Yesterday and today has seen numerous updates. I might just wait till there's nothing else update-worthy, which is likely to never happen.

I've never once concerned myself with cutting-edge releases. My most recent purchase was Skyrim, Dishonored Trilogy, and Chaosbane.

I really don't know why people buy games on release. In this day and age a fresh release is usually still in "early access", just without the label. If you wait a year you'll get an actually finished product, probably with a 20% discount. It's not like there's a shortage of stuff to play.

What hassle?
I'm seeing one new patch offline installer for today, Patch (Release - v4.1.1.3630146 - Patch Patch0_Hotfix2 to Live - v4.1.1.3635601 - Patch0_Hotfix2.1).

It's almost like purchasing an 'In Dev' game and then complaining that we are getting too many (and frequent) updates. Why buy into a game/project if you are not happy about receiving such a new and constantly updated product ?. Wait till it has been out for a while before committing, to give it time to be patched and for things to settle down... [Rolleyes]

It's often best if you won't or don't want want to deal w/ Updates Galore on likely big-huge games and open-world games - especially RPG's with lots of choices - where it could have possible tons of issues, bugs, performance problems, stability, and/or anything else - yup, don't buy ASAP.

Buy it when they actually announce the final patched-up version when there's no more DLC's, expansions, and/or patches and they're actually done w/ it. Many times, that's the best way to buy PC games - once they are all done w/ expansions, DLC's and updates. God knows when the last time all of THOSE got official updates.

Actually, I'll just continue on as best as possible. Often updates could lead to the game being a bit worse. Reported conditions were from gamers using what I consider as toy machines.

For new updates - to me, best to use Galaxy. That way, it just grabs what it needs to and updates what it needs to.

Usually, I will download say the OG original installer files and some patches if they ain't big from the web browser - but, it's often best to grab the final version way later, once the company's done w/ its entire run of expansions, DLC's, and/or updates. Always keep those and back all of those up somewhere - other HDD's, SSD's, BR-discs, DVD-discs, USB-based thumb-drives, whatever.

Often, though - within Galaxy, I will disable updates for games I am in the midst of and playing....just in case say the game breaks, saves break, mods break, or whatever from new-said official update. I don't use Galaxy a ton - but it can be useful, in certain circumstances.

Though, I do prefer using Heroic over Galaxy and also Epic Game Launcher; those launchers are bloated and can perform poorly; especially if you own lots of games (like myself). Heroic's way faster.

Indeed.
Including the above mentioned one from yesterday I'm counting a grand total of 4 relatively small (compared to the main game's +100 GB size) patch offline installers over the course of 1 week.

Not exactly what I would call a "hassle" either.

That's not correct. All singleplayer-based games have development permanently ended on them eventually. And all of Larian's previously titles certainly have had that happen to them too.

No doubt BG3 will be no different. Certainly the day will come when it shall receive no more patches ever again.

This is a sensible approach but is undermined by the frustrating way in which GOG doesn't make all patches (let alone installers) available to the user. Therefore the user has to keep checking in on the site to make sure they have the current patch and see when the next patch in line shows up in their library. If the user takes too long, or several patches release in quick succession, they will have to download a new full version of the game since the next patch in line from what they have is already gone.

Example:
User downloads base game, patch 1, comes back in a couple days and downloads patch 2.
User is busy for a month or two unable to game, patches 3-10 release.
User logs in, only to see that the patches available for download are patches 6-10.
User now has to download the base game installer (which is at patch 10), because patch 2 that they have cannot be updated to patch 6 (the oldest now available); it would require having patch 3, 4, 5 first. Seconding this. Devs and pubs cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

Not much to ask from users having to check back regularly for new patches/patch offline installers, in my opinion. If you take too long, no matter if it's your fault or entirely out of your control, then... hard luck, I guess.
The last couple ones usually stay up and are available for download for a quite decent amount of time anyway (multiple months on average).

Not really an issue, as I see it.

"I demand that Larian cease all patching and further development of BG3 immediately!!!"
There, problem solved. :)

This is now your second thread complaining about patches. I mean, what do you actually want or expect?
YOU chose to buy and play BG3 on day one. Now deal with the consequences.

If one only cares to download once a month, he is better off using Galaxy to roll back. Offline installers did and will always require more work from the users.

I have a script on my server for that. Once a day I let it check for updates and then I let them download. I stopped downloading patches however, since for some games the patches take a lot more space than the actual download and I don't really care for rolling back to older versions until there is a very significant change and then I keep both base installers.

Galaxy users can always roll back to earlier versions, like Steam users can.
The offline installers are a bonus compared to all other download platforms. Are they perfect? Nah. But they are better than anything on other platforms.

An alternative with all the hassle would be to just wait a few weeks until most of the bugs of the game are eliminated and the frequency of the patches decreases.