Will try this version out sometime later this year. I did play the original version so at least I can get the best of both worlds.

I only tried Galaxy at the time, so I'm afraid I couldn't tell you if this affected my website library as well. Though, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I was able to buy the free games again without GOG saying I can't get them because they're already in my library. I'd assume that the GOG backend would prevent me from buying a game I already own, regardless of whether I use the website or Galaxy, wouldn't it?

Thanks for mentioning the thing about the tags. I had assumed maybe the entries for the original giveaways had been deleted from GOG's database and existing users had been "migrated" to the new entires for the new free versions of the games which are available as a normal purchase now. But if your tags got restored, that means the new free versions of the games use the same database entry, right? So it makes even less sense that they would just disappear from our libraries like that.

Thinking more on the whole question of these “mega mods”, as this has come up a lot over the years. Some questions spring to mind. Who is actually legally responsible for this, if the package trashes my machine is it GOG, Bethesda, this YouTuber, or the modders?
Likewise who provides support, updates and such like, GOG support is virtually non existant for fixed games already? What happens if extra mods are added, or removed, again does GOG support that?
Also would be interesting to see the contract between Bethesda and gog, normally you would expect clauses about distributing modified copies etc. just wondering how it would go if the was a flood of posts over there about a copy not from Bethesda?
It’s really a very grey area. GOG would have been far better off providing a guide pointing to all the components and letting users do it themselves. It’s also more beneficial for the users who can pick and choose. I suppose this was also done to pamper the “I want it without having to do anything” crew who only favour convinience.

How has it been reimagined? Honest question. Syndicate (2012) is the last reimagined game I've played and it was barely Syndicate.

Ok, I see. But gog could just continue to post blogs with mod suggestions and sharing their gaming experience instead of advertising mod maker's work as their own compilation. You don't simply download this mod pack, you'll have to claim it via gog store, right?

I see both sides of the story. It's entirely possible that the reason modders don't want GOG, Steam, or any other commercial store to end up becoming the "primary" source for the content is the same reason people (correctly) predicted Steam Workshop would go from being "a harmless option" to Nexus to "exclusive content by default" which then ends up "tribalising" and fragmenting the formerly platform-neutral modding scene. "The GOG version works with Mod A but not B. The Steam version works with Mod B but not A." is a direction many people don't want to see the modding community fuel even more. (As a healthy reminder, that stuff is largely why GOG doesn't have Skyrim).

Whether legally required or not, a politely worded e-mail can go a long way in soothing over disagreements. If even one modder now adds a license that precludes GOG from using future versions of their mod without permission, then the GOG Mod Collection (as a whole) could end up partially outdated and potentially incompatible / broken vs future builds of Daggerfall Unity as time goes by, and far more "messy" & buggy than just downloading directly from the mod sites.

Edit: I can confirm GOG has removed the Daggerfall-Unity PDF manual from extras, so possible "copyright issues" there too.

In general, taking a project involving probably thousands of hours of development, and mods that probably collectively involve also thousands of hours of development, packaging them up, and distributing them while giving credit to a YouTuber for curating the mod list, without the courtesy of an email to confirm that it was permissible to include the mods...it's just bad form.

Agreed. When something is free on one site, it generally means that you can *download* it for free, not necessarily that 3rd party businesses can re-publish it under their own name & branding without permission simply because some other guy acted as a middleman "curator". GOG have even listed the Developer as "GOG" as if they created the content themselves (same way CDPR did for Witcher 3) in addition to simply publishing it. At the very least, that developer tag is highly misleading and is something they didn't previously do when publishing other 3rd party mod packs as "titles" here like Deus Ex Revision.

^ Read above comments. If I'd have spent 500hr developing a mod, then found it listed on Steam as a title with Developer : Valve in the main game info box and "Thanks to Brian" was right at the very bottom of the description, I'd probably feel a bit miffed too...

Not hard to get permission though is it?


GOG is gaining PR and users by including it on their site and using it on socials as marketing. To not credit/gain permission of those who made the mod is, funnily enough, in-line with your disconnection on Mods and the culture around it.

On the store page you can read the following:

"Play a reimagined version of the all-time RPG classic from The Elder Scrolls series. Daggerfall Unity – GOG Cut brings this amazing experience to modern gamers. It has been made possible thanks to a whole team of passionate creators working under the banner of Daggerfall Unity."

with the link to

https://www.dfworkshop.net/

And then you can read:

List of mods:
D.R.E.A.M. by King of Worms - KoW
Improved Interior Lighting by ShortBeard
Better Ambience by Joshua Steinhauer
Loading screen by TheLacus
Enhanced Sky by Interkarma
Interesting Eroded Terrains by Monobelisk and Freak2121
Distant Terrain by Nystul-the-Magician
Basic Roads by Hazelnut
Real Grass 2 by TheLacus
Vibrant Wind by Uncanny Valley - TheLacus - VMblast
Taverns Redone by Uncanny Valley
Handpainted model replacements by AlexanderSig
Windmills of Daggerfall by Kamer
Detailed city walls by Cliffworms
Birds in Daggerfall by Uncanny Valley
Fixed dungeon exteriors by Cliffworms
Lively cities by Cliffworms
Unofficial Block Location and Model fixes by XJDHDR
Readied Spellcasting Hands by jefetienne
Roleplay and Realism by Hazelnut
Roleplay and Realism Items by Hazelnut and Ralzar
Daggerfall Skyshards by Uncanny Valley
Airships by Kaedius
Archaeologists guild by Hazelnut
Daggerfall Unity Quest pack 1 by JayH2971
Daggerfall Unity Quest pack 2 by JayH2971
World of Daggerfall Project by World of Daggerfall Team
Bestiary by Shapur
Famous Faces of the Iliac Bay by Cliffworms
You Can Pet The Cat by technitaur
Ambient Text by Regnier
Darker Dungeons by Ralzar
Daggerfall Expanded Textures by Ninelan
Bestiary by Shapur
Levelling Inspiration by Cliffworms
Town Descriptions And Details by imsobadatnicknames
Rest Warning If Unwell by Kirk O
World Tooltips by jefetienne
Convenient Quest Log by Macadaynu
JayH's Random Little Quests by JayH2971

with links to every mod page.

Where is the lack of credit?

"GOG Cut" is ironic given that they implicitly benefit from DFU and the mods in a financial way as they are a business and positive content is directly linked to revenue.

Where is the volunteer's cut? In terms of sufficient and appropriate credit - not just a link but a statement that the work done on this game was nothing to do with GOG and everything to do with the people who worked on these projects for no reward?

edit:

Store page:

Developer = https://github.com/Interkarma + others
Assets/Intellectual Property = Bethesda Softworks
Publisher = GOG

I read in the Daggerfall Workshop Forums that one modder didn't give explicit permission for a matter of time, few hours when he received the GOG mail. Before he answered the mail the pack was published.

So, I must understand that every modder received a mail, like Interkarma, the DU creator and even Bethesda

If permission is the key, it already exists overall

And if some of the mod developers disagree, and explicitly revoke permission...what then? (as they have done)

What if two months later, some other mod developers also decide they will revoke permission, as is their right?

After giving permission? Then it would be an example of infantilism, and lack of credibility and seriousness