Next time then. There are many good old games (that are not present here) to trade your soul for.

GOG's offering, what? Over 200 games? Is it really a big deal if maybe 10% of them (and I believe the actual figure is less than that, depending on what you consider new) are 'new' games?
I'm just glad there's a site where we can get DRM free games that are patched to the latest and are guaranteed to work on XP or Vista. I don't personally give a crap if they throw in a few newer games now and then. Especially if it means they earn enough revenue to keep the site going.

I agree and likely many others do as well. I think it's just the recent schedule almost all "newer" releases that did it. When they're woven more subtly in-between older titles, we don't notice. We're fickle, we crotchety old gamers.

I agree as well, I can't believe that releasing a few newer games will degrade the existing games, the community or the status of GOG.com. I want as many games as possible in the catalog. I don't even consider the release date when I purchase a game . . .

I personally reckon the people complaining will be happy if GOG goes out of business, due to only selling old games. There'd be too long a gap between releases for things to remain financially feasible I reckon.
Edit: Probably not nice to say that, but it's something people don't think about too much when making these threads etc. in my opinion. That said though, no problem with the original post. It was phrased as a question and well, it was a better post on the matter than most I've seen. Mostly, it's one sentence only complaints that I've seen elsewhere.

It seems as though some of you are overreacting to the question. It doesn't sound like a complaint to me. After all, it's a good thing when any game is freed from the shackles of DRM. However, it appears as though GOG only offers two titles published prior to the 1990s. There is plenty of room for expanding the catalogue in a reverse chronological fashion. You could simply consider the OP's clumsy question a vote for more retro games. It's a harmless request so there is really no need to get defensive.
But if you disagree, feel free to continue trolling.

I'll speak in favor of variety. I don't mind the "newer" games. From my observation, the average memory of the gaming community spans about three years. If it hasn't had a sequel in three years, it's considered "old" and "abandoned." Sad, I know, and in this community I know we cling to stuff much older than that. Imagine if books were only available three years after their release!
However, I agree that this site is really heavy on the 1995-2005 period. I'd like to see more 1983-1995 games. And I've been prowling the voting pages, trying to make this view felt there, but I'm only one user.
And--please, please, please, if you start releasing old AGI style games, keep them in AGI. Don't use the remakes. Or package them together so players can choose. Same goes for any game with an "updated graphics" option.
All that being said, I realize it's probably down to the legal issues--what games companies are willing to license and in what format. To that, I wish GOG the best of luck getting as many games as possible, whatever the period or developer.

Regardless of what may people may think of my post, that's my thought as well in terms of the post being harmless. That's why I said what I did via an edit. I guess I was mainly referencing what I've seen elsewhere. Not getting defensive here either, I just don't really see the logic in people being upset (seen in another thread) regarding this and I don't think they things through when complaining, as is normal I guess. (Not saying the OP is complaining).
Anyway, this thread has actually been pretty decent in comparison to other posts on the matter. Valanice's view is the one I reckon people should take though. Wish GOG the best of luck in acquiring the games, but at the same time understanding that there may be problems.
As always though, healthy debate is good but one sentence complaining isn't, just like asking a harmless question doesn't raise problems. Hence why I have no problem with the thread.

Cloanto is the man! Although the C-64 suite is rather shitty, sorry Cloanto.

I never meant to put down the effort the guys running this site does and I love the fact that I can get some DRM free games to work on Vista. I simply was hoping for that the trend I`ve noticed recent weeks won`t last for ever :) I understand the problems regarding ownership etc..I just thought it was a fair thing to wish for and I never meant to cause such a bundle.
I`ll just sit and wait to see what titles they bring in the future and keep my opinions to my self :)

The majority of them are. Many books go out of print within two years of release. The exceptions are mainly bestsellers and bestselling authors.
Carlsanova: didn't mean to dogpile on you. It just seems that lately whenever a newer game is released, there are a number of people that start complaining the sky is falling and GOG shouldn't be selling that particular game because it's not 'old'.

QFT.

Ok, I admit that I said that poorly. The books are still widely available even after they go out of print, because libraries and used book stores have copies, and you can still read them. However, technology is usually out of date within 3-5 years--there's a new OS or console, and suddenly it gets harder to play the old stuff. But I can pick up a book that's 100 years old and read it as efficiently as I can pick up one released yesterday (well, almost as efficiently--publishing and writing have changed a little in that time, and it's noticeable). It's the retro-compatibility that makes GOG's work important--because I can buy a used copy of an old game fairly easily, but nothing says it's gonna work on any technology I have available at the moment.
(Although with ebooks, we might run into the same problems that games have with retro-compatibility. That could be as amusing as it is frustrating.)
Actually... comparing GOG's work to that of the scholars who dig through old books and produce easier-to-read and more-readily-available new editions is a very productive idea. I mean, as a literature student, I owe a lot of my time and work to those scholars who do that kind of archival work, the kind of work that allows us to read the classics without hunting down rare editions and then having to decipher old type-setting. And GOG's mission to make classic gaming more widely available is exactly equal (especially to scholars who are interested in vintage games, but also to the general media market). Unfortunately, GOG faces something that publishers working with 100+ year old texts don't have to worry about: copyright issues. And kudos to GOG for managing them as well as they have, even if it limits the available stuff.
So, yeah. Thank you for correcting me. I should have known better. And the correction has led to a great comparison.

Ok, what in the world does QFT mean? I absolutely love the Amiga forever package, but lets face it the C-64 package just sucks ass. Truth hurts