Not "still high" but even higher. :3 This ratio thing really seems to confuse people.

Do you have any proof?

Absolutely agree :)

I've bought a mix of old and indie games on GOG in the last 12 months and, other than a couple of them which I absolutely hate, I've been thrilled with everything I've bought.

Best games I've bought on GOG so far?

Torchlight (new-ish) and best game I've played in freaking decades - Thanks GOG :)
Divine Divinity (new-ish)
Darkstone (older)
Stronghold (older)
King of Dragon Pass (older)
Realms of the Haunting (older)
Caesar III (older)
Trine (new-ish)

A nice mix of old and new and all fabulous games. So, no, I don't care if they sell old or new. I love both.

Always surprises me when people call games from 2000 or 1999 "old"

Depends a bit on how old is defined. I saw a calculation in this thread where it declined. At least in the future I expect the number of older games to decline because the supply is limited. That is unless every year we shift the definition of old game also by one year. Then it can go on like this.

*shrug* fine by me.

Can't make a business out of nostalgia forever; not *every* old game is good; not every good old game is attainable; I think perhaps some people are overestimating what the GOG.com team and associated lawyers are capable of attaining, like the people constantly asking for System Shock 2.

I buy games that I enjoy here, I don't care about their age.

Also I don't agree with the idea that 'preserving and nurturing' old games no longer happens here, because that's not true.

I also don't agree with equating releasing old and new games with each other; especially when the larger publishers are involved (EA etc) and there's difficulty with modern systems (like Carmageddon, for example).

Tbh, my original point in coming here was for old games. After spending, what, 2ish years here, however, I now understand that in order to acquire them, it takes far more work than releasing indie games or post 2004 games. It is what it is.

However, I strongly believe more in the philosophy of DRM free, moreso than I'm going to be a whiny layabout crying about old games taking a back seat, even if one can't arguably come up with proof that they are. GOG got on bringing us the first installment of EA expansions, something which a LOT of us have been wanting for how long now?

GOG is GOG. GOG makes mistakes too, but I don't think upping total releases of both new AND old games is a bad step. They're still out there trying to bring us more of what everyone wants, and I'm cool with that.

And regardless of the median of judgement, you can't poo-poo the fact that a lot of the old games that ARE bestsellers have in some cases, a 3-4 year headstart on the newer games. That's just a fact of time, so I feel it may be a bit early to judge newer games' performance in sales just yet. I'm sure GOG knows, and if they really thought they made a mistep in getting more involved with the indie games, they'd be asking us what we thought again, just like they did before they polled us on bringing newer games here.

More importantly, I think that's the biggest factor everyone's missing. GOG asked us before they did it, and we, the community, said that that's what we wanted. Sure, there were plenty of diehards who voted no, but there were more of us that voted yes. I think that's important to remember.

And thats fine. The point is, "old" games are no longer the focus. You can read into that anyway you like. Personally I find that when a business wanders from its core one of two things happen. First, they fail spectacularly and collapse or second, they succeed spectacularly and begin to move away from that core even more.

As someone else mentioned, there is in all likelihood much more money to be had in current digital releases. I agree with that completely. So if GOG pulls it off and can get a solid base of new games, where do you think their old game division will go? What business in the world concentrates on something that makes them less money while those resources could be getting a better return on their new core business?

One company cant do it all folks, money talks. Thats why it was nice that GOG was originally "old" games. You knew they were working to appeal to the niche. Now they are clearly leaving that niche for greener pastures. I dont blame them for that at all, I want more money as well. I am disappointed that the likelihood of me seeing old classics is dropping rapidly.

You would be mostly right but for one thing. Steam is arguably the biggest player on the digital gaming store front. And while I can agree that there is "much more money to be had in current digital releases" I see Steam adding more and more older games to their catalog. Hell, they even have games that should definitely be on GOG, like the old X-Com series.

So if the biggest player in digital gaming distribution thinks the older game market is worth it, why would you assume GOG would drop it?

You're missing one point: It's not really up to Steam what games are released there, it's the publishers' choice. Personally I think that several publishers may have actually noticed through GOG that old games are a lucrative business and have therefore started also releasing their old games on Steam (also I'm afraid that Square Enix actually waited for GOG to fix and release some of their old games and then just copied GOG's solutions and released the same games on Steam soon after).

It's a decision of both sides. Let's say if Steam doesn't want to release a pornographic game and a publisher has one and wants to, it won't happen.

And I have same feeling about using GOG's work for Steam's sake.

It's not up to Steam what games are released on Steam??? o.O
And the fact that publishers noticed that old games are a lucrative business strengthens my point that GOG has no reason to drop it's old games part.

It's quite obvious that Steam is getting so many requests from others to release their games on that platform that Steam does not have to actively look for games to release - in fact it seems that Steam's job is rather about refusing sub-par games than looking for good ones (which is confirmed by the existence of Greenlight which was basically a comparably clever way of outsourcing that job to people who will do it for free). I also read some article or blog entry that suggested that there's certain deals with top-publishers which makes it easier for them to publish their games on Steam which further confirms that it's their responsibility and not Steam's to choose the products and provide support for them. So yeah, I think that one can certainly say that Steam/Valve was not involved in the decision to publish old games on their platform but that it was the publishers' call.