To me, Squee, THQ and Take Two all fit the bill. Bethesda have taken on a fair few studios (and seem to have ditched the whole Zenimax thing if their marketing is anything to go by). They could probably be considered pretty big if you take into account id and their other not in house stuff. But I don't think they quite fit the definition of huge.

Take Two ditch DRM? Well if Ubisoft can do it... maybe. But the other two remain the ones that I cannot see any major hurdles in bringing here. Not that there isn't a lot we don't know about, but still.

True about Lucasarts as of late, but another great back catalog of hits that the GOG community would jump at - myself included

for me
EA = American McGee's Alice

Knowing EA, the games they'd allow on Gog would be their backlog of the EA sports games. So now you can play FIFA 98, FIFA 99, FIFA 2000 and so on.

But if a large part of the EA catalog ends up here, I'd be hoping for System shock, I know someone who'd likely end up with a gift or two.

Hopefully it's Eidos/Square Enix and EA both. Mainly because I want Thief and SS on gog :(.

Why do you think that there are no games on GOG that use licensed branding? Why do you think that EA stop selling their sports games after a year? You won't see any EA Sports games on GOG even if EA somehow manages to make an appearance here.

Well that's a relief I must say. I'm well aware that EA is a lot more games than their sports games, but seeing new sports releases yearly, with neary a change makes me sad.
If it's their license for use of the name we're safe :-)

Complete legal illiterate here, what's licensed branding? could you please elaborate on that? I'm not that fan of sports games but I'd very much like to see F1 Grand Prix series some day on GOG.

Games that are branded "NFL" or with some other sports league/player are able to use that brand name because the company which created or distributes the game pay for the license to use it in/on the game. This could create a ton of legal issues for any attempt at a re-release in the future as both the company that made the game and the current holders of the rights to the brand would have to come to an agreement on it, not to mention any issue over players likenesses etc. I'm no expert (never seriously played a sports game in my life) but I believe this is what he meant.

On the upside I rarely see an older sports title selling for more than $10 or so at max, sports fans just get rid of them with the new yearly iterations and the market for older sports games is apparently so small store owners often just can't get rid of them.

That was while Darrell Rodriguez was president of the company. He was a fand of the old adventure games. Sadly they fired him. Probably because there were no "big" (star wars) releases during his reign.

So, let's say GOG wants to release Microprose's F1 Grand Prix 2; what you're saying is, in spite of Microprose having had the licensing rights from FIA back in 1996, GOG still needs to reach an agreement with FIA again?

On the other hand, F1 GP 1 apparently had no official FIA license, so I guess this one is much more likely to appear here eventually. Yay!

In addition to what Ratty_Randnums said, there is also things like manufacturer's names. For instance anything from real world car models and manufacturers to the branding of football boots.

This is why you see so few racing games on GOG and why those that are here have fictional cars. Sportsman likenesses are another thing. That's in spite of the fact that none of them have ever been at all like the sportsman in question.

This is (as far as I understand) the reason ToCA 3 an Colin McRae 2005 were removed, the licenses from car manufacturers had ended so Codemasters no longer had the rights to sell a game with those models or brands in it.

Yep. So GOG won't even want any more licensed games on here unless all the rights holders give consent.

I didn't know he was fired, when did that happen?