So you know what's suboptimal? Trying to run software from 2002. It's one thing if it's been updated the whole time (as is the case of a lot of FOSS software), but a lot of things just don't run well.

Or they run, but they're missing a lot of modern niceties.

Now, GOG in the past has tried to push these sorts of things forth, with the promotion of Deus Ex Revision (over GMDX) or the critically panned Daggerfall Unity mod pack which used mods without permission and a dated version of Daggerfall Unity, so actually packing in these things may not be such a good idea.

But GOG could still do things like suggesting the use of OpenRCT2 as a companion to RCT2, and so on.

That's primarily what my suggestion is about.

So all GOG would have to do is provide a link to companion software that optionally enhances a title. OpenMW link for Morrowind. Easy.

And how would you imagine they would go about accomplishing this?
Crawl through every single games every single sub-forum and thread to search for ''must have's''?
Ask the community - can you guys make a list?

In the past they did something similar - with suggested modifications and software as game news... so it's not actually that impossible.

But implementing this as a new feature? Random news: Do you guys know the game RollerCoaster Tycoon? Well here's enhancement software to make the game even more better! Next week - join us, as we list just some community patches!

I can't imagine that GOG would consider it shrewd to make themselves accountable for something which is entirely out of control. If they were to do as you suggest, a member of staff would be responsible for upkeep, constantly monitoring and confirming that every recommendation, once updated, continues to maintain the standard for recommendation. At first glance this seems like a matter for the community to maintain, or a responsibility to be placed onto for the developer/publisher instead.

Indeed. Any such recommendations would only be true at the time they're posted, so you might have blog posts, as a few they've done in the past, but actually listing it on the game page would imply them vouching for it for as long as that notice is there, issues may crop up at any point. Heck, imagine what they might be liable for if they'd list something that would be compromised with malware at some point in time and somebody installing it on GOG's suggestion would get infected. Or at some point it'd cause data loss or crashes or who knows what.
A tread on the game forum listing such addons for those who desire them and which some interested community member would take upon themselves to maintain would do the job, and some GOG mod could sticky it, but that'd be it.

I was more thinking this would be in the realm of github projects, not Blog-o-Jones Random Link Repository.

Looking through my collection, less than half of all mods comes from Github. For every entry like JA2 Stracciatella, or vkQuake, etc, I find more mods that are hosted precisely on "average Joe's website", etc, Deus Ex Kentie's Launcher, Commandos Enemy Lines Widescreen Patch, Diablo Belzebub, AoE uPatch, AoE2 userpatch, OldUnreal, NOLF Modernization Patch, etc.

So it's entirely normal and common for game patches, etc, to be hosted elsewhere and "it must be on GitHub" fixes less than half the problem. I think GOG would be better off just posting a link to the relevant PCGamingWiki entry which often links to exactly the same mods anyway (GitHub or not) complete with instructions on how to install them.

Yeah, that's ALL they would have to do...nothing could be easier.
LOL THIS is a more reasonable proposal.

Yep, definitely a lot more logical and sensible, rather than expecting GOG to do something extra, and I'd certainly want GOG to spend their time and money on other more important things ... but I'm not holding my breath about them, especially as they likely don't have anything spare beyond what they currently do, which they seem to struggle with anyway, much of the time.

That'd make sense, even some sort of collaboration. I mean, they have OpenCritic and HLTB, why not add one?