I don't remember asking for your sympathy. But I'm sure if you shout how much you dislike GTA4 from the rooftops a little more, it won't make any difference.

I don't like forced auto-patching as well, and for a series of resons.
First of all, the Internet connection in my zone is worse than awful, so I often needed hours and hours of download just to be able to start a game I have purchased. That's why I usually bought only retail games, DRM-free or not... yet, during the last few years this has become useless as well, since patches are too many and too big to allow the disc to make a difference -and that is not counting ridiculous examples like MGS V and its disc containing only the glorious Steam installer.
Another shiny example is when the patch breaks the game; I remember that the Italian copies of Mass Effect 3 have been compeltely broken by a forced update on Xbox Live, and I had to wait for a week before I was able to start the game again (the starting menu continuously crashed, forcing an hard reset).
Also, without forced auto-patching, you can keep the version you prefer without the risk of content being retroactively cut -as it has been the case with Steam copies of one of the GTA games, where some of the music licenses expired na dhave been removed. By Bhaal, if I bought a game in a certin state I demand (as is my right) to keep it that way! It would be just like deleting a track from a music CD because the rights for a cover song are no more.
People may say what they want about the messy Galaxy, but whoever thought about the rollback feature should get a medal.


On a side note...
Jeez man, give us some pause! :P
I undertsand that you are upset with GOG (and for good reasons, btw), but your continuos anti-GOG sarcasm in every thread has become very stale. Almost as annoying as "I have it elsewhere, so I'll pass! :D™" or "Vote for X"!
Please, bring back the Smannesman of old with their menaingful comments!

If it is stale, it's only as stale as the constant glorification of GOG and anti-DRM that is at the base of nearly 90% of the threads these days.
Forced patching isn't the devil that people make it out to be, nor the cure-all that companies make it out to be.
But it does make sense. The constant need to ask what version people are using must be amazingly annoying to both parties.
And trying to reproduce a bug for most of a day only to find out someone is still using a version from ten years ago must be enormously frustrating.
So it makes sense having everybody at the same version, both for the consumer and the developer/publisher.
Unfortunately forced patching also means that any bug that has slipped into the patch is automatically an issue for everybody. But that is probably still preferable to the support department.

See? that's what I meant: good arguments for a good post, with no sarcasm attached. I still disagree (because even if you make a good point, I think the "downs" of autopatching far overwhelm the "ups", especially where technology is behind the standards), but I understand, respect and appreciate your opinion! :)

That said, please (and I'm referring to everyone reading) don't commit the common mistake of thinking that criticizing a thing on the internet implies accepting the contrary: it is not true.
While I don't agree with your perception (those thread exist, but are not that much), I completely agree with the sentiment: glorificaitons and bashing are both extremely annoying, and they never enrich a post. The existence of one does not justify the other, though: there is nothing to compensate, "countering" one with another only adds annoyances.

You do realize he has a point? While it's a valid argument that rarely a patch breaks the game, it occurs rarely at best, and the result is, you have to wait for another patch. Contrast this to 'preferred' situation you're arguing for, where you're regularly waiting for a patch because of delays, either on GOG's end or the publishers.

So rarely wait for few games vs regularly wait for many. His point is valid in that sense. (this is ignoring the benefits to the developer side of having forced patching)

I agree on the internet thing though I consider that an aging argument, internet access should only get better as time go forward, and while it's a shame some people are lagging behind I don't find that something that should be taken into consideration for future development.

Just to add my two cents in here. Personally I don't like internet connection in software full stop. Its not a speed issue, its a hoarder mentality. All my items I play without the network connected, I have total control over them. I tend to avoid newer games solely because of this constant need for patching. Its a bit self defeating in some cases as "well, just get the product out there we can always patch it later on" mentality. This march towards total connectivity is very worrying.

I definitely agree with TB on this one.
If a patch runs the risk of making the experience worse for some it should not be forced on everybody. Giving the consumer a choice is more respectful, a kudos Ubisoft could really need at this point.
Forced patching also has the smell of desperation, and a desperate move is a gamble by nature.

I humbly apologize, after I posted I noticed I was (somehow) on the last page of the general discussion

It was totally NOT intentional to wield such power in a dark way.

Imagine DLC being a film being sold to you one frame at a time.

Then imagine forced patching is being told to pay extra to wait while the repairman fixes the projector that is playing the film... one frame at a time. Then toss in the cost for popcorn and a soda.

But hey, if people will pay to go to the theater and watch a film in that way, no reason to make a fuss about it. The consumer tossed away his leverage long ago. In the end, the market holds sway.

Hehe, weird things happen often here on Gog.
A little necro isn't surely a big problem anyway. :P