Lately I'm a bit disappointed about the direction GOG has taken (only "newest games") and the specific games released.

You mean Demon Stone and Dragonshard, right? As they both are part of GOG's Atari deal and that has provided some real gems as well. And as they are D&D titles, I do hope, they are a gateway to old SSI D&D games.

I say "Bring 'em on".

Newer games, older games, good games, mediocre games, bad games, bring 'em on. If it means more choices, I think it's a good thing. Even with 'bad' games, there are some people that like them. If it means more revenue so that GOG can bring more games in to offer us, I see no issues with that. So, even if they release stuff I'm not interested in, I say "MOAR. Bring 'em on".

People have been saying that since closed beta.

Here are the original publication dates for GOG's ten most recent releases, going back to March 22nd (Might and Magic VIII):

1992
1993
1996
1999
2000
2001
2003
2004
2005
2006

So, the newest game that GOG has released in the past six weeks - Guilty Gear X2 Reloaded - is still five years old, and over half are ten or more years old. AitD and Star Control are among the oldest games released so far, joining roughly the oldest 10% of GOG's catalogue (32 SKUs out of some 300 or so are from pre-1995).

If you don't like the selection, that's fine, but why do we have to bicker about how old the games are? It's silly.

Sometimes it's a matter of releasing what you can get your hands on. The older the game, the higher the likelyhood of the IP rights being a complete and utter mess. Often, the developer and/or publisher no longer exists, and the game rights might have been sold off to a third party, sometimes several times. With newer games, it's much easier.

Also, there is a "window of incompatibility" around the late DOS/early Windows era, where games are really difficult to get running on modern OS's.

I agree with the OP. Providing "not quite new" titles feels a bit pointless.

The way I see it, making DRM free releases of more and more games is certainly not "pointless". Would you rather they just didn't release anything, if they couldn't get a pre-2000 game that particular week?

So the current releases aren't old enough, then don't buy them for about another 5 years, will they be old enough then?

In another five years Mass Effect 3 will be old enough to be on GOG. If we have managed to convince EA to join by then is another matter though.

I completely agree. Games should be at least 21 years old to be considered for GOG.

So I'm just going to put my 2 pyreal in I disagree with you. Okay have fun :D

I agree (in case of "new wave of Atari games")

I have nothing against "not-so-old" good games here, but when they announced "new wave of Atari games" I kinda thought all games would be classic (and old) the way Alone in the Dark is.

I mean, it's ok to have Demonstone and Dragonshard here, but those games could be added any time. I'd expect some classic MicroProse games, like BloodNet, Dragonsphere, Return of the Phantom or Rex Nebular and the Cosmic Gender Bender, Prisoner of Ice , just to name some of their adventure games.

Well, I don't think that the "oldiness" of a game is important.

I'd like to see more DOS/Win95 games that I can't find cheap on amazon! Games that I can't install and play right away!
Many games that I see released on GOG lately haven't much of a DRM (aside a CD check), and I can find them even at lower price with CD and printed manual on online stores.

I'd like to see long forgotten/unplayable gems resurrected.

What you Have to remember is that games that the first wave of PS2 games are coming up to 10 years old. That means that there's a generation of teenagers, and young adults whose first console, 10 years ago was a PS2. And I know for a fact a lot of people here are older, you have to remember though a younger generation is here, with different expectations. And with different titles they have a Nostalgic value for as 'Good Old Games' a term, which is completely subjective in every single way.