So, what was the most recent game (and when was it published for sale):

a) did GOG bought out the publishing rights and did publish?

or

b) is "old" (= more than 10 years old) and was published by another company on GOG here?

Remaster / Remakes do not count.

Please, I'm curious.

Corridor 7 and Operation Body Count (both from 1994) on May 5th.

1991 Slordax: The Unknown Enemy
1993 ScubaVenture: The Search for Pirate's Treasure
1994 Corridor 7: Alien Invasion
1994 Operation Body Count
2011 The First Templar - Special Edition
just to name a few from the last 1-2 months

so they still bring out old games
anyway they will run out of sell worthy old games where the publishers are willing to sell here probably

Don't blame solely us, thank you. ;)

Regarding a few earlier posts:
I don't see gog being bought by another company, that is tinfoil hat territory to be honest.
CDPR made bank with Cyberpunk 2077 and they'll continue to do so with continued sales and DLC. gog is increasing their revenue year by year as well, there's no reason for CDPR to get rid of gog.

None of them are GOG exclusives, like the Might & Magic series or something similar where (like with the Kyrandia series) was GOG involved in providing a decent package.

Most of these games listed are just now from publisher like Ziggurat who has seen to market gap for refreshing old game licenses and publishing them wherever they have the opportunity.

The Templar game is technically at the border of 2009/2010, so ..

But the most recent I can think of which qualifies - where visibily GOG has its hands into it - was the Konami stuff :)

Why are GOG exclusives important? And why is it important GOG themselves do the technical work? Maybe I missed some context or info earlier.

Also I think it's worth pointing out old games GOG has published themselves have always been very rare, it's less than 1 page worth in the catalog out of 100+ pages. https://www.gog.com/games?page=1&sort=popularity&search=gog

Why are the comments asking if gog could be bought when they could buy a controlling stake in shares instead.

Both of them were from some other company and they aren't very good anyway..

Now that this is at post 2400 or so, at some point during a "boycott" don't you actually have to leave and move on? The information about record sales during the boycott must sting a little bit. Kind of funny reading back through the post at any glimmer of hope that gog is doing poorly.

Of course they are from another company. So is 99% of all games here. How is that relevant?

Neither are the tons of anime looking crap, but that doesn't mean they don't count should someone start complaining "GOG doesn't release enough ugly anime crap!".

I had no idea we were supposed to hope GOG was doing poorly. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's the people who are against the boycott who brought up GOG's supposedly bad situation most often, as an argument against the boycott, not the other way round.

The idea here was never to ruin GOG, it was never some "hater movement". It was always about signalling relevant issues to GOG, hoping (though not really believing I think) they might be adressed, and most of all simply about people spending their money in a way they're comfortable with. I highly doubt anyone from the boycott list is now weeping in frustration and shrieking "no! no! they were supposed to go bankrupt!"

At no point did I say or imply that you were supposed to hope that gog was doing poorly.

Doesn't
"The information about record sales during the boycott must sting a little bit."
imply
"Peope are hoping they do poorly."
?

Doesn't the mere activity called "boycott" imply that people taking part in said activity hope to financially hurt the very business, which they boycott? (fun fact: people boycotting a business want that business to "do poorly" to reach their boycott goals)

I never gave my opinion on people's motives. I was just pointing out that qwixter seemed to imply people wanted gog to do poorly but then said he never implied it.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea how this

"The information about record sales during the boycott must sting a little bit. Kind of funny reading back through the post at any glimmer of hope that gog is doing poorly."

can be interpreted as anything else than assumption that people hoped GOG was doing poorly.

Well, if we follow the short exchange between qwixter and breja, one could argue that breja wrote (quote): "I had no idea we were supposed to hope GOG was doing poorly.", to which qwixter replied (quote): "At no point did I say or imply that you were supposed to hope..."

Semantics, sure...but in this case qwixter would be kinda correct.
He actually never implied anyone was "supposed to" hope for GOG to do poorly.

I, on the other hand, am saying, that if you partake in a boycott against a business, it is very obvious that you hope for that business to do poorly - else your boycott is nothing but a waste of time.

See - the effect you wish to achieve with any boycott against a business, is to hurt that business financially, so that they "learn from their errors" and steer back to the course, that the boycotting group deems the "correct course".

Therefore it's very funny to read (either in this thread, or elsewhere) from people admitting that they are boycotting GOG, but with in the same breath claim, that they don't want to harm GOG. ;)