Technically? Not difficult at all.

I suspect the real issue is that they're either seriously understaffed, or they are a dysfunctional organization where every little change or addition requires a bunch of planning-on-paper (which you can't even start to do unless a higher up told you to start doing it), UI design review, meetings, approvals from overlords to actually do the planned thing, task assignment that ends up going to some newbie because the old timers are busy with More Important Stuff (Galaxy). If you manage to go through that crap (which could take weeks/months if nobody sees it as a priority...), then it's a job that takes from 30 minutes to a day, depending on how familiar you are with the current system and how much you're allowed to or required to refactor or clean it up while at it, how much automated testing (if any) you need to supply. Someone might still have to review and independently test & QA & approve the changes before they can be pushed to production.

Unfortunately it doesn't even take a particular big organization for things to get to this point where, essentially, getting the permission to do anything is a long and painful process. And when/if that happens, developers quickly lose the motivation to even bring up things that they think should or could be improved. They just do whatever they're told to do, anything else is not worth the time and hassle. This is how we get products with longstanding problems that are obvious to the users and developers (and which would be easy to fix), but as long as management is oblivious or doesn't care, these issues are going to be a thing for a loong time... especially if it's a product that the management themselves don't use much or at all.

My two cents' worth of bitter experience from the software world.

And this is why hobbyists & open source developers can pull off a feature in a weekend that we'll never see in a commercial product. Why startups can replicate, in a few months, 90% of the important functionality in some product that a big corp has been maintaining for a decade, etc. Adding even a little bit of management -- and hired faces who need to wait to be told what to do -- can slow down development to an absolute crawl, if you're not very careful. Overhead from communication and getting everyone to agree can be massssssive.

It's kinda like hey, here we have a GPU that can render our scene at 500 FPS. But we haven't been able to decide which model to render, and what their hair colour is going to be, so it's going to sit at 0 fps for a while until we have the time to argue about it and make a decision.

You're not understanding what I'm saying and it's pointless to argue about it.

That's why I asked those questions, for you to enlighten us. But of course you won't because you well know that you were wrong in every aspect. And when you find out that you came short to argue on intelligence level, you resort to brute force. Typical behavior of bullies with their gangs.

Well, let your gang downvote us all you want, it won't change anything and you know it. There is a reason ignorance and arrogance are considered twins.

He is only trying to say that someone, when going to the store page may select roleplaying games under 15$ and that reduces very much the number of games/DLC/soundtracks that you must browse through. There are few people that start browsing the entire library.

I do that too.

And then pick 'Action' games under £25, then 'Simulation' under £10, then 'Adventure' over £25, then 'Indie' discounted, then .......you get the picture. I STILL have to sort/read over all the DLC/Soundtracks under each filtered search, and to rub it all in i often see the same stuff in each new search as many games have listings under more than one description.

It actually makes the whole process take even longer than doing a main un-filtered seach from top to bottom.

I just want to find games as quickly as possible with as little double counting as possible (where a game appears in more than one catergory search) and i will find the DLC/Soundtracks later.

I also might not know exactly what i'm looking for so the main search gives me the widest range of game types to discover.

I agree DLC should be on the store page and not its own thing. We're also talking about a site that still lists our owned games in one long list with only page numbers at the bottom. Pretty sure they're pushing using Galaxy, or at least care less about fixing this stuff since most people do use Galaxy. It's not the best setup, for sure.

My only point was "it adds two hours to my shopping time!!!" was a silly exaggeration.

Tbh its not just DLC though. If you only want the store to list games with achievements you should be able to. Same as if you wanted to list games only older than by a certain year you should be able to, same as you should be able to list by newer only. There's loads of ways that GOG should let you filter games but they don't. Thats one of the basic store functions we have been asking for for years, but much like most things GOG ignores it.

This. I've pretty much given up checking out sales because they are littered with heaps upon heaps of DLC. A game will typically have 10-ish entries in these sales. Total madness. I don't even know which one is the actual game, so just ignore the whole shite now.

I know which one is the actual game: Stellaris.

It's not an exaggeration, the slowness of the site (as it can be sometimes), the clicking on something to check if it is an actual game or not (getting better as they label things, but still use the same icon art), clicking back to get to the page number you were on previously, scrolling to the next (actual) game etc.

I've timed it. At worse i spent an extra 2 hours going through the 'all games' listings and mostly due to all the DLC clutter slowing browseing down.

It should be possible to de-clutter via filters, we just have a rather poor set of tools to so that currently.

Yes. It is the DLC/Soundtracks lumped in with the games that is the most frustrating, but more filter options can only be a good thing, especially as GOG keeps expanding it's offerings.

I only have 160 games from GOG, so i'm not a massive hoarder, but i agree that this sentiment is starting to seep into my buying habits also. And to be clear IF i could manage the 'all games' listings better with a few well thought out filters i would not be feeling like this.

I worry that as GOG expands (and the problem gets worse) they will have more and more people just not bother to look for that 'chance' purchase, and be losing out on revenue, and all because their site has become unweildy to browse the game listings. We need more filter options asap GOG, pretty please! :)

Old design - Rest in peace... I love you very much, recall you in my mind and smile with the best memories of you, hope You are in a better place!!!
For oldfags like me - here some pics from old (Best) design of GOG...

I don't know if this is the right place, but:

The GOG site doesn't work at all anymore, in any browser i use (mostly FireFox and brave).

I don't see pictures on the front page, the search is not working, clicks are not recognized etc. etc..

And for help i am forced to work for this STUPID GOOGLE CAPTCHA, like i am some monkey, even i am logged in.

I HATE IT.

I don't know why GOG even need to show ads, as they are SELLING, so what is the business behind this?

You'll need to sign into the gog support page, then you won't have to fill out the craptcha. Just click "Sign in" on the upper right hand corner.

Also, feel free to add your vote here. Here's one for the new year's resolution: Google captcha has got to GO!

Thank you. The pics you shared are truly a thing of beauty.