My point was not that GOG should only have ancient games, my point was that most games that are currently SecuROM 7 protected are too new for the publishers (not GOG) to consider them for the GOG treatment. A good portion of those games are still active full-price (or near full price) sellers online and in stores (games like Neverwinter Nights 2, C&C3: Tiberium Wars, BioShock, Mass Effect, etc.). From what I have seen so far with GOG, I would only expect games that have already made their way onto the discount rack in retail stores to show up here. I'm sure there are some SecuROM 7 games that have reached that "status" (Hitman: Blood Money is one that comes to mind), but I really don't think there are that many that have (yet).
Here's my theory: if you can find a game on the "$10 or less" rack in any retail store, regardless of the copy protection scheme used, then I would expect that game to possibly show up on GOG at some time. If the game is still found in the main games section at a price of $20 or higher, then it is too soon to expect it to show up on GOG. I based this theory on the fact that nearly every "new-ish" game (ToCA Race Driver, Second Sight, I.G.I. 2, etc.) currently offered on GOG is already found on the "$10 or less" rack at my local Target store while nothing from the main game section was. I know, not very scientific, but it makes sense to me.

Why is anyone arguing that adding newer games is bad for the site?
As long as they also add older (199x) games, surely it's all good?

It's just that it's ridiculous pie in the sky. Why would they sell without DRM on GOG what they can sell in stores with DRM? It makes no sense.

It's just another way to make profit. They are aware that there are people who don't want to play games with DRM, so that's why they use DRM-free digital distribution as an alternative.

The thing is, GOG is "10 bucks for an old game", not "10 bucks more for no DRM". But a store using the latter concept, aiming to be an alternative, DRM-free digital distribution platform could be interesting as well. I could see that branching off from GOG some time in the not-so-near future, if things go well.

By avoiding the stores, publishers won't have to print discs and manuals for them.
That would probably save them LOTS of time and money.
Oh, and they don't have to give us a case, either.
We could provide that ourselves.

Except in the case of newer games like Spore and Far Cry 2, they have already burned the disks, printed the manuals and packaged the cases. Until they make at least the money back from that expense, there is no way those games will ever make it to GOG, especially without DRM or at GOG's maximum price point of $9.99.

We just have to wait and let them discover on their own that it is in fact the other way around.

There is somewhat of an uproar going on over on Steam because of this very problem. The Steam method of distributing games is in itself a form of DRM, though I don't mind it so much. However, some of the new games coming out from 3rd party publishers (EA is one) have Tages and SecuROM on top of THAT, limited installs and all. Steam, at first wasn't noting this information in their catalog and it created quite a backlash. Now any third party games with DRM on top of the Steam method are so noted.
I wouldn't count on EA or any of the others doing this letting any digital distribution occur without the extra added goodness locking it down.

Putting more recent, DRM-ed games on here just ruins the purpose of this site, which is to promote older, forgotten games to the next generation of gamers.
This isn't a site that strictly promoted itself on being DRM-Free, its main goal was to have a unique catalogue of games that no one else has.
Besides, a company like EA just aren't going to put their games on here for the very reasons why you think it'd be good for them to do so: DRM-Free.