GoG should be about the classics, bugs and all. No fixes of any kind should be bundled.

https://lilura1.blogspot.com/2018/02/Best-Mods-for-Role-Playing-Games-RPGs-Part-I-Must-have-Essential-Bugfixes.html

"Please note that no mod takes authority over the original vanilla game, patched by the devs; absolutely no mod, even if the original devs give the mod their blessing/stamp of approval. There is only one authoritative incarnation of a game: the original release, patched by the devs. Everything else is an unofficial mod and therefore holds no authority. Furthermore, each and every one of the games in this post are eminently playable in their final state, without unofficial patches. Even Troika's bug-ridden games. I have played vanilla Arcanum, Bloodlines and ToEE for years; I should know."

"Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines: Not just famous for its clan-based reactivity, well-written and well-voiced dialogue and expressive facial/bodily animations, Bloodlines is also infamous for its bugs, oversights and annoying graphical glitches. There are two options available to the player that address such complaints and both of them demand equal footing: the Unofficial Patch by Wesp5 and the True Patch Gold Edition by Tessera. The former is controversial among purists in that its Basic patch goes beyond bug fixing and into the realm of "unnecessary changes". Thus, they favor the latter. Unfortunately, UP has been officially bundled with the GoG version and thus will need to be uninstalled before applying TPGE. Again, GoG should not bundle cult classics — or any game — with unofficial content; it's just wrong."

https://lilura1.blogspot.com/2018/02/Where-to-Purchase-the-Original-Baldurs-Gate-Icewind-Dale-Planescape-Torment-and-Neverwinter-Nights.html

"Really, it's just common sense foresight, but I am thankful for keeping my original CDs/DVDs for all Infinity and Aurora games in order to ensure that I have rightful access to them forever, independent of third party clients and their dubious patching and updating procedures (even GoG is guilty of that, bundling cult classics with compatibility and even unofficial patches that go beyond patching and into the realm of assumptions to dev intent — Vamp Bloodlines being an inarguable example). I hope you have the original optical media, too. If not, I hope you can snap them up before they are no longer available except through expensive second-hand transactions. Then, you will have the authoritative versions, forever. Note that having the original media in your possession is even better than the GoG versions, not just because of their above-mentioned habit of tinkering with the originals, but also because you can play other versions of the game (certain patch releases), not to mention expansionless if you like. This allows you to play the best version of Icewind Dale, for example."

Now I'm covering ToEE, and it's the same thing (temple.dll).

http://lilura1.blogspot.com/2018/02/Temple-of-Elemental-Evil-ToEE-Retrospective-Beginners-Guide-Pro-Tips-Cheats-Best-Builds.html

"Now, run the game. Oh look, it worked. From an original optical media install. No surprise. ToEE has always worked, just like all original incarnations from Troika, Black Isle and BioWare have always worked, regardless of OS/hardware specs; at least, for people with basic knowledge of PCs."

As someone whose blog covers the original, authoritative incarnations of Renaissance-era RPGs, I'm glad to have the original optical media. I have all GoG versions, too, but just as insurance against the setup.exes not working in the future (though they have worked for the last 20 years for all of my fave games).

This isn't meant to come-off as an anti-GoG post. I've bought a lot of games from GoG that haven't been bundled with unofficial content. I would just prefer GoG preserve the classics instead of tweaking them with 3rd party content.

Or, alternatively, the patch could come with the download, but not automatically installed, or include an option as to whether to install it.

Incidentally, the version of Daggerfall from Bethesda's website is like this with the official patch; the download is version 1.0, but the 2.13 patch is included, though not automatically installed. (For that particular game, however, installing the patch is probably a good idea unless you are a software historian/archeologist who wants to experience firsthand the stat in which the game was originally released.)

Incidentally, for some games speedrunners actually prefer earlier versions of games because often fun glitches that are useful for speedrunning get patched. (Zelda: A Link to the Past and Morrowind are two examples of this; someone actually made a patch to downgrade Morrowind, though it appears not to be available at the moment.)

I understand some want the core experience and nothing else, but I also really love that I can just install Thief 2 and have all the lovely modern options available right away. So I see both sides. Best thing would be two installers, but I'm sure GOG see that as a lot of work for a very small audience.

most customers wants to just "plug-n-play" and have the most updated / bug free gaming experience. so from a business and usability perspective, i agree with gOg's approach.

I don't know how many people play old games on old machines, with game recommended OSes, but the vast majority plays on modern(3 years old machines) with the latest OS(previous generation OS). So I don't agree with not having compatibility patches. GOG assumed a responsibility that the games it sells should be playable on modern machines with no configuration on the user's side. In reality it isn't entirely true, sometimes requiring some additional configuration, but for the vast majority it is true.

