Always wanted to watch that one. But I guess I should start with something less radical like Zombie Strippers.

I check in weekly in search of good old games. Sometimes they drop in, like the latest Hitman game or Silent Service, and that's worth the wait.

But I also adore games such as Shadow Warrior 2013 and Legend of Grimrock. Indie games (or small studio) sometimes fit extremely well among good old games.

Gathering the classic old games is an endless venture, the games from 2008ish and earlier are something that I'd classify as GOG-worthy, next year 2009ish and earlier etc. The catalog grows year by year, as long as games are being made for the PC/Mac.

There are still an immense amount of games that GOG hasn't been able to licence, such as just about everything from 2K games (though Jade Empire is 2K), Lucasarts and plenty of other games that deserve to be here.

Perhaps GOG could have more titles, more AAA titles, more high-profile titles, etc but I think time is on our side in that regard. Annoyingly competitors such as the DRM-spyware platform that is based on water vapor is hoarding many old titles and DRMing them.

Which is a shame. If anything is undermining GOG, then it is Gabe's monster. Publishers are far more comfortable allowing their old catalog on Steam than GOG it seems.

I don't know whether it's the right approach to have GOG go to the "big companies" and ask them for their games. Most of them are building on an exclusivity (is that a word?) model, like "if you want that game, you have to stick with our plattform" - that is Origin, Battlenet or Steam most likely.

Imagine we would get let's say... Red Alert 2 or Diablo or Half-Life on GOG. These would sell extremly well, no doubt about it. So these games aren't held back because of the actual sells, it's more of an advertiser "If you want these classics, you have to go to our platform and probably you will then by our new stuff."

I consider it to be something like the format war between Microsoft, Apple and Linux where nothing was compatable with anything, which was finally settled with Microsoft admitting that noone profits of it and it's only inconveniencing customers.

So I think it's basically a question of advertisement. On that basis, there might be a deal at the horizon with GOG advertising their plattform in the installer or giving out keys to play the game on their plattform as well with a better multiplayer support. (Like GOG did with unepic)

So what I'm saying is, if GOG had something to offer these companies, which would make them want to put their games here, things will be a lot easier. This will happen at some point, once GOG gets recognised as kind of *the archive of classic games* and people will start asking questions why certain games aren't in the archive. Question is when it will happen.

Yes, I do believe "exclusivity" is a word.

Yeah, you can never go wrong with more big titties!

If Activision is unavailable, maybe EA can bring the early Battlefield games here. Those are big enough.

Yes, I agree, GOG needs more big, contemporary titles. I've been speaking with another portuguese GOGger, via PMs, and according to the accounts of us both, though it's nice that GOG keeps selling the old classics (I, for one, very much welcome that), being acknowledged as a repository of old games can only get you so far.

Indies are awesome, I personally prefer them over AAA titles, but let's face it: in order to grow even more, GOG needs to bring in the heavyweights. The thing is, the guys at GOG know this. They have been trying for years. When they tried changing their pricing policies, it was to that end -- bringing AAA, contemporary titles. But the community has spoken, and regional pricing on some titles is a big no-no. Still, the community still complains that GOG needs more big titles. They tried. Big studios don't care about flat pricing, or they can't care about it, when they rely on distributors that are legally bound to implement regional pricing, and GOG can't negotiate with them on those terms. DRM-free is absolutely non-negotiable, it's the core value that drives GOG, but flat pricing could have been open to exceptions, in order for us to get these much needed AAA games. Just because a studio is already on board with GOG, signed distribution deals, and all, doesn't mean it's easy to get them to sell their recent games in here, as there always seems to be some sort of legal bullcrap associated with new and new-ish games.

I've been "evangelizing" GOG to everyone I come across that I know to be a gamer of sorts, but it's hard to bring a large number of people over when they're not interested in a store that seems to be nothing more than a museum of old games. I know how most GOGgers complain about the decrease in old classics being released, but, in all honesty, I think that's actually a good thing, as was renaming the site from "good old games" to just plain "gog.com". And, to be fair, I don't think the classic games have been lacking, GOG keeps releasing at least one per week, it's just not "the Big Ones" -- because "the Big Ones" are in the hands of companies and studios that won't have anything to do with GOG, or because they're in legal hell, or even because they're a pain in the derrière to get to work on modern machines. Big AAA games would help immensely keeping GOG alive and healthy for longer, as it would definitely bring a lot more people in. In the meantime, they would keep releasing the classics we expect them to, obviously, there's that sure market of old farts, like myself, that would keep wanting old games along indies and big studio ones.

I don't think there's an easy way for GOG to get the AAA titles, right now, due to "legalese" and the fact big sudios, devs and especially distributors can't or won't sell games in a store with a flat worldwide pricing system. DRM-free can be accepted -- more and more gamers ask for it, anyway --, but anything that deals with money, unfortunately, can't be bypassed.

Yes, a few. And let's see how those few games sell, so that GOG can convince the big honchos to bring the Batman Arkhams and the Assassin's Creeds and the... whatever big game there is.

point being - you are saying big titles are not here because gOg has a flat price principle. This is no longer true, but big titles are still not here.

It's not a few. It's just Age of Wonders 3. When Divinity: Original Sin, The Witcher 3 and who knows what else get released, then we shall see what else will be brought. But currently, just one.

I didn't say that was the only reason. As with classics, there's always legal issues and company policies and whatnot keeping the games from being sold in here. And regional pricing was implemented to an extent, that's right, but I don't think the titles it was applied to are big enough to impress Ubisoft or EA or Activision or Disney or ZeniMax/Bethesda and convince them to release their games through GOG. Let's see how it goes with The Wicther 3, that's our best hope, for now.

it is not implemented "to an extent". it is implemented full stop. It is now an option for publishers on gOg if they want to do so. It is not this that holds publishers back.

lets have hope and give GOG time to grow its customer base

I think the new big games are mostly impossible. These are usually heavily reliant on multiplayer, which will use their owners online service. Old biggies however are another case.