I'd also say 2000 at the very very latest.

Shoutout to trentonlf & pimpmonkey2382. (I kind of wish GOG had an "acknowledge" button, so you didn't have to quote people to let them know you saw their posts.)

Yeah, my problem probably is I don't actually play many games anymore. (Doing that would probably keep me from spending so much time bitching on the forums. ;) My "golden age" for gaming was when I got my own computer around 2004, and unfortunately various games after that lost their immersive quality, I think because with the internet becoming the norm we could now easily cheat and discuss and didn't have to work hard to complete games (and appreciate what we accomplished).

Plus there's such a saturated game market nothing is really appreciated.

Personally I dislike the use of "classic" as a synonym for "old". "Classic", to me at least, implies a certain degree of quality that not every simply "old" game possesses.

I appreciate the response. I knew none of the specifics, but had seen it hinted that you played a part in bringing some classics here. I look forward to digging into that post. (Heading out of internet land in a few minutes... so, soon.)

I didn't mean to infer that you and others should be backing or putting effort into getting recent indie releases here. I don't turn my nose up at them personally (though I realize others do and I don't fault them for that); I'm sure they need little help. :)

I'm just concerned that some people might think a game with 550 votes should without doubt be brought here before a game with 500 votes. The wishlist seems a bit arbitrary in that regard.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

P.S. I'll wait to shamelessly plug my Lucas game with 15 votes until Disney is looking like they might play ball. :)

Agree to a point, but then you start getting into nit picking over little details and it becomes pointless. As with the auto industry, anything past a certain age is a "classic", but there will always be those games that are beyond classic :)

Something else I should chime in about:

I'm not trying (at least I'm trying to not be trying ;-) to get these games for myself; I'm trying to help support in the acquisition of what I think will make many people happy and excited about GOG releases.

If the vast majority of consumers want DRM-free indie games not high up on the wishlist, then more power to them and GOG. In current indie release threads, I don't usually see a lot of responses like "WOO-HOO!" and "Instabuy!" that have occurred in the past in release threads (like, of course, the System Shock 2 one),

but ...

ultimately game sales will speak for themselves. I wouldn't encourage somebody just to buy a game they'd never play just to support GOG, but if they thoroughly enjoy the kind of indie games GOG has been bringing the past few months, then obviously I'm not going to try to dissuade them from buying what they want. ;)

Hmm, maybe it's time for an avatar and slogan change to help me transition to this stance.

NOOOOOOOOO, please GoG stop releasing new games - my backlog is HUGE enough as it is and my wallet is empty, until I finish the 367 games I have here!!!!

Cause they're not Steamy....

I wanted to write "badum tsh" but I actually laughed, so it wouldn't be appropriate.

Paper Sorcerer

Assassin\'s Creed®: Director\'s Cut

Sang-Froid: Tales of Werewolves

Quest for Glory 1-5

Sword of the Samurai

Harvester

Silent Service 1+2

Heretic Kingdoms: The Inquisition

My current wishlist. So yeah I see the oldies. Also a couple of indies I like. Gog HAS gotten a lot of the old greats that I love. I can't help it,..I'm greedy for more:) Oh,... If only Lucasarts would come around....
Still want Battletech 1: The Crescent Hawks' Inception!

"old" is a vague arbitrary term with no unambiguous definition that is agreed upon by everyone and no "official" definition or way to even have an official definition (ie: who would have the authority to decide?) Likewise, the term "classic" is often used to mean "arbitrarily old with gut feeling" more or less, when the word classic means no such thing but rather refers to quality. A brand new game released today that is the cream of the crop can be called a "Classic" on release day, because the term has nothing to do with age.

Since people arbitrarily use the terms and there are no official standards as to what the terms mean other than a dictionary, it pretty much leaves it ambiguous and arbitrary and in the eye of the beholder to decide. So the individual decides what "old" means for them, or "classic" for that matter (often misusing the word at that) and nobody can truly be right or wrong about it. It's all relative to perspective and rather subjective.

What I find amusing though is that sometimes people will debate the arbitrary definition of such things using all sorts of justifications and viewpoints for something that is at its very core by definition ambiguous, when if people wanted to communicate clearly what they personally mean - knowing that others have different ideas about what "old" or "classic" means - rather than them arguing about it if they just eliminated those words and used words that clearly and unambiguously state what they mean, no debate would need take place. ;oP

For example instead of someone saying "why aren't there enough classic games blah blah"... The word "enough" is ambiguous - what is enough? Enough for who? Can there even be "enough"? It's all debateable. What do they mean by classic? Now contrast that with someone who states specifically "Why aren't there more games that are 10-15 years old released which were high quality top sellers when they were originally released, some of which may have developed cult followings?"

Yes, the latter sentence is much longer to say but it is specific and initiates a specific dialogue to discuss a particular curiousity, whereas the first question is more likely to devolve into a debate about what "enough" is, what "classic" means or does not mean, etc. What makes me laugh about that too is that some people will use a shorter and more ambiguous sentence like that because they want to be short and to the point rather than spending time with verbiage. The funny thing is that the lack of verbiage often causes excessive secondary discussion trying to clarify what the actual meaning was of the original terse statement/question when an initial elaboration that was clear and to the point, long enough to be unambiguous and short enough to be readable could center the following discussion on the real underlying topic/issue rather than the side discussions. :) Not specific to this particular topic by a longshot mind you, but rather a general observation of overall human communication online.

It's why I personally tend to be more verbose and less ambiguous online for better or worse (or both depending). ;)