Well, not every game can be a Fallout or Duke Nukem 3D - there are already a number of clear and undisputed hits on GoG, but a majority of the games here are still the kind of games that were pretty popular on release, but never really "big". Many were pretty much forgotten until they showed up here. That's the kind of games I think people are asking for here.
And besides, hands up everyone who's bought games on GoG that they didn't really know much about beforehand? I know I have done that. A game's lack of popularity in the past might not mean that it won't generate some decent profit if released now. If they release a good-but-unknown puzzler you never knew about next week, wouldn't you consider buying it?

The only games I've bought from GOG that I had more than a passing familiarity with are Painkiller and Sacred (played the demo on one, used to own the other). Every other game I either knew only by reputation (like the Freespace games) or bought without knowing anything more than the GOG reviews (like Giants and Shogo). I would honestly like to see more of the games that I know nothing about show up here, rather than more of the games that everyone has already played and talked about.

like I said, this isn't an argument against or for the GOG model, just explaining why a developer might be hesitant, the GOG model is great.

But don't GOG handle the compatibility & support side of things themselves? Surely a dev would only have to sign a release and hand over a copy of the program and any additional features

certainly this is the case for people who work with GOG, but for those who would be adverse, or wouldn't work with GOG, they would have this issue, and this is what I'm addressing. I'm not infering anything about GOG.

But the discussion is on why companies who use GOG only release their most popular games here.

Thats exactly why they SHOULD use GOG so someone else does all the work and they pocket the royalties

Sure. I'm just explaining why I think you're wrong. :-)

Certainly that's true, but I can't go off topic and tell you that what I was saying was not related to the topic? why must you continue to relate something off topic to something on topic?
But you haven't done that, all you've said is "GOG THIS!" and "GOG THAT!" like I said, my statements weren't in reference to GOG, so I'm wrong because I went off topic? You don't make sense.

Eh? TBH, you haven't made much sense at all in this thread. But whatever.
We can't pretend GoG doesn't exist, so even if you make a general comment, I can use them in my response. And I'm pointing out that GoG can offer publishers a good way to get some profit off old games that weren't as popular as they could have been back when they were originally released. This includes publishers who aren't on GoG already, but should use it for the reasons mentioned.

I've only ever agreed with that.

Well, this is Good Old Games. I really hope that their decision was based on whether the games met GOG's criteria on their own merit.
As much as I enjoyed Epic and Apogee's classics, I think that the vast majority of their earlier games (Traffic Department 2192? Bio Menace?) have not aged well - they just don't seem as fun to play again.
I look forward to new releases on GOG because I know that they will be critically acclaimed games which are still fun to play today. I stopped being excited by Steam's "Update News" window over a year ago now.
Maybe they could release JOG.com (Just Old Games) to allow developers to release their back catalogs :)

I've been watching steams updates like a mad man as of late..

I just hope some of these publishers release some of their not so popular but still good games on GOG. Just because a game was popular doesn't mean it is necessarily good; some games suffered from a lack of proper marketing...