I signed up early with GOG and have been very happy with the titles they have resurrected. Many of the games are great, and the license terms are very reasonable. I even repurchased Giants because of them. But it seems like GOG is losing it's vision/focus.
The first thing to get fuzzy was what constitutes "old". TOCA 3 is definitely a good game (I bought it), but... this is "old"?
Then there were a flurry of releases priced at $9.99, which is pretty high for some of the titles. I'm sorry, _Painkiller_ at $9.99? I liked the game, but that's more like what it should have been released at new.
Meanwhile, Valve has been offering -brand new- titles at $9.99. Not just good OLD games, even not-yet-released stuff like Zeno Clash for $9.99. Abe's Oddworlds (another good old game) is all of $2.50 this weekend or $3.75 for both.
I really prefer GOG's execution, licensing and value proposition over Steam and it's invasive nature, but I feel like they're pricing themselves out of business on a lot of titles now. Certainly I know there are a number of items that _I_ didn't pull the trigger on because of price. So I'm curious, is it just because I'm out of line for being too cheap, or does someone else think that pricing and product are out of sync?

The thing is, you can't get Fallout anywhere else (well, it's hard to anyway). So the prices are great for games that you can't find. Painkiller is different, in that there are extras you're getting as well that you won't find in the Steam Gold Edition.

Steam has the numbers and power to offer better & more sales. Some prices are better, some are worse. It's the beauty of digital distribution :)
They can't price it to low, else what profit is there?

You're talking about Steam's offers, versus GOG's regular pricing. I don't think it's fair. Plus Painkiller is offering the "Black" edition. Even when it's released new, I don't see how it can be offered at $20 only, let alone $9.99
I do agree about the "old" part though

Personal preference is to see games from 2001 and older, but I say if the game is not old enough for you, Don't buy it, GOG.com will get the message about 2003+ games not selling.
I dunno, I could say GOG is losing their focus, but they aren't out of beta and they've done a fantastic job since I joined last September.
Its a hard thing they are doing so maybe they will have even more things we want, and then perhaps everyone can say, "Hey they are on track!"
But for now they are focused enough for me, Interplay and Apogee games are a HUGE thing to me.

1. GOG can only sell games that developers/publishers will agree to, Painkiller isn't that old, and sure I bought my retail copy for $5.99, but it's not upto GOG, to them it was have Painkiller at $9.99 or not have Painkiller, and having GOG sell Painkiller is a dream come true for Zero Punctuation Fanboys.
2. Toca was released on GOG a while back, so to say they're only now losing their focus is a little off.
3. The "NEW" titles you're talking about are Indie games that will never see a retail release and cost no where near as much as some of the GOG games did to develop.
4. The Sale, things go on sale everwhere, but with GOG.com you're also getting additional materials, lack of DRM, and a pass card to a great community, so step off it.
You know as much as I defend GOG.com I still have not been interested in any games that have been released for a while.

While the concept of bringing back ancient games is a good one, the sad truth is that many of these are very hard to secure the rights for. Some games have reverted back to the designer (who may well be dead), others have changed hands so many times it's not fully clear who has the rights, others have the title trademark owned by one company while the game and assets are owned by another, and still others are held by companies that don't care about their older titles or just don't like letting their games go without DRM or with a maximum price of $9.99.
As such, the newer a game is the easier it is to find who owns the rights and get them to agree to revive it.

Here's the way I look at this whole issue:
1. Are they putting out games? YES
2. have they got old games on here? yes, they do. Oldest game on here is WaxWorks which is 17 years old ....
3. Why are there some "newer" games on here? I don't know I don't care. I just buy what I want without hassle and play my games.
I don't see them losing focus. Besides, give or take a few years and Painkiller will soon be old(er) too.