However I agree with you when it comes to unofficial patches that add user created content, as long as the patch isn't the only thing that enables the game to be run on modern machines. I would rather have a game purchasable, playable and completable, than messing around with my installations, even though I have considerable more experience than basic knowledge of PCs. I won't even mention my dislike for having to deal with ebay for original CDs/DVDs.

Nah, GOG hasn't shown any interest in preservation. It's just about being able to play old games on new PCs. If modifications (up to and including unofficial patches and even remasters) are necessary to get them to run the games out of the box, then they will toss preservation out of the window without a second thought.

I mean sure. You try figuring out how to get Interstate 76, Populous 3D, or even Roller Coaster Tycoon to run without patches. Go on, I'll wait.

Purity of a product is one thing, but I shouldn't need 6 hours to figure out how to get it running in rainbow vision. (IE, wrong.)

when i had windows xp / 7 i always thought about playing the games as is without any compatibility patches , always kept the original media with the old setups but thanks how useless windows 10 is , i really think in today's scenario , gamers will prefer a quick fix simple install and play method for older games.


For example , i have always kept my age of empires 1 gold edition cd with me , it installed and played fine on windows xp , 7 but i was stunned when the bare setup failed to run on windows 10 even with compatibility settings so i am unable to play a Microsoft game on a Microsoft os .....

Also tried playing the original neverwinter nights 1 on windows 10 and it runs terrible with constant slowdowns.

eh, what? some games would be rather unplayable without compatibility fixes.
very few people buy games to enjoy the bugs of the past, and I bet nobody buys games to enjoy the the fact that they are not working anymore.
you are most likely very alone with your argument that having crashes when trying to quicksave should be part of the "authoritative experience".

not sure why you are bringing Beamdogs Enhanced Editions into this argument ? It is very doubtful that making and selling these was GOG's decision ?

Yeah, I think Deus Ex is a good example. At least I had severe technical problems to run the vanilla GOG GOTY version on Windows 7 (I couldn't get past the intro, severe graphical issues etc.), for which reason I installed the GMDX mod which fixed all the technical issues and apparently also provided the ability to zoom the UI and text with higher resolutions (so that you can actually read that tiny text on the user interface on a 1920x1080 resolution).

Nowadays GOG includes the "Deus Ex Revision" mod as a DLC download for the game, and I presume it is exactly for that: the vanilla game has serious issues on modern PCs.

At the same time though, I do like it that Revision is offered as an extra "DLC" because that gives people an option to use some other mod, instead of the Revision mod. Like I am using the GMDX mod on top of the vanilla game, instead of Revision. I chose GMDX simply because some messages indicated it is considered as the best mod for Deus Ex, but I guess Revision is good as well.

I can't really say if there is one best way, maybe it depends on the game and what kind of issues the vanilla version have, and if there are lots of alternative mods people might want to try out. With some games like Thief 1-2, I think it is good that some of the mods are already included with the installer, to make it smooth for everyone.

But then e.g. Fallout Tactics, I am kinda glad it doesn't include the Redux mod. While the Redux mod fixes lots of stuff, it also changes the game quite much apparently, replacing many weapons, replacing companions you can hire, even some of the game music is apparently changed (like I learned from someone that the Junction City music I really liked in the game... was not even in the original game, but taken from the Wasteland Classic game). Oh and apparently the Redux mod also makes the game harder, as far as I know.

I prefer mods which don't make such heavy changes to the game itself, but try to give the vanilla experience, with bugs squashed.

Hey that's part of the fun of PC gaming! ;)

This. If it takes you 6 hours to work out how to get a game going, you should probably be playing on consoles. :P

Also, Win XP guest in VirtualBox, ftw.

While it would be nice to have options, I'm pretty confident that a majority buys games on GOG precisely because they don't want to have to tinker with the games themselves in order to make them run smoothly. You apparantly enjoy that "PC gaming" experience that includes having to fix the games yourself, and owning the optical media already allows you to do it. Many of the games on GOG can still be found as optical media on the second hand market. Some dirt cheap (maybe because people prefer the digital and patched editions from GOG?), others outrageously expensive. Now, if someone came along and said "if you want the original, authoritative - obviously superior - experience, you should be willing to pay these collector prices for the optical media", would that be any more arrogant than saying "if someone can't be bothered to fix their PC games themselves, they should get a console instead"?

I'm sympathethic to the suggestion of GOG letting us choose, but telling GOG what they "should" do and their customers how they "should" prefer the same things you do, that seems a little presumptuos ...

IMO, what you're complaining about is one of the very things that GOG is based on, making the whole experience of installing old games less of a hassle for their customers than it would be for people buying the games second-hand or even just leeching the files from somewhere on the internet for free. Steam sells some old games without fixing them, btw. They usually get a lot of flak from disappointed customers for that.

i've voiced my opinon on this already. compatibilty patches creates their own problems. i prefer "barebones" or vanilla. but even more vanilla than most people such as maintenance of redistributables bundled with games