No, it allows rollback if you use offline installers - it's your responsibility to download and store them after all and you can install any version you have.
The Galaxy rollback feature just exists to give Galaxy users the ability to do what DRM-free customers already can.

Do they also have big red lips? Whatever floats your dystopian boat I guess.

...

Whoever takes antrophomorphic dust specs seriously is not someone I dare debate with.

Dystopia. As in my household is full of "blackface" dust specs, when they should all be PC if it were an utopia. You killed my father, prepare to die!

Wrong way of looking it as you're falsely assuming everyone buys a game at launch. If you purchase a game at a later date and only then find out that the newest version is buggy but the previous version isn't (that you can only roll back to with Galaxy), then you obviously won't have anything previously backed up to roll back to.

No, you assume the user has access to every version and patch that has existed for that product. This is clearly not the case. It is the stores responsibility to provide access to all versions and patches so the user can choose the one most appropriate. As in at least one case mention in that thread, the new version of wizardry 8 lacks content the previous one had, and does not work on some people’s machines. Or are you saying it’s the users fault for not being aware of this and buying the earlier on to get the previous version? Nonsense, it is clearly and always the responsibility of the shop, not the user.

Well said

I understand why they wouldn't put a warning on games like that but given GOG's status as a curated games store, you'd think they'd threaten devs to remove the game from the store if they don't keep it up to date. It would definitely be nice if they did but again, I understand why they probably won't.

If anything, I think people need to start going after the studios that refuse to keep their GOG version up to date.

You have access to the version the game was on at the time you buy it. I suppose theoretically the game could get updated between you paying and downloading. The argument about buying the game at launch is irrelevant, because when you buy the game you're paying for the game as it is at that time with an option on future updates.
Who's being serious? The whole conversation is ridiculous, but there's still a difference between black dust specs and black dust specs with giant red lips.
Why is your dust black anyway? Is your house situated in the industrial revolution?

While we're on the topic of splitting hairs, the lips were orange, not red :P.

Pretty much, yeah...

You seem to be wildly missing the point. As a real life example, take Divinity Original Sin. The two newest updates (2.0.119.430KO and 2.0.119.430CH) that added Chinese and Korean language support introduced a bug. The last good bug-free version was Version 2.0.119.430 (A) that's two versions old. The only people who can "roll back" to that last good version are Galaxy users and for offline installer users, those who bought the game 2 years ago and backed up that last good version then. For someone buying the game today and who wants an offline installer, there is no "good" version available to download, and nor will they obviously have any local 2 year old backed up installer to restore from for a game purchased 5 minute ago...

This is why it's an entirely reasonable request to allow offline installer users access to the same 1-3 older versions as Galaxy can roll-back to and there's no real technical reason for it as they take up the same server space and the offline installers don't need recreating each time someone wants one, GOG simply has to not prematurely force delete them on every update. The rest is people talking around the issue rather than addressing it.

Nonetheless, the resemblance was recognisable and unfortunate so changing it was understandable. The good news is that if you are upset by (self) "censorship", you can still play the golliwog version if you own it on GOG, which was my actual point.
I see your point, but the problem here is that someone buying it now is buying a broken game. The real solution to that problem would be fixing the game. Rolling back should be a perk, not something that the user is reliant on to have a playable game.

I don't disagree that it would be good to be able to download older installers, I just enjoy playing devil's advocate.

It would indeed be best to fix it, but in the real world everyone has to accept patches are not perfect, new bugs can be introduced, GOG's willingness to fix such events is noticeably "laggy" vs the Galaxy equivalent, and the best mitigation is to allow everyone to roll-back not simply declare some GOG customers "chosen ones" that can and say no to others (who are paying the same money for the same games). That stuff does little more than artificially divide the community in half. An equally valid "devil's advocate" question is "If offline installer users shouldn't need to rollback 'because that's a crutch when the real solution is for the devs to fix the game', then why not remove that rollback feature from Galaxy too on the same grounds?..."

Removing accidental blackface isn't censorship.

Because, as I pointed out, the rollback feature exists to provide Galaxy users the same ability that offline installer users already had. However it goes above and beyond that and I agree that offline installer users should be granted the equivalent.
The colour was deliberate, the resemblance was accidental. Once it was pointed out to them they decided to change it... because that's a perfectly normal reaction. If I'd accidentally made something that looked racist and someone pointed it out to me I'd go "Whoops, better fix that! Don't want anyone getting the wrong idea after all".
How would you respond?