I mean, I'm sure adding indie games would be no problem.
I also see games from bigger developers, but only the real old ones. Far cry being a perfect example here. On a side note - I've set this for my personal goal to only buy Far Cry successors from GOG. If they never get published, Ubisoft will never see my money for them...
I can understand developers not wanting to have a DRM free publisher for the first few months of their game's life, but after that?

It's rather annoying to see a nice game and have it almost 100% certain to be available on steam and almost 100% certain to NOT be available on GOG. It's a shame really...
In addition to that I just bought 2 games this weekend boxed just because steam was charging double for them and GOG didn't have them... One of them even has instructions in slovenian, not that it matters to me, but it did warm my heart just a little to see this kind of attention paid.

I just think I missed the official GOG take on the situation and would really like to hear (read) it.

It is still early in Gog's life cycle, it only just officially came out of beta.

It takes time to sign up developers and convince them to actually allow their older games to be put up 100% drm free without regional pricing.

The catalog will grow with time.

Remember that GOG don't have a "sell-and-forget" approach. Any game that they sell they also need to support. If they sell a buggy game = they will have to answer dozens of questions "How to get it to run on my PC". This might be the reason why they don't offer indie games, or more freeware games.

GOG sell old games (with the sole exception of The Witcher 2 due to company affiliation). They don't sell indie games. They also typically only release 1 to 2 titles a week, sometimes not even that.

If you want to know more about GOG, you might want to read this: http://www.gog.com/en/about

I must say that the catalogue grows and grows and is now much bigger than it was a year before when I discovered gog. However I still miss many games - games that also aren't on Steam or anywhere else except torrents.

The problem is probably to convince the publisher to go DRM free and to negotiate with all relevant parties to get worldwide rights. Which games do you like to have not being on GOG but surely being on Steam?

It's not easy to convince developers to sell their old games without any DRM

also, it's not easy to make these games work on modern computers.

these are two main reasons for small games catalogue, but i think it will be growing fast, because 3 new developers will arrive on GOG late spring / early summer

It's probably even a mission to contact some of developers as they don't longer exist.

The way I see GoG now is like a teen mother, but a loving, caring one that gives us both breasts whenever she can. Can't wait till she grows into big momma :)

The OP does have a point on one issue though. I don't see why GOG doesn't create a sister site for DRM-free indie titles. As it stands, indie developers only have the option of distributing themselves, which makes the game often dependent on word of mouth, or resorting to DRM-contaminated distribution methods like Steam or D2D.

Because it's so good.

Maybe you didn't notice, but Last Express is on here.

This! +a good rating system. It's difficult to determine a game's quality with catalogue short as it is, it would certainly become a mess if it were larger.

+many of you didn't see the reference to already signed up developers. For example, you can buy gothic 1 and 2, but not 3 and 4. Far Cry 1, but not 2, no Crysis, let alone Crysis 2...
What gives with those?

That's up to the publisher, not the devloper (except in those cases they're the same). Either they think the game's worth more than $9.99, or they still want to protect the games with various DRM schemes, or there is some licensing issue (for music or other content). Also, GOG has stated they aren't going into new games (yet) except for The Witcher 2 which is made and published by their sister company: CD Projekt RED.

Don't forget it's Good OLD Games, and even though 'old' is admittedly a vague word, games that are only 1-2 years old tend to have some negative feedback from a number of members because they aren't old enough - Driv3r and King's Bounty are such games. (Personally, I don't have a problem with new-ish games appearing here, but even I would be surprised/annoyed to see GOG adding many almost-new games instead of concentrating on older ones).
Above this, it is indeed so that the publisher decides on the games to be sold on GOG. One reason why you don't see many not-really-old (lets say 1-3 years old) games here is probably that they sell for more than $10 on other distribution platforms.

GOG = Good OLD Games

Witcher 2 aside.
Now, Crysis 2 ain't exactly old...
And for Gothic 3, but especially Gothic 4, see the Good part of GOG's name :))

Hmm, nice suggestion. I always wondered how GOG could possibly expand its scope. Your post determined me to open a new discussion. :)
> http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/how_can_gog_drop_the_old
Gothic 3 was indeed pretty bad when it came out, but the community patches (which have since become official patches) have improved the game a lot. They fixed not only technical bugs but content bugs as well. Gothic 3 is quite a good game at this point. Certainly better than other similarly aged games on GOG... coughtwoworldscought.

One thing I was wondering is is there a cut-off point in terms of modernity when a publisher signs a deal with GOG? For example, they have NWN but not NWN2. NWN Diamond Edition, the one that GOG has for sale, came out in 2005 if my quick research is correct and NWN2 came out only 1 year later. Atari were one of the publishers of NWN and the sole publisher of NWN2. You'd also think GOG would have a good working relationship with Atari since they publish the Witcher games, for what it's worth. Or is it just because NWN2 is meant to suck and it didn't seem worth the licensing fee?