No complaining here, it is just about good OLD game, that's all for me ;) DRM free is always good, but Two Worlds for example.. I saw it today at a local reseller, so I just wondered how you would define a "old game".

A definition of "old game"? Be my guest.
About 99.8% of all games get re-released as budget title within one year.
My estimated guess for games that still play a role in todays gamers life and are 2 years or older, I'd say is below 2%.
Therefor after 2 years or more, they reached the status of "too old to care about" and qualify for the OLD part in GOG.

All I know is, GOG could start selling 2010 titles at max 9.99 and drm free and I wouldn't complain. BUT, I bet there would people people bitching about the games not being old. Like...who cares if they are not old? You don't like them, don't buy them! If I didn't already have 2 copies of Two Worlds, I would buy the GOG version.

Since the majority of the games on here are older than me, I don't care. And sides, another cheap newish game? Who cares?

There we go. A good old game is a game that is anywhere from "older than Rohan16" to "carbon 14 dating game".

And where did I say Two Worlds? I actually quite enjoy that game although I doubt it will get that many sales - it's been cheaper on Steam quite a few times during the past year or two - I bought it a few years back for just £2.5.
I was talking more about mediocre crud like Sniper Elite which is virtually unknown and for good reason it seems.

If that is what you get out of my post, you need to read more closely. It's not about MY opinion, it's about that of the majority and how even games that sell well have plenty of people who don't want to buy it.
Well that says more about you than me then, doesn't it? When a site is called GOOD OLD Games, I'm sure it's hard to see why a more recent mediocre game might not belong here for some people. (yes that was sarcasm)
No, it was a weak argument because you basically said "well as long as some people enjoy it, it won't change the way everyone else feels about GOG" which is not true - and if you claim you didn't mean that, then you missed my original point. This isn't a question of "is an average game on GOG useless?" because I know there's always people who will enjoy it. It's a question of "how far can GOG go when adding games that are not that well liked or not that old and not tarnish its reputation" and trust me, it's already getting tarnished. I'm very active in the abandonware scene and I can tell you GOG's name is getting quite some criticism. This forum consists mostly out of those that support GOG so it may be misleading to read posts here but I can tell you that, outside of this forum, people aren't all so forgiving. That's besides the point though. A company needs to protect its reputation, full stop. They picked the name "Good Old Games" and built up an image of offering quality old games around it. They need to protect that image - that's all there is to it. The whole nonsense about what is good and what isn't is besides the point. Yes there's room for adding more recent games and more mediocre games but they need to be careful not to do it too frequently, it's as simple as that.

I wouldn't complain, but 9,99$ for a 2010 title and maybe A+ ones? Stop dreaming ;) I would never buy anywhere else a game if that would ever happen.

