The TL;DR -- What I would like to see is a less aggressive policy for wiping installer+patches (to replace with a new installer set.) Or possibly a mechanism to get hold of older outdated patch updates.

The long-read:

I am getting increasingly frustrated by the game updates policy on gog.com. There are a number of problems, but perhaps it will be best if I illustrate with a concrete example. I purchased Divinity: Original Sin 2 a while back, and proceeded to download it. I obtained all but the final part of the installer. When I went back to obtain the final part, the slate had been wiped clean and an entirely new collection of files were available to download. So I was forced to start again from scratch.

I have just gone to check for DOS2 updates, and there is a full new download set, and no way to patch my existing files. I understand why we don't want the original installers and countless patches, but it seems that the rate of switching to a new base seems to be getting too aggressive. This is not a small download, after all.

I don't use GOG Galaxy. It is still broken in myriad fundamental ways for my purposes. Principally because I download using a low-power single-board computer overnight in order to avoid having a power-hungry PC on 24/7. As follow-up points, Galaxy presents updates that don't appear in the web downloads, it doesn't have enough logging or informed consent to work out what its going to do or has done, and in general I can't manage downloads as I want. The old GOG Downloader was a more suitable solution. There are links for GOG Downloader files, but that doesn't fix the principal problem. I don't want to bore folks with my endless gripes about Galaxy. I really like the idea; I don't really like the execution.

The switch to a new version numbering scheme also introduces confusion. I am sure that there was a good rationale for this, but it's just frustrating. On top of that I see that for some games there are downloads with- and without-Galaxy.

It's still a fantastic marketplace, BTW. :-)

I recall a similar scenario, where once someone complained about having to download the full installer again, and it was no small game either (Pillars of Eternity if I remember), someone responded that too many files had been changed and releasing a patch wasn't possible.

If you're on a slow or metered connection, I can kind of understand the frustration.

The mechanism is Galaxy. But you don't use it. Neither do I, and I share your frustration on this.

Said it before and I'll say it again: Keeping access to these older versions and patches should be as simple as NOT deleting the links to the older files when a new version or patch is posted on the gamecard. That's it. To accommodate our request, all they need to do is nothing. Instead, they are doing something: deleting the older links.

Dear gOg,

I know we like to gripe and tell you there are things you should do to fix this or that, but in this case will you fix it by doing absolutely nothing?

Thanks.

@Ganni1987: Yeah, certainly if the installed game files are large and compressed then a tiny change in one contained file might require a huge patch. That's one argument for developers not archiving and compressing everything into a few files. Storage is cheap in terms of £££ but transfer is expensive in terms of ZZZ. I'm not on a metered connection, but downloading DOS2 is 8.5 hours* for me by my estimation.

* - Assuming no problems and assuming I can automated the process completely, both of which are flawed assumptions.

@HereForTheBeer: Yes, simply keeping the old patches, perhaps on a separate page, would go some way to mitigating the problem. It might not solve every situation, such as the one Ganni1987 pointed out.

I suspect a lot of the full updates recently have been around: switching to new version numbering schemes, which would clearly complicate patch numbering; bundling Galaxy; general tidying up; etc. But that's just my suspicion, and not founded on solid evidence. I am suspicious partly due to past observations of the number of games marked as "updated" but with no apparent difference in downloaded files.

EDIT: I was just thinking about that 8.5 hours estimate. If I used Galaxy and could calm my rig to 200W, that would still equate to over 1.5KWh. Some of that could be overlapped with time I'm actually using the box, or time that it's performing other useful work, but clearly there's a significant environmental consideration.

A possible solution: download it via your phone, and then copy the files to your PC. Phone should be using much less power, and I'll guess you get about the same speed if using the same internet connection.

I've done this a couple times, for that same scenario: update requires a full installer download, and my connection speed is miserable. While visiting Mom in town, connected the phone to her wifi and got the installation files while visiting with her. Saved time and used much less power.

Many times the update is just the addition of Mac or Linux files or changes to those platforms' files only.

What I meant is to use your phone with the wifi connection at home. So you'd be taking the same 8.5 hours but won't eat your phone data and will use much less power than your PC.

@GR00T: Yes, that's a good point. It would be good if GOG could clarify the platform that had changes, and perhaps even the individual files. It would also be useful if the flag could be manually removed, rather than removed as soon as you look at the item on your shelf. But I suspect that it's more likely that GOG will resolve the particular pain-points in Galaxy before that happens.

@HereForTheBeer: Well, yes, that's what my single-board computer does. It's currently my favoured solution for getting hold of stuff on GOG. But I would prefer not to be part-way through my third full download of DOS2 :-)

They do it thru the API they offer and folks use scripts to monitor the changes and post (and complain) about them here:

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_what_did_just_update_thread

Thanks drmike, that's very interesting. I shall definitely look into that further.

I think I might see if Nebula will run on ARM. It's yancharkin/games_nebula on github (can't post links yet...) It does contain references to Wine, but that might just be for running games.

I thought I'd also check out exactly what state Galaxy is currently in. But I notice that it's bloated to 181MB (so it'll be another 15 minutes while my DOS2 download progresses -- hah!) And if it does what it did last time I installed it, the first thing it will do is download the *very* latest installer :-/

EDIT: Well, Galaxy did do an update as the first step, but thankfully this time it didn't download the whole thing again.

EDIT2: That's a big "NOPE." I installed Wasteland 2: Director's Cut 2.2.0.4 and got it to verify the installer files. I then imported the install into Galaxy. Galaxy wanted to download an extra 3.5GB to bring it up to date, and that's half of the full install. The 2.3.0.5 patch is 45MB, so I quit Galaxy, downloaded the patch via web browser, and installed it. I then restarted Galaxy and triggered an update. It then went off to download 3.5GB. Galaxy is not fit for purpose.

EDIT3: It turns out that I didn't quit Galaxy as I forgot that it stays resident. After properly restarting, it still downloaded and installed a 1MB update for W2:DC. It creates directories for this in my "installers" location, but doesn't keep the file around. For Divinity: Original Sin, its a ~295MB update to bring my "already latest" install "up to date." I don't think I want this.

Regarding Divinity: Original Sin 2 specifically, users UhuruNUru and CrossheadMarhok maintain all the patches that have been released on GOG, and then removed.

Perhaps in the future one, or more, of these may come handy?

Thanks HypersomniacLive: That is most useful.

I can't tell yet, because DropBox isn't letting me see all the filenames*, but that looks like it might be a single chain of patches. GOG could pretty easily just keep those on a separate page, thereby reducing the bandwidth into and out of their CDN. That would reduce effort for customers and reduce CO2 going into the atmosphere, among other things. There would be additional storage costs, but I'd be surprised if GOG didn't archive these already. The cost to re-engineer and test downgrades, should they be needed, would cause me to archive everything.

* - Don't you just hate it when sites allocate the same width for modification timestamp as filename, thereby truncating long filenames while the modification timestamp wallows in vast tracts of empty screen real-estate.