good tip.. thanks yes that solved it.

I don´t want to poke too much into this, as not to sound ungrateful for the hefty discount, but since you asked, seppelfred:
If different company takes a game - for example like Beamdog with Neverwinter Nights - and makes changes to it, I understand they ask a certain price for it.
Just as I understand if somebody remasters an old game (that´s A LOT of work) - again, asking price for this is justified.

But just as MarkoH01 said, this seems to be an update: this game was released 3 years ago (hardly a "remaster" effort) and for all intents and purposes is, this seems like an RTX + content update - and updates should be free.

I apologize, you are right.
I have noticed a special character at the beginning of the string - the very reason why the search function did not finds it when I typed the name of the game.

Have fun.

Jazzpunk is pretty nutty; I love it so far; I haven't tried Blair Witch yet, but it's wish-listed, just waiting on another sale...
Thank fuck I downloaded the original install files yesterday! Looks like I'll be doing that from here on out; I'm so glad someone brought up that concern earlier!

If you bought legacy Observer edition, you should be able to download and install it anytime you want. It will not be removed from your library.

Only new customers will have no choice.

Yeah, this game was release not so long ago. So there is not even much to remaster in it. It's more like a reedition. It really shouldn't be forced to make owners of the original pay for what is essentially not so major uplift UPDATE.

Steam Linux release has nothing to do with GOG Linux release.
Steam is widely known for supporting Linux. GOG is widely known for neglecting bringing Linux ports.

If you have a game purchased before store page removal you will still have access to install files and ability to download them. If it wouldn't be like that then it would be a stright out restricting your access to purchased product thus voiding the contract on GOG side thus you could just chargeback based on fraud protection country laws at that point.

a) Nobody is forced to buy it. If you're happy with the original version - no problem.
b) There is new content. If it's worth $5 to you is your decision
c) Ever tried to get a DC or Redux of a movie you bought for free?

Oh wait, you're right; that would not make sense otherwise! I need to purchase a coffee drip! :P

This literally doesn't change ANYTHING in my point.

Sure but the point here is that this whole "remaster" of this game seems forced and the added new content is of debatable value and currently unverifiable.
And the thing is that with this kind of "remaster" game developers GENERALLY at least TRY to give it for free to owners of the original - ergo - Bioshock.
And generally if the uplift is not very large or it's just visual improvements then the original owners may just never buy it.
It is unspoken rule in this industry (for companies that at least TRY to be nice and FAIR towards their consumers) to give those for free to original owners.
It's unspoken form of token of trust of game developers towards those who supported original project.

Games aren't films. These 2 industries have COMPLETELY different rules. Therefore your example is invalid.
Besides, film Directors Cut is ACTUAL new content without any doubts, whereas with game "remaster" (not to be confused with REMAKE) it's mostly in the area of visual quality uplift - ergo - same content (usually) just with "higher visual fidelity".
Just like if you would buy a VHS and upon showing proof of purchase you would get a DVD (for free) 10 years later (that's an example to give you an idea what I mean, I don't necessarily know of any direct example of somebody doing exactly that).
Or you buy Funimation BD anime release and get (FOR FREE) a code for digital version.
Or you buy Stalker Clear Sky some years ago in physical release and years later you get opportunity to get to claim it on GOG. For free. "Who would have thought" /s
"But WHY" /s
"WHY" /s
"WE SHOULD MAKE THEM *PAY* *again*" /s

Yeah, but I'm going to give you some advice:
Think about it deeper.
Because I just recently reflected on all things GOG (upon discovering the whole "Epic - GOG" shebang) and I suddenly realised that GOG pulls some shady practices that could ACTUALLY be seen as voiding the contract.
For example, when you buy a product there is version 10 live. And then later there is a bunch of updates all the way to 14 but GOG only allows you to download the latest version. They fully intentionally criple our ability to download older builds.
Steam has no problems whatsoever with downloading older builds (you can either do that "officially" if developer left a separate branch with older version OR you can pull out a developer console and a manifest for an older version) and they restrict nothing.
GOG meanwhile, for claiming to be so "cool" and "fair towards consumers" is doing the very anticonsumer thing, ESPECIALLY in the light of GOG being specificly drm free store.
My personal opinion is that they should allow us to have a direct access (by that I mean easy access without requiring begging support for it) to AT LEAST the build that was live at the time of purchase.
Because once they remove our access to that build it kind of falls within the cathegory of changing the contract without both sides consent. And that is extremely shady.

First of all I didn't say anywhere that "I" am forced to do so.
Second of all I specificly said forced to PAY for it.
Stop with all the "nobody is forcing you" because it's a captain obvious kind of counterargument and it actually doesn't change validity of my point.

Cut it out already.
My point is not about whether or not it's of value (whether or not it's worth to obtain it). My point is that this is a minor upgrade from what was already pretty freshly released game and generally it would be far better if original owners would get it for free considering highly debatable nature of the "added worth" in this case (it's a VERY forced remaster, many would say it's unneeded this early).
Because as things stand it's still a kind of a moneygrab.
Yes, there MIGHT be SOME new content. But at that point it should be a DLC then with the visual uplift being free for original owners.
That's how it SHOULD be.
Don't be so salty about me pointing out obvious things.

Ok, look, go read some books on the matter or something. No offense. I don't feel like writing an essay here if you cannot see this massively obvious fact.
Yes, SOME (VERY LIMITED NUMBER OF) rules are same or similar but MAJORITY is different. Period.

Indeed it doesn't. IMO, your point is, and stays, invalid. Still nobody is forced to pay for the upgrade. And it's Captain Obvious because it's, well, obvious. Arguments are not wrong because the are obvious, on the contrary.