Personally I find the prices just great, especially when considering that getting some of the titles somewhere else other than GOG might be hard. And let's not forget that the price includes all those little extras we all learned to love so much.
And last but not least, the SHELF. My god, my shelf looks amazing. For the shelf alone GOG could charge me a 50 (insert $ or € here, whatever) monthly subscription and i would pay. No, really. I would.
As for the games, like it's bound to happen with any catalogue, there are a few that don't tickle my fancy, but others enjoy them, so nothing new here, it's all good. The fact that i don't like them doesn't make them any less GOOD.
But even those i don't like would look great on my shelf, so i probably will end up getting them anyway just to have them there. Yes, i really love my SHELF.
As for the 'OLD GAMES' thing, i personally always considered that as a preferencial guideline and not a rule carved in stone. Even because 'old' will always be a bit subjective. For me old is last year's PC 'Mass Effect', for somebody else it's Speccy's 'Witch's Cauldron'.
Regardless of how old the games actually are, if whoever owns the rights is/are willing to sell them here DRM free, I'm all for it.
Oh, and did i mention i love my SHELF?

Painkiller has gun which shoots shuriken and lighting.
it is worth ten dollars.
and when they are securing rights for new old games for gog and they have a chance to add not so old game, what is wrong with that.
You don't need to buy them.

Wasn't ToCA 3 one of the games available when GoG first launched? If not, it was pretty close to the beginning. Painkiller is also an 'old news' GoG release. The last 10-20 games released here have all been definitively old.
This thread is ill-timed. It's like they can't win here. If the complaint came after a slew of contemporary games, then sure. But looking at the site's recent history, I don't know where you think they're going wrong.

The old part of GOG is great, but the real thing I like is the no DRM and the random extras you get, which aren't available anywhere else. The bigger the catalogue, the better no matter what game. Choices are good.

I guess part of this depends on what you yourself class as old. And how you interpret the name of the site.
After all, when we use the saying "those were the good old days" are you really talking about a time long since past, or just a point in time in the past that you enjoyed? That could well be a few decades ago or only a couple of years ago. The saying makes no real distinction there.
Thus if you interpret the naming of the site to be a play on that phrase and the average life span of a computer game, then a game only a couple of years old or so, is still an old game. The only exception to that really, is a game that still receives regular content updates despite its age. Such as it's being actively maintained, like WoW. It's an old game; but would you really class it as such due to it still being actively maintained and built on?
Something like TOCA becomes old the second the next one in the series comes out. So if TOCA 500 were to ship only 3 weeks after TOCA 499, then TOCA 499 would still be an old game as far as the industry was concerned.
Of course, we could also claim that GOG are losing focus be interpreting the "Good" part of the site title to be an indication of quality and not just a part of the previously mentioned saying.
As for pricing, that almost certainly is within the realm of the publisher and not GOG. If the publisher wants their game to retail at 9.99, then that's what GOG will need to sell it for. I also think you're misinterpreting pricing on Steam. Valve do not have a huge control in the pricing of games on Steam. They can suggest and strongly advise a price point, but in the end most of the publishers (especially the big players) will have the final say.
What you are currently seeing as cheap games when released new, is Valve's suggested pricing for Indie games. Most Indie devs. take the same pricing stance as casual games -- $19.99 -- but Valve will tend to suggest a $9.99 price point as for both casual games and Indie games, they will increase the number of sales substantially. Which is why sites such as Bigfishgames also offer up ways in which to buy casual games for upto 65% off the $19.99 RRP.
Whether you judge a game worthy of price tag, bears no real relevance to whether a site is losing focus or not. It's just an indication of what you are prepared to pay for a certain title. There are certain games out there that, if they turned up on GOG for $1, I'd still consider them to be too expensive to buy. But that wouldn't be a sign of GOG losing focus on either age, pricing or quality of games that it sells.

I dont think GoG is losing its focus Good Old Games we are getting What about Duke Nukem 3D,Earth 2140 etc these are great and they are old games.
The price structure is really good and GoG has some great weekend deals MDk 25% off $6 how much cheaper does that need to be.
Steam has been on the go fo many years GoG less that 1 so steam has had more time to make contacts with companies etc for getting deals.
GiveGoG time and you will see that they have not lost their focus and with every new title added will only enforce their direction as being a place to buy cheap classic games.
Oh and you dont get much free extras on steam such as soundtracks, videos etc. can uou?

Painkiller black edition costs 35€ where I live.
I bought it for 9.99 on GOG and I think it's very well worth it.