well that's why I want transparency. Tell us why something was rejected and rumors won't happen. That's why GOG announced Galaxy so early to prevent rumors of a DRM client coming to GOG.

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/jonathan_blow_is_interested_in_releasing_braid_on_gog

The conversations just stopped, but Jonathan Blow was (supposedly) interested in releasing the game, what leaves me to think GOG really rejected/wasn't interested in the game, at least at the time.(of course I don't know the details and one of the parts could had absurd demands and the other part stopped/paused the conversations)
They seemed more interested in Witness(Jonathan's upcoming game), wich I hope they will release here and take that opportunity to release Braid at the same time.

Unfortunately, in this situations we only know one side of the story, the dev/pub side.

I'd like to play both Wrack and Hatoful Boyfriend. Sadly there's not enough time. I already cleared a lot of my backlog recently, and yet there still remains a lot of games (both old and new) to play through or to re-play, that I would put at a higher priority than the two games mentioned in the thread title.

Well that as a bit depressing. If I ever get a chance to talk to GOG staff vai Stream I'll be sure to bring this up. Might not do anything though.

Negotiations like this always happen behind closed doors for that reason alone they aren't transparent, the only way you get to know is by becoming a GOG negotiator and even then you won't get to spread the word because that will hamper future negotiations with other parties.
So GOG was correct by not saying anything about it and the Wrack devs move was pretty douche if you ask me, they could have just said that they couldn't have worked out a deal and everything would have been fine, now you are being played and doing exactly what the Wrack devs wan't by stirring it up and make it look like it's GOG's fault.

I'm interested in passing blame. I just want to know why GOG rejected these games and I'd like to appeal them.

Hatoful Boyfriend! :-D
Still on my wishlist and I'd really like to play it one day.

Why wouldn't they want Retro-virus or Wrack? So many reasons. For example:
- Gog may feel that FPS shooter aren't really the thing in Gog. There are few and far between and wouldn't add more without it being a very good title to fit amongst the rest.
- Gog may think those titles don't have enough content, at least one reply said one rely on community content which isn't possible through Gog. - They me be good on sales for a short period of time (though not in pare with steam) but then come to a halt that isn't worth it for the long run (unless of course it proves to be a hit Gog wouldn't want to miss).
- Gog may feel that given the genre, could expect numerous patches, support needed around release which causes too much of a hassle.
- Gog may feel they prefer to give each game its worthy release barrier (limited releases per week) and can't slip those titles in that time frame (and after a couple of weeks these won't be a day 1 release so no point in the given highlight).
- Gog may even think that as those titles are multiplayer affiliated, they rather release the next shooters only once Galaxy is launched
- They didn't even release AVP2000 yet!

Why did Gog release that graphic novel? For one, it's a nice experiment to see if the Gog costumer base is open to this sort of things, and it could even prove as an opening to new markets. Maybe not, but It's hardly takes too much of them to try - as the game is very basic Gog virtually needs nothing to do in terms of manage and support, and guess they thought it was cool.
Gone Home on the other hand, while I definitely agree with you that it can't be justified to be considered as a game (not more then Anarchy Arcade), has had some acclaim way before it got released, and it's quite why Gog chose it as their first Walking Simulator (again with the aim to broaden market or at least try and see what happens consideration).

You may have to send a "message" to GOG letting them know they missed out on $x of your money by not bringing the title, and instead buy the game on Steam.

Another game that makes me wonder why thee's no 'Cel-Shaded' tag over at Steam...

Yeah I clicked the participation thing for AVP on the first day to try out Galaxy, but so far I still haven't heard anything.

Wrack and Retrovirus are both very refreshing games. The reasons you listed are pure speculation and I'm not interested in speculation. GOG are usually pretty open about this sort of thing but this is different. They also denied Braid. I don't even like Braid, but I think that's insane, as if that game wouldn't sell like pancakes on a site such as this.

I'd like to know why these games were refused and I'd like to appeal that decision to.
I bought the game on Desura and activated it on Steam. Unfortunately the Desura version is Beta only with Steam being the only one that is full release. I'd buy this game again for GOG's awesome DRM free installer.

I did send a message to GOG before starting this thread. I'm hopping this thread and the message will encourage the staff to consider these proposal I have. I hope but don't expect, still worth a try I think.

Easy answer for me. Wrack.
Hadn't heard of it before you posted this, but it looks good to me.

I have no interest in Hatoful Boyfriend.

I think that market saturation is another thing to look at when it comes to some of these rejected games. Many, many indie games are featured in multiple bundles and that will certainly impact sales here on GOG. Braid, for example, is a game that I've never sought out, yet I have two DRM-free copies from different bundles. GOG tests games, offers support, packages their own installers, and has to stay up-to-date with patches, etc. When much of the target market already has these games, the overhead costs associated with selling them may outweigh the sales revenue, creating a situation where selling some titles just isn't worthwhile. While it's unfortunate that not all popular and/or well-reviewed titles can be offered on GOG, I do understand that they're ultimately a business and profit is going to be one of the top concerns.

As far as transparency when games are rejected - beyond a simple, "We won't be carrying that title," I wouldn't expect much more. While it is frustrating to not know why a game was rejected, we are not privy to what goes on behind closed doors when it comes to negotiations (as was mentioned upthread), nor should we expect to be. There is much more that goes into deciding to sell a game beyond whether the reviewers at GOG like it and whether the community will buy it. There are a myriad of technical and business/contractual things to consider as well and I would expect that much of this is covered by non-disclosure agreements in order to protect both parties. We couldn't, for example, have GOG say that X developer wanted too much of a percentage for the sales of their game, nor would we want a developer to say that GOG is greedy and wants too much of a percentage on their side. That type of situation opens up a whole other set of problems and impacts the reputations of both parties.

I'm not saying that GOG is perfect, but we really can't expect them to reveal confidential business practices. Even something as simple as saying that a game had particular bugs that couldn't be solved is problematic as it could impact the developer's sales on other platforms and get GOG into trouble.

Just like brick and mortar stores, you have to go to the place that carries what you want and, unfortunately, even if you try, your favourite store might just decline to sell that item.

Nice analysis. I agree.
Ditto.

I don't know how to delete a post, so ignore this.