Right click, properties, details.

Didn't know that and so do probably many others. It's simpler to just put it in the name. I know you don't oppose it but I actually support it. They should do it.

So you don't need to download just to check the game version.

Thanks for the info ! However, it seems to me that n does not only reflect minor GOG patches, because in traditional versioning one could get 2.0.0.1 followed by 2.0.1.0, but that won't happen here, n never goes down. It looks more like a GOG package release counter, which means it would increase when minor GOG changes are made of course, but it's more than that. This. Many game developers (if not most) don't have proper versioning. GOG versioning annoyed me a bit at first, but considering there's no need to get updates from anywhere outside GOG who makes a good job updating their packages, I'm finally happy with that. Moreover, GOG's packaging can be seen as a distinct operation that needs a version system on its own.

That is correct, the last digit is the almost always the number of the patch., e.g. 2.1.0.3 (third patch released by gog.com, not to be confused with the actual third patch)

But patches also have another number! Like Wasteland 2 patch 6 (GOG-6) is v. 2.4.0.18

The only reason to need that though is to compare to other retailers - gog shouldn't really be catering for that.

Gog users only need to know if we have the latest version from gog, and gog does not want to encourage people to look and think to themselves "ill go to steam as that version is higher" either from current users or potential users.

Edit: Like the other poster, I am also not apposed to this but I can see why a business might not want this as easily available due to the delays that are (most times) an unfortunate side effect of being a smaller competitor to a huge market leader.

Thanks for the info. :)

Going by the data from this thread, it seems that n is the installer's version. So the 2.y.z.5 means it's the 5th installer version packed by GOG, while the 2.y.z.18 means it's the 18th one. Again though, just a guess, no way to make sure of it, unless the blues decide to tell us.

The thing with n as installer version make sense. I noticed that, if only the last number of the version was changed and y z stay the same, the files that belong to the game also stay identical to the version before. It would be interesting, if someone is able to verify that.

it is to compare with the developers. Like following a developer who release the message - "we released version 1.7 today, which included the hotfix for X, Y and Z" . You come to gOg and it is version ?.?.?.?.... is the new hot-fixes included? is it the same version? Consistency is a nice thing. I follow developers more than gOg, and it is always very confusing.

The delays are also due to very fundamental philosophies between Steam and gOg.

Steam has a very open backend, and the develpers can upload new patches as often and whenever they want - they do not need to go through Steam staff. So as soon as a patch is done, it is uploaded directly by the developer.

gOg has a closed backend, and everything needs to go through gOg staff. So as soon as a patch is done, it is sent to gOg, who then need a member of staff having the free time to retive it, check it, prepare it and then upload it.

Both ways have pros and cons, but for time - it goes without saying that Steam is faster just because it take away one of the stages in the process.

I don't think that's why GOG did this. As for the game version number, there are usually a few ways to tell which one it is... when the developer has a proper versioning, that is.
It could be on the download page as well, or maybe the newly added changelog. Anyway it would necessarily be optional, since you can be sure some developers won't send that information, and what should GOG do in this case ? Delay distribution until a game version number is given ? Not many people will second this :)
I could not read this without answering.

I'm not familiar with the Steam distribution system from a developer's point of view, but saying it's more open may be misleading. More straightforward, maybe, but that likely requires some sort of "steamification" of the development process. This is probably optional, but developers choosing it for the sake of simplicity have more difficulties with other distributors... except for "half distributors" who are happy distributing Steam packages (that require installation of the Steam client and further updates via Steam), or "virtual distributors" who give a Steam key only.

Let's face it, except for big developers distributing their own games (Uplay, Origin), all distributors without a specific packaging policy (like GOG's DRM-free) are disappearing. When a distributor starts offering Steam packages, it's the beginning of the end. The ability to still have their own pricing policy, "as if they were distributing themselves" is an illusion. Sooner or later, customers will think "Why not buy directly through Steam ?". Look at Gamersgate, despite being owned by Paradox, they've stopped distributing Europa Universalis III, and are giving Steam packages of EU IV.

But back to the point. You're probably right, the more straightforward software distribution system Steam uses is faster than GOG's but I don't think it's why things go faster. Imho, the main reasons are :

1) Steam is the first distribution platform, hence many developers send updates there first
2) Using Steam's integrated distribution system makes it easy to send updates to Steam, and difficult to send them elsewhere.

The Arma 2 scandal, and the problem with games waiting for months if not years to get updates here (Giana Sisters, Apotheon) have reasons behind, which are not to blame on GOG.

For a developer, Steam is the most open system that I know about... Valve have a complete hands-off approach, and the developers have full control over the back-end and whatever they want to integrate or not of Steamworks. Whatever you see on Steam is up to developers/publishers. The devs do not need to "steamify" a game if they do not want to, they can just use it as a digital distribution system. That many do, is just a credit to steam-works framework, which is free to use and works very well.

With micro-patching (the devs can upload extremely small patches directly) it is also a difference, since it makes more sense on other places to collect several patches on for example gOg, since the system is more cumbersome and slower. Just cutting out the middle-man (i.e. the gOg employer who need to download, check and upload the patch) makes it faster by default. I am not saying one approach is better or the other (for the developer, I guess Steam is best, for the customer probably gOg), but the speed of things is really not anything to discuss, it is what it is. Micro-patching and open backend without a middleman makes Steam faster for a developer by default.

It may also be a matter of how long the time lag actually is. One or two days more on GOG but a higher safety that everything is fine - fully acceptable for me. A month lag - not nice.

I seldom buy games right after release and expect most of the patches to have happened anyway before I buy. So I'm more suited to the "more checking is better" approach. I just want to know what the game version is without difficulties.