Personally I bought both Bioshocks here launch day (despite owning B1 DRM-Free on Humble) mainly as a sign of support & encouragement for GOG to acquire more 2007-2012 era AAA games here in future like Skyrim, Dishonored and Deus Ex:HR. ie, if they sold well at launch, other publishers may take note that it's worth doing a GOG release for a "second surge" in sales a decade on, whereas if everyone waited that could be mistaken for a lack of interest in the games (poor launch sales = "everyone who wants them must already own them on Steam"), when it's actually for technical reasons specific to a weak GOG release.

If they're going to go with half-baked releases & deprecating the more stable versions to mere afterthoughts though, I certainly won't be as blindly supportive in the future and that was also why I refunded both after the holiday's were over. With B1 at least, the DRM-Free version has been ready to go for years on Humble with few complaints, so it's not like repackaging that for the GOG version is on par with climbing Mount Everest now the holiday season is over (unless the holdup is at 2K's end at which point even those here who are happy with the remasters could be waiting years for critical bug fixes as Steam users are finding out...)

To be honest? Yes. I own both Bioshocks on Steam and as retail versions. Having the chance to add them DRM-free fopr just $5 simply was a thing I did not want to miss and I thought that it could take some time until this would be so cheap again.

So, does "at a later time" mean the same as "when it's done"?

Could also be: "When Half-Life 3 is ready"

Reading between the lines, that sounds like GOG didn't actually get the rights for Bioshock 1-2 Classics when they got the Remasters and are still arguing with 2K about it. It sure isn't down to "technical" issues or lack of an existing DRM-Free build as Humble Store has had B1 Classic DRM-Free for years. I can't say I'm impressed if GOG are still "promising" the Classic versions on the game pages before actually securing the rights to get them...

Sounds about right. The most annoying thing is that I've still got the original disc of Bioshock, but securom just makes things impossible to get working without a disc drive. Guess I'll go to the humble store.

Well I have the disc versions too but lately I only played the remastered versions here when I bought them. I can´t remember the old versions correctly. What is the big difference between the remastered ones and the real old games? I remember that the graphics were not that much of a remaster.

Anything else that makes the older games so special? Or what is so good that people insist on getting the original games instead of just the remastered versions?

There's hardly any difference at all for graphics:-

Original : https://i.imgur.com/AM5DZju.jpg

Remaster : https://i.imgur.com/ejFnWfi.jpg

In fact in the Remaster, Andrew Ryan's statue above seems to have lost his moustache, and to me the damp walls of the lighthouse actually look better on the original. A lot of other scenes look different without actually looking better just to be seen to change something. The main reason they were "remastered" was simply the publishers wanted another console release as a trilogy to bump up the price of old games again (Skyrim & Beamdog style). Unfortunately the games were half-heartedly ported from Unreal Engine 2 to 3 and that introduced a load of bugs that were far worse than what the originals have. Eg, the worst problem I've ever encounter with Bioshock "Classics" was the need to tick "Run this program in compatibility mode for..." and then XP if there was no sound when using certain Realtek chips, and use the 60fps physics patch. But they were user fixable in about 30 seconds.

The Remasters have far worse bugs include constant crashes and save-game corruption in the core engine code which aren't fixable by the user. Original = Takes 30s longer to install but is otherwise stable. Remaster = Supposedly more "modern" but for many is one giant crash-fest that really doesn't look "remastered" at all compared to even free amateur texture packs for 20 year old games like Thief or Deus Ex. All this wouldn't be so bad if they were aggressive with fixing up bugs, but even the Steam version has gone over a year virtually abandoned in an appalling buggy state given the high-rating and popularity of the originals.

Edit: Other differences are:-

- Remasters run at around 2/3rds the fps so for older lower-end rigs : 40fps Remaster = 60fps Originals.

- Remasters are 2-3x the install size. Eg, Bioshock 1 = 6.5GB (original) vs 20.7GB (Remaster). Bioshock 2 = 9.5GB (Original minus MP) vs 18.1GB Remaster. Inevitably, startup times are also longer on the Remasters.

Wow, the differences go far beyond that. In the OG, the guy has a strong gaze and wide shoulders. Okay, he's got some heavy bags under the eyes, he may be past his prime and running low on sleep, but that's still a strong figure with healthy flesh, maybe in his late 50s or 60s. The remastered dude looks a decade or two older, his stature has collapsed, he lost his wide shoulders and authority, his face looks tired instead of firm, and he lost a lot of flesh.. it's kinda like comparing JManderley from Deus Ex 1 to dying mister Tong in Deus Ex: IW.

Anyone else noticed this? Is it finally happening?

I noticed that as well, keeping fingers crossed.

I wonder if the original version of Bioshock 2 will include Minerva's Den...

Sweeeeet, they finally arrived! Even include the other languages like the disc based copy had, although unfortunately they aren't included in a single install package. Pobodies Nerfect~