Hah, I'm lucky I got the originals on CD, because I don't recall being emailed about the normal codes when I bought the EE versions on here.

That said, the EE's are significantly better than the originals (even if the GOG versions don't require that annoying zone CD swapping.) Zooming in is something I've wanted for ages. Windows and Linux have been able to zoom in while using the software renderer for more than a decade. BG had no excuse for lacking a zoom function. But we all already knew that.

Ha, I did get Giftcodes for the classic games. Cool move, so I don`t have to buy them!!!

Bullshit. GOG has far more control than most of you are willing to admit. They don't have to give in to such idiotic, anti-consumer demands. Pull the fucking games off the catalog again. The road of ethical compromise is a hole with no bottom, and GOG has jumped in the hole willingly and without apology. This incident is just one more in a long, long list. It's disgusting. As someone who has championed GOG for years I find it all inexcusable.

Does anyone know where my code is supposed to be? I'm new to GoG, so maybe I'm missing something obvious but I'm not seeing where it's supposed to be or if I've even received it. Does it take a while for them to be sent out?

Thank you!

Let me clarify my previous statement as people have raised concerns to one degree or another regarding freedom of speech here (trustleft, kingbradley7, and drmfro specifically on pages 12 and 13). My initial statement was a reaction to the following conversation (I could have cited others of course):

trusteft: "I just find it funny how the promoters of "freedom" are the first to ask for bans."
dtgreene: "Your freedom ends when it infringes on mine, in general. For example, you are not free to assault others, because doing so deprives people of their freedoms. (I should also note that the particular three letter abbreviation is a strong signal that the person using it is a bigot.)"

One wonders to what degree this would be a strawman, so let us consider the evidence:

Point 1. When trustleft was pointing out the contradictory nature of being for freedom and for bans, dtgreene did not contest the point being brought up. Instead, we are left with the vague "your freedom ends when it infringes on mine" - this leaves individuals like myself to try and make the connection as to what that has to do with "bans" and "freedom" unless we are to assume that dtgreene did not understand the post or posting something unrelated all together. That leaves individuals to try and piece together the implications of that particular quote.

Point 2. Keep in mind, I also did make this point to dtgreene:

AccurateArt: "I'd be alright with people expressing all forms of speech (I encourage this in my classroom). The only thing I ask is that people who express opinions on an issue be ready to back them up when challenged. Where I become confused here is that you are essentially arguing that we ought to ban this person from expressing himself [...]"

To which dtgreene replied: "Consider this to be backed up the same way TinyE backed up their opinion (the one I quoted earlier)."

Notice that dtgreene did not argue that I had an incorrect interpretation of his view which also feeds into why I said what I said.So while I did not use any direct quotes in my initial post (something I have corrected for in this post), I can assure you that I am certainly not engaging in a strawman argument here.

Thanks for the post though!

Well, time to start going through classic literature and other works to start editing out the problematic material, lest someone get offended in the least. Special enhanced editions for everyone!

There's only so much you can change before a classic piece of fiction, emphasis on fiction here, becomes something completely different.

As you yourself say, people "trying to infringe on the artistic vision of the devs and censor content" are indeed hilarious. It need not be said, but highly ironic.

It's also interesting that there's never ever been a complaint or comment about this series of games being "sexist' or "transphobic" up until this situation. I don't even believe the games have ever actively, directly, and/or cohesively suggested as such.

Not only that, but individual characters having their own views and personalities isn't the same as those views and personalities being real-life fact. It turns out this is how real-life is, too, people have their own beliefs, feelings, and opinions that don't necessarily agree with anyone else's and aren't all necessarily "fact" either. You'll be hard-pressed to ever find someone who has an "absolute truth" that isn't contradicted by another. Flawed characters are a thing, and Baldur's Gate is known for having some of the best, who can grow in different directions as you make choices and play along.

Removing the originals to tie in with only their enhanced versions is a different beast than what your loose comparison makes it out to be. In this case, they were already available on their own before and through the release of the enhanced editions. Not related in the least to the idea of original versions not being available from the start, which is where the argument changes into "They should be made available."

All that being said, there's no need to be hostile. All opinions are supposed to have some merit, and discussion is supposed to help others understand another's viewpoint, not to beat them down if they disagree with you.

I am a bit confused - so you redeem them as separate products or is it something you just download from the extras?

You redeem the codes and the original versions are added as separate boxes to your account.

Thanks for the clarification!

No problem.

So they are gone now? It's sad, it feels like an important piece of gog's history is gone now.

What do you mean? I'm still here.

Out of curiosity (since the store page doesn't make this clear), do these codes people are getting for the classic versions contain all the original bonuses for those classic versions (as opposed to what happened with the Fallouts' bonuses when they returned)?