OutOfTimer: I agree with this. Unfortunately, it appears it's one of the games it's hard to figure and negotiate copyright for. You can easily buy Civilization III+ but not I and II. It's the same with Prince of Persia 1989. They pretend it doesn't exist. WTF ?

I would also like to see the EA catalogue on GOG.com but I bet we will never get it. EA is too much of a douchebag corporation to agree to sell it without DRM. I like how they think consumers can't be douchebags themselves and just download a cracked non-DRM version for free. LOL

karlvanhoof: Just a suggestion but it would be great to see Civilization on here. Its the very first game I ever played and still one of the best turn based strategy games out there. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Navagon: A lot of people seem to feel that the really early Civs were rendered pointless by the latter ones. Especially seeing as they're simply direct improvements over their predecessors. Meaning that Civ III was more like Civ 3.0. I don't see how that's true of four and five, but still.

So perhaps Take Two don't bother with the early ones for that reason?

mystral: While I'd agree that Civ 2 was a direct improvement over the original (better graphics, better balance), Civ 3 is a different enough game imo not to be called Civ 3.0. Civ 4 and 5 have very different mechanics as well.
I still replay Civ 2 from time to time and I get a different experience from it than I got from Civ 3, which I didn't like all that much.