You're right, you didn't mention Two Worlds. I just thought you refered to it because the thread was opened due to its release and you didn't mention any other game. Just a nameless "mediocre recent game" what I didn't relate to the five years old (or as you said: recent) Snipersomething.
But this shows the problem pretty exactly:
- Sniper Elite is a mediocre recent game to you. The threadstarter said a old game should be at least five years old - just like Sniper Elite.
- Two Worlds is a recent game you can "quite enjoy". Have a look in the release-thread, where Two Worlds is considered a "terrible to mediocre" game.
And now just look at one of your posts again:
Why should your opinion be "more correct" than other ones? Because you got lots of agrees for your reviews? You said "The GOG rating is not to be trusted anyway". So why do you mention all the people agreeing to your reviews? Those are the same users who are responsible for the not trustable rating... Does it turn their opinion trustable just because they agreed you? Sorry, but that's weird...
Don't mistake this as an offense. I just wanted to show that people have different opinions and that even one opinion can change according to requirements.
In generally I agree with you: GOG has to be careful with its image. But I'm considering this in a different way. Releasing more recent games ("just" about five years old) may drive away some people. As you said: In the abandonware scene GOG is losing some of its reputation. But that's the point where we start talking about "minoritys" again. We (all GOGers together) yet are a minority. The main part of gamers just don't care about old games. And the abandonware scene is just a part (minority?) of the minority.
Some will leave but others will join. Some will leave because GOG doesn't release two "hard to get"-games from the early 90s every week. Others will join because GOG starts to release games like Two Worlds without this DRM-crap. Not everyone bought it, because "it's been cheaper on Steam quite a few times". I don't accept DRM just beause I could save 6$. Portal is even free on Steam but I don't load it, because I don't want this client on my PC. As I said: We start to talk about minoritys... But I wonder which is the larger audience. Those who maybe leave because five years isn't old enough or those who join because they find games they missed for any reason?
GOG has to decide: Do we release two or three pre 2000-titles a month to keep some people happy or do we release five years old titles as well to reach even a wider audience (make more money/keep everything going)? And don't forget that GOG also has to be carefully in another direction: The sales volume! If they don't generate enough sales publishers will lose interest in GOG.
Apart from this there's just just one more thing, refering to "people aren't all so forgiving": I don't see any reason to turn away from GOG, just because they release anything, that I don't consider old or good. I'm not forced to buy anything. If I don't like a game I don't buy it. And even if GOG starts to release crap for ten years in a row and then releases Homeworld (for example) I wouldn't refuse to buy Homeworld just because the ten years of "bad recent games". You can not satisfy everyone. Especially not those who are complaining because GOG has released four titles younger than five years over the past half year.

In my opinion "good old" suggests nostalgia for a bygone era, and not 2005 and later games. But the more the merrier, and I understand that GOG.com just makes available the games that they are able to obtain the rights to sell here.

GOG is a business, folks, and if they don't make a profit they will cease to exist.
Look, I think that both Postal games are absolute crap (not from a moral, but from a gameplay point of view) but I think GOG was right in selling them since a lot of people will buy them at Six bucks just to see what all the fuss is about.
People really need to chill out a little, and not think that their opinion is some kind of law.
I will crticise GOG when they deserve it ..like for releasing Interstate 76 and Outcast in versions that still has a lot of problems and needed a lot of complex tweaking to run on a modern computer,GOG messed up there....but I will not criticise them for selling a specific game, no matter what I might think of the game.

Good is really too subjective to define, but old is easy (and has been defined many times on the forums in the past), though it is not really a measure of chronological time, but rather a measure of retail interest and current selling price:
"Old" is any game that is either no longer available in the retail market or is only available in the "10 bucks or less" discount bin. Games that are still available on store shelves at full price or have not been discounted to that degree are still too "new" for the GOG treatment.
Its really that simple. Sometimes that means we can get games that are as "new" as 2 or 3 years old, but whether or not we actually get those depends on that moving target of what constitutes a "good" game.

Since I'm not very fanatical about DRM, there are mainly two reasons why I love GOG. The first is that they release great games which I can't buy anywhere else, except on eBay (typically very expensive). The second is that they make it a lot easier to actually run these games.
So when they released the Tex Murphy games or the Gabriel Knights or the Master of Orions, that was great news because these are classics that I can finally buy and play again on modern systems. Fantastic stuff.
But when they release newer games, not only are those typically widely available online, but they're compatible with my system anyway. So unless they happen to be really cheap, it's no big deal that they're released here. We just get one more place to buy them.
I can't speak for others, of course, but if you look at the bestseller lists, the games that tends to dominate (weeks after weeks) are the ones that happen to be exclusive to GOG, and those are typically fairly old. So I'm obviously not the only one who feels this way.
I don't _really_ have a problem with GOG releasing newer games. But every time they release something that's widely available already, with no major compatibility problems, I feel a bit let down - because that's not what I come to GOG for. And if they release several such games in a row, then, because of their slow release schedule, it means there can be weeks between each GOG-exclusive game release.

Personally I consider games new if they are released after 2005.

True, but a better GOG/Toys R Us analogy would be referring to the fact that they only sell toys (which they don't, they also sell things like baby furniture) as GOG only sells good old games (which they also don't, depending on your definition of "good" and "old").