I sometimes buy things from GOG.

The only problem is

You forgot the UNDERLINE.

Great post :) Thank you and +1!

If the complaint was about GOG carrying also newer games for higher prices, I strongly disagree with you. The lack of higher price points has been the reason why e.g. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines has been missing in GOG, while it has been available DRM-free on e.g. DotEmu for all this time. I guess that's why I bought it from DE then, it is still 19.99€ there.

The problem with $1 or $3 base price points is that such games should not cause too much work nor support "calls" for GOG, and lots of people should buy such games, before releasing such games would be profitable to GOG. Here's one former Android developer talking about the same dilemma (as Android games generally cost only a buck or two):

http://www.electronista.com/articles/12/03/10/mika.mobile.says.android.money.losing.platform/

http://mikamobile.blogspot.com/2012/03/our-future-with-android.html


Think of it this way: selling newer games on higher price points might be the key to keep GOG so profitable that they can offer (and continue working on) older PC titles as well.

Ultimately, asking GOG to turn back and continue mining a finite resource (old PC games) instead of supporting good new games strikes me as selfish and detrimental to GOG's future prospects.

I agree, I would rather buy all my pc games here. Not because I hate steam or that I have a giant NO DRM tattoo on my chest. It is just that I would like my games to be on one service only plus a non-optional client and my internet would just not go together.

I don't, the only change I have seen in the community since the "drastic change" is the old timers bitching and predicting "the end of days for GOG" but that is just me.

To the OP: I recognize the feeling. Good Old Games was something unique and amazing, as if it was a site made for me personally. I was looking forward to every release day, wondering what kind of (potential) treasure it would bring. It was almost magical. It's sad to have lost that. It's also sad to realize that so many of the hopes I had about GOG's future are growing ever more unlikely as they're moving in the opposite direction.

I recognize that GOG can still be a good source of games with many advantages over the more traditional outlets, and I don't expect them to stop releasing classics any time soon (though I do expect that as time goes by their focus will continue to shift away from classics, as it's much easier for GOG to sign newer titles and people tend to gravitate towards taking the easy way when possible). But it's still sad when something that was so *perfect* changes into something else.

I'll have to agree with this. I'm not trying to tell GOG how to do their business, I'll only use my wallet to vote. I already do the same with other services like Steam, Origin, OnLive etc.

How is it finite? New games become old games all the time.

I wish I could buy you a drink because of that post, but you are too far away :(. Well said.

I'm thinking ahead a bit on this particular issue. The more popular Gog gets, while offering more "current" games, the more we risk the community of veteran gamers being drowned by a type of newcomers that we don't necessarily want over here.

Though that's just a risk, and I myself think the advantages of Gog becoming a stronger force that can push DRM-free onto newer and newer games far outweighs the negative.

And yeah, I can agree that you see a bit of that "oh no, change!" attitude around at the moment :p

I think that is a quality summation of part of the problem.

I'm one of those old gamers that has things like floppy discs of the original Decent and Disc of Master of Orion. Many of the "old" titles people come here for I have, or have owned at some point. As one of those people I don't really see the point in getting hung up on nostalgia alone. Yes its nice to preserve those great games but a) who gets to say what "old" is, and b) how many "old" titles exists if we never move the needle up?

There are people in this world that would think Assassin's Creed 1 is an "old" game. They played it back when they were 15, and now they are 19 and far more adult. In some respects I would consider it an older title.

With all the going on about people liking old stuff, I would like for someone to try and give a rational, non-relative description of what "old" really is that everyone can agree on. If that can't be done, (and I doubt it can) then how does a company create a business plan around a purely subjective thing?

Personally I still look forward to release day. I am interested in games, not worrying about when they were made. If they are competitively priced, quality games, and DRM-free then they still have my full attention.

Where does the line go? I see other games like King's Bounty: The Lengend which are just as new, if not even newer, than Assassin's Creed (2008). Did they cause similar outcries?

Frankly, I don't think has anything to do with the age of the games. It has more to do that some people don't want GOG to release any games that are available also elsewhere. As if they should release only rare hard to obtain games with messy licensing, and of course sell them for $1 or so. Profitable business?

I guess GOG is trying to find the line of being profitable, and still distinguish themselves from the others (like being fully DRM-free and without regional pricing).