like Steam can't, nobody else can.

It all boils down to revenue. If people are insisting on forcing the developers to put the games DRM free or anything other than Steam, they gotta give assurance that it will be profitable. If it's not feasible then what should the Developers do.... ? They gotta eat and cook....

DRM free passion alone won't fill their stomach.

From the game submission page:

"We give every game a chance to shine.

Every time we release a game on GOG.com, it gets a dedicated cross-media marketing campaign. It becomes our site's main feature, with an extra-large header banner and a frontpage news article. We'll also promote the release of your game to thousands of our social media followers (on Facebook, Twitter and Google+, etc.). We'll post your game's trailer on our YouTube channel and feature it in our weekly video editorial.

We're also eager to work with you on other special events and actions to make your game's campaign unique. We love to go a bit crazy with our marketing, and we hope you'll get on board with our ideas."

Well, that certainly explains why there weren't any specifics mentioned; however, it would be nice to know what "in general" (other than common sense issues) that would have them reject a submission. They don't have to go into any specific cases.
Well, it's not like the "Colonel's" secret recipe or the formula for Coca Cola :) --and it's not entirely a secret if it's shared with people whose submissions have been rejected.

As I mentioned, I'm sure that if no copyright infringement occurs, the game doesn't have questionable moral content for the audience and that it's not just a 10-minute pot-boiler game, then it would probably at least get some type of consideration.

Of course, anything financially related is between those business parties so I'm less concerned about that than I am the genre or quality of the game/content being delivered. I guess "use your best judgement" should suffice.

Boycot Steam.

Not going to happen unless something drastic happens. That's like telling the average iphone user to boycott Apple. As for the OP, there really isn't anything GoG can do unless they a) change the way they do business (not going to happen) or b) grow to a point where developers take notice. Lets address the elephant in the room. For all the growth that GoG has done the past few years, it's still peanuts in the grand scheme of things when it comes to global sales. A developer, especially a small time one has a hard time justifying making a special build of a game for GoG (because only GoG has specific requirements for a game to be sold here) when the most they will see in terms of sales is maybe 10% overall (with the other 90% going to Steam and Steam key resellers). I don't care what business you run, it's not smart business to devote time and resources to where you get get little in return.

I always found the argument 'supporting different builds is too expensive' very flimsy. When you have a clear control/understanding of your dependencies, maintaining two different builds shouldn't be an issue.

The only explanation that could make sense would be if there was a non negligible amount of assets tied to the steam workshop for instance that had to be reproduced in order to have a working gog version.