It had a disc release. All GTAs up to and including SA had, and required no activation or internet. So there are still versions they couldn't patch. Of course, can't buy them anymore these days....

Did those games require the disk to be in the drive to run?

The collection of GTA 1,2,3 Vice City and San Andreas does. Not sure about the original individual retail releases.

Just became a game doesnt crash doesnt mean its not a buggy mess. Skyrim back on release in 2011 had things like dragons flying backwards and got alot of shit from the community, the saving grace being the modding community being able to fix many of the biggest bugs within a month or two for PC. Fallout 4, which was released in 2015, was a buggy mess that has eventually become good (although not as good as 3). Fallout 76 was also a broken mess on release infamously.

Its a general trend with Bethesda games. Initial release will be ridden with bugs and will be playable thanks to mods. After a while, the bugs will be fixed and the game becomes what it was meant to be assuming support doesnt dry up. Starfield is going to be a buggy mess on release. With enough support, it will likely be fixed and become a good game since Microsoft has alot riding on it but I dont see it being a smooth experience right out of the gate based on the studio's history.

Yes, all of the "GTA Trilogy" games (GTA3,VC, SA) from retail on PC has required disc-checks.

GTA3 PC uses Safedisc - https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_III
GTA VC and SA on PC uses Securom - [url=https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto:_Vice_City]https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto:_Vice_City[/url] ; [url=https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas]https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas[/url]

Come on, you get the point im making right? Fans acknowledge that Bethesda has a history of releasing buggy messes that get fixed or overcome with mod support (so essentially the fans fix the problems).

https://www.reddit.com/r/skyrim/comments/v3i97r/how_does_skyrim_get_away_with_being_incredibly/

Lets not kid ourselves and say that Bethesda releases unbroken games.

I never did say that Bethesda released bug-free games.

What I did say, however, is that the later game in the series are not as buggy as earlier games in the series.

In any case, unmodded Skyrim, as of the Anniversary Edition patch (but without AE mods, so just the current Special Edition), does not feel like a buggy mess. The game doesn't outright crash, and it feels like things are working as they should, for the most part.

(There's some people who say that the unofficial patch actually made the game crash a bit more than without it.)

Another thing: Modding TES games was not practical pre-Morrowind, so those playing those early games didn't have any option but to play with the bugs intact. And, of course, the bugs in those games can be game-ruining in a way that just doesn't happen in unmodded Skyrim.

Yeah, that's exactly why I am not a fan of most remasters. It changes the original experience in a lot of cases.

Reminds me of the Dragon Quest 4 remakes. In the original DQ4, during Chapter 5 (which is by far the longest chapter, and includes the endgame), you can't directly control anyone other than the legendary hero during combat. Your companions are AI controlled, though you an set a tactic for them to follow. In the remakes, you now have the option of setting your companions to Follow Orders, and then issue commands manually, but I found that it didn't feel right unless I still left everyone to AI control. (On the other hand, I found that being able to set every companion's AI individually didn't adversely affect the feel of the game.)

This has become such an issue with modern 'remasters' that any time one is announced nowadays I don't wonder 'ooh what's gonna be new or enhanced?', I wonder 'what's going to be broken, censored or ruined this time?'.

Also among plenty of rereleases that do work perfectly, there's still a nice habit of screwing up the aesthetics. A couple of GOG games that I think are simply better in their original forms vs rereleases are: The Batman Arkham series, Darksiders 2 and Crysis. All have significant changes to lighting and models that interfere or outright ruin the original atmosphere and style.

The most obnoxious example, at least for me personally, are the remasters of the episodic Sam & Max series. They censored a load of jokes and replaced the voice for Bosco with a mediocre new actor who ruins what was one of the series best characters, and all for truly pathetic reasons.

If they want to mess around and Remaster, that's fine. It's their game and product.

They shouldn't mess that much w/ the old-versions and leave them "as is", except for say maybe upgrading the game to work on new OS's, systems, DX software, GPU's, etc - when need be...if there's major problems w/ running the game on newer systems. Of course, old-versions should be added to be upgraded or downgraded there, just in case - similar to what GOG does w/ some games.

Now, Remasters...that's another ball of wax. It's probably really tricky to figure out what should be fixed, changed, added, removed, and/or whatever...AND NOT touched at all.

The real problem to me is to me is this stuff, which I'll go through below....

01. When they DELIST the old versions, to force people to buy the new one at a very likely pricier type of pricing. There's no guarantee the new version's better than the old one.
i.e. Rockstar w/ GTA Trilogy "Definitive" Remasters from Grove St., basically most prefer old-versions which has lots of mods out there over the new Grove St. mess.
i.e. Can we please get on GOG the old-version of Deus Ex: HR with TML? While HR DC is fine on modern hardware now performance-wise and with a bit of modding - ugh, older-version will runs a ton better still. MY dream is still some modders figures out how to move all the content from Deus Ex: HR DC (with the improved stuff) to OG Deus Ex HR's engine.

02. They just flat-out DO NOT bundle the old-version w/ the Remastered version. I love how in many instances, GOG often will bundle the old-version w/ the purchase w/ new one.
i.e. Go see NWN: Diamond/Enhanced, for example; GOG gets this right, as you get both versions NWN: Diamond (old version) and NWN: EE when you buy NWN: EE. Steam-version unfortunately does NOT do this for EE; EE or bust there. GOG got the edge on this one, as you got both - just in case old-mods or old-saves don't say work on the new EE version.

03. If new and old versions aren't bundled together, they just aren't EVEN sold separate...b/c of a possible delisting of the old version.
SIDE NOTE - Some games get this right and sell both separate: you can still buy The Outer Worlds old-versions (and their Expansion Pass) AND/OR Spacer's Choice Remastered (TOW Remastered with Expansion Pass Remastered) separately, for whatever reasons. No delisting, they both still exist. But one version, buy the new one, buy both - whatever.

04. When there's a "forced-upgrade", there's just NO EASY WAY to downgrade backwards to earlier versions. This is often a PAIN in Steam-versions of games, but GOG allows for easy way to disable upgrades in Galaxy. A lot of times, I often just copy OLD-EDITION to another folder and not deal w/ this mess, so I can have both the OLD and NEW version.
SIDE NOTE: Some games, though - you can go backwards to older-versions, which can REALLY HELP in case new Remasters breaks mods, changes stuff, and other madness that you might not care for in new version/remaster.
Example: Two Worlds 2, you can go back to older-version so you can run WorldMerge Mod (I think that's the name of it?)...and then likely also have new-version installed if you want to run the new DLC's/expansions.
Example #2 - System Shock 1: Enhanced older version was fine, but the newest version has stuttering issues for many players. At least w/ GOG, downgrading here's easy, if need be - as the feature's there.