They started out as a company making old (back catalog) games work on newer machines. So yes they were never a back catalog, they were a company that maintained and sold a back catalog.

and MS is a backlog-centric company because they still support a "back catalog" of programming languages like C++ and C# version 1.0.

lets stop with the stupidity.

Microsoft does support their back catalog, but it is hardly their focus. They focus primarily on current and future offerings of their various products. GoG on the other hand came about as a back catalog company. That is what they did. It's in their name. We all understand that they have branched out and offer new games as well, thus the article about how they are no longer just a back catalog company. I don't understand your hangup about this.

and IBM is still supporting software and hardware from 40+ years ago, are they a back catalog company too?

You're trying to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean, I hope you don't approach technical decisions in the same manner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05WS0WN7zMQ

IBM doesn't call themselves Old Business Machines. What words am I redifining? "Back catalog" mean catalog of older items. "back catalog company" means a company that focuses primarily on a back catalog. Please tell me why you are so opposed to GoG being considered a "back catalog" company when selling and maintaining a back catalog was the only thing they did.

Do you think I (or anyone else) mean it as some sort of insult?

So now a company is required to have it in their name in order for it to be a 'back catalog', and since IBM doesn't have it in their name, the fact that they do a hell of a lot of work with older tech doesn't mean anything.

It isn't about any insult, it's about the absurdity of calling GoG a backlog at all. What impresses me the most about your response is how my taking issue with a misunderstanding in the first place is pigeonholed as being insulted (because how could anyone disagree on the basis of the argument itself! of course I must be insulted).

You are insisting that Good Old Games never primarily focused on old games. That is absurd.

My first guess was that there was some miss-communication and tried to be extremely clear on what I was saying. Maybe I am still not understanding you. Are you actually arguing that GoG never had selling and maintaining a catalog of old games as its primary focus?

My second guess was that you reaction was an emotional response to something.

I am trying to understand your point of view. So far I have been unsuccessful.

As a rule of thumb, when you find yourself telling the other person what their argument is, you're generally involved in a strawman.

I apologize if I miss-characterized your position. Are you are insisting that Good Old Games never primarily focused on old games?

Again with the bullshit, this conversation is over.

Asking what your position is is now "bullshit"? You are right, this conversation has been over for a while.

They were not a "backlog of games". They sold old games. Now they sell old and new. That's all that was discussed really.

> They were not a "backlog of games". They sold old games. Now they sell old and new.

That was my point :)