Frankly, I don't understand why people always feel so entitled. I like free stuff as much as the next person, but if someone puts time and money into a product, it's their choice if they put a price-tag on it, and how much they ask. It's up to the customer to decide if the asked price is worth it.

It would be a different matter if the original game was in some way incomplete or broken. Asking money for fixing your own product would be indeed outrageous. But that's simply not the case here.

For all I care they could put out a remaster every year, with more or less added content or improvements (EA style...). I'm free to totally ignore that, and you are too.

But no... for once a dev makes an - IMO - fair offer, someone comes along calling it "unneeded", "debatable nature of the added worth" and "forced", and despite all that (which sounds like "go away, I don't want it"), they still want it, but for free of course. Sour grapes?

In the end, nobody is entitled to free stuff. If upgrades are made available for free (like CDPR did, or Hello Games) it's a matter of calculation and a marketing decision, to make the product more attractive. But it's equally valid to ask money for it.

I actually know people both in the games and the movie industry. But that's not even the point, this is about selling games or movies, and the reality is that movies are way worse in terms of customer friendliness - there simply are no free or cheap upgrades to "better" editions, there is simply no mechanism for that. You're always expected to pay full price, first in the cinema, then for the disk release (or DRM'd streaming), and again for the director's cut/extended edition/redux/whatever.

We should be happy that games nowadays offer a better service here, and that was my point. Back in the day of physical editions we would have been forced to buy the new "Enhanced" box for the full price - just like with movies.

My point is totally valid but you can't or perhaps won't see that apparently.
What you are saying all this time is "nobody is forced to obtain it".
And what I am saying is "original version owners should not be forced to PAY for this upgrade".

Perhaps it flew over your head that I said "unspoken / unofficial rule of the industry".
It's an unofficial industry standard to provide remastered versions to owners of the original versions.
I will not repeat it for the third time.
And it "just so happens" that this industry is divided into 2 parts:
1.Those game developers that value their consumers trust - those give those remasters for free.
2.Those who decide to go for money grab no matter what - and those will just not get the money from the previous consumers for the most time.

Group 2 is sound, but group 1 is arguably more representative nowadays. It's far more fair for the consumer.

And, for the second time:
STOP with all the "nobody is forcing you".
Are you like paid or something?
"Nobody is forcing you" to defend questionable decisions not made by you.

You seem to fail to understand that NOWHERE in my posts I stated that I am speaking for myself as in "I own this game".
I am speaking for others.
I am voicing a valid concern. I am commenting on debatable morality decision of developer / publisher.
Apparently it has hurt your personal feelings that I "dared" to defend my argument.

Do specificly "I" feel entitled in your opinion? Can you prove it? You actually cannot.
I didn't speak for myself here. I am speaking for the good of others.
Because there is still time to change things so raising such concern early is better.

Oh yeah?
And how do you know that the responsible developers will NOT go all "we won't fix it in the original version, go buy remaster" route should there be new problems discovered in the original version some point after now?
They seem to be delisting it after the release so that's probably what's going to happen.

Wow. So you support anticonsumer practises? Congratulations. I won't do that.

It's debatable. Also I will once more reiterate on that I don't question price tag size just it's sole *existence* EXCLUSIVELY in regards to original version owners.

Do you have a problem with constructive criticism?

I specificly said:
(edit: spacing fixed)


Until directly proven (which CANNOT be done before the release) it IS debatable. Based on marketing materials and limited public info it's HIGHLY debatable.

No, actually id doesn't. It only reinforces my point, which is: considering the circumstanes (1.This "remaster" being so DARN EARLY after release [because of it it's questionable if there is even a point to make it THIS EARLY] 2.Seemingly limited gain from upgrading to it) it seems quite forced.
THEREFORE the potential gain for original owners is just LOW and THEREFORE the potential for obtaining the money from those consumers is SMALL.
THEREFORE it could be highly worth to exchange very small amount of money obtained from milking original owners "on a discount" for a positive PR in form of "original owners get remaster for free".
Of course it's up to the developer / publisher to decide.
But that doesn't void my points nor does it void my right to criticise their choices.
I am NOT personally attacking YOU. I am criticising and debating THEIR decision.
While it seems YOU are ACUTALLY personally attacking me.
You seem to really have taken this personally and I just don't understand why.

You definitely have some. But keep them for yourself.
Also I would appreciate if you would stop pouring your personal salt collection upon me /s

I'm sorry, perhaps I missed something from your massive closet wisdom, but when EXACTLY did CDPR start making remasters of their games?
Because I don't think I'm missing anything and you just seem to be confusing terms.
Free season pass isn't a direct analogy to a free remaster BY ANY MEANS EVER.

"Nobody is forcing you" to shill and advocate for them.
Their decision is questionable. That's why I am questioning it openly.
What is it here that you don't understand? (in before you say another "nobody forces YOU to buy it" like some form of a personal attack)

It's funny how your own statements contradict your own beliefs without you noticing it.
You seem to be stuck in that belief that "it's ok to pay for a remaster when you already bought the original" while simulatenously you NOTICE that "times changed".
Yet you fail to acknowledge that not only times changed but also industry developer behaviours standards changed too.
Nowadays it's more positive to give it for free to original owners (since it 1.Gives you lots of positive PR 2.There isn't really going to be much income from those consumers anyway).
And virtually majority of developers seem to at least WANT to go that way.
That's why I said that it SHOULD be like that in this case too.
I am standing up here for the collective good of original owners. I am not attacking YOU.
Yet you go all "HOW DARE YOU" (in form of "nobody forces you to buy it").
Seriosuly. Grow some common sense.

80% discount stopped working, probably as result of removing the original version from the store.