Ok so the one who originally envisioned the game and was the spokesperson for it in fairs etc. is the one which matters, and the people who did most of the actual dirty work to make the game happen don't necessarily matter in that equation? I disagree with that, in fact I'd rather see the workers getting their share, if anyone.

There's also the practical side to it. If GOG started putting publishers to such categories (which could affect how some people with romanticized ideas of SW development would choose for which games they are willing to pay money), then the other publishers wouldn't like it. One less reason to publish on GOG if GOG puts them to the "don't pay for these games"-category. Or alternatively, the publishers simply claim that the main developer gets a cut, just so that their game would be tagged as such.

I just see this suggestion far too problematic in many levels. I think it has been discussed several times before. GOG does have the "indie" category though, not sure if that is then what people are looking for? I thought it is supposed to mean "self-published games", with no separate publisher. Or I don't know if it is any pixel-art game which gets tagged as an indie game...

inventor/owner then wants to share it with their employees then that's fine too.As I said above.
And I did say the OP is dreaming.This would be too much trouble for all concerns to implement,cheers.

I just assumed it was about the developer as in the company that developed the game, and without something from the OP stating otherwise find it unlikely that something else was meant.

As Cavalry said, I get the feeling the OP meant the company (or person) that developed the game (as opposed to the actual coder who coded the game in the company that made the game (as you seem to be understanding from the term "Developer").

As far as I understand, if the developer still exists as a company, wouldn't it automatically get a cut of the profits? I don't think Developer/Publisher relationships work in such a way that the Publisher pays the devs a certain amount to make the game, and then they never get any more once the game is completed. Am I wrong?

What the OP suggests would be interesting (I can't really say "useful" in my case, as it is only a matter of curiousity) for the classics or older games more so than the Indies. For example, I was always a bit hesitent to buy the older EA games, like Kyrandia, because the money would be going to a company that bought out and helped set up the demise of Westwood Studios, the company that actually made the game.

What I REALLY wish for is a restructuring of the game industry so that the development studio holding on to the IP rights of a game is the norm, rather than the exception. But that's a bit out of the power of gog :D.

Depends on the contract, but usual case is no. Think of it like this:
I am building a housing complex, and bring in a team of plumbers to install all the plumbing. I pay them for their work, then start to rent the apartments. Do the plumbers get a cut of the monthly rent? Sure, every now and then I may ask them to come by to fix a few things, but I still won't be giving them a cut, I'll be paying them a flat fee for the work they have to do.

That is the usual case with publishers and developers, with the developers having the upside of getting paid while they are working on the code, not 3 years later. Bonuses may be added to the contract depending on performance, but cut of the profits are very rare, unless the publisher can't afford to pay them while they are developing the game.

Difference being that, to continue the analogy, the plumbers designed the entire complex while you set deadlines and, in plenty of cases, kept getting in the way because you didn't think their ideas would sell well enough and that's all you care about.

You have a far too romantized a view of developers, and a far too vilified view of publishers. While we all know cases where things happened as you paint them to be, there's also many others where it's due to publishers that we have the game equivalent of A New Hope instead of The Phantom Menace.

Besides, even your additions don't change the basic equation: even if the developers designed and built the entire thing, they did it on your payroll and it's just you who loses money if it doesn't sell; they already got paid ages ago.

then buy directly from developers, when available?

Not to mention that in many cases the publishers have financially supported (or even bought out ) the developers, and many developers rely on publishers support to support the development process. Take this layer away, and many will actually struggle.

In any case, in almost all cases the developers gets a cut in royalties from each sale (how large depends on contracts), so it is a meaningless flag, in this case. The only cases where this is not true, is when the developer have folded and the rights sits with someone else.

With the rise of indie scene, I thought this is more and more commonplace. However, if Markus Persson (the maker of Minecraft) decided to sell his IP to Microsoft and become even more filthier rich than he was before... is that really a reason not to pay for the game anymore? No one was twisting Markus' arm to sell the IP, he decided to do it himself, maybe he didn't want the stress anymore from the game and wants to just travel around with the money he got from the game (including selling it to a big company).

Also there's another thing: making games can cost quite a lot of money. Who is going to pay you e.g. 5 million dollars (I got this figure out from my ass) up front so that you can even start making the game? Nowadays there's Kickstarter, but failing that, many opt for a publisher financing the game. What does the publisher want for all that money? I guess quite often they also want to own the IP rights to the game, even if they had a contract that the development team gets a hefty bonus if the game sells exceptionally well over certain time. (Or then they are fine with the development team keeping the rights, whatever they see fit. Actually I don't know which is more common, the development team keeping the rights or the publisher having them.)

Disclaimer: I am not a game developer and never have been (albeit I personally know some, not only indie developers...), so mainly I am coming up with all that using common sense. If some game developer comes here to correct my wrong views, fine.

:D
To be fair, while I've never worked with or interacted significantly with a games publisher, my general understanding from years as a gamer on the internet, amok's response, and a few quick googles show that yes, developers do usually get a cut.