Is there any chance that the developers of Games like Dying Light could let us choose either the original or enhanced edition...

This is an unfair trend that seems to be happening more and more...

I am an old gamer since 1982... and a pensioner with not a lot of money to spare...

After recently and finally upgrading to a better laptop, which has intel HD built-in but is an i5 with super -fast file transfer, and able to run Skyrim at 720p without any drop is cool...

But the thing is... when these games I been looking forward to playing then get a massive graphical boost, well what would have run as good as skyrim does... now is like a slide-show. Case in point 'Dying Light', I knew the origanal would be oksy on my laptop but purchasing it and then having to take it down to the bare-bones and at 800x600... and then it still like 1 frame a second...

That is not faire... i waited years to be able to upgrade my laptop and now they expect me to upgrade to a much higher spec... i mean £2,000 quids worth... there is now way... so please Developers think of us oldies who has supported gaming since 1982 and let us have the old versions of what we been looking forward to playing... or send me a decent laptop,

Com-on Dudes... be fair.

Bandana Bob

Very VERY fair points, but unfortunately developers and publishers are companies, and as companies they want as much profit with as less trouble as possible. So instead of continuing a well-known series with new scenarios for the ongoing protagonist (and have X game 1-2-3-4, etc.), they turn to remaking their old games, making the original versions unavailable. Examples: the new upcoming Gothic, the Kingdoms of Amalur Re-reckoning, etc. Some of them still make their originals available though, as the first two Broken Sword games.

Like the Witcher 3 coming soon. Anyone on the cusp of not being able to run it better make sure they have a backed up copy in case CDPR does something really shitty like not make the upgrade an optional DLC for PC players. Versatility is the entire reason for PC gaming.

Indeed. And you shouldn't even have to justify such a request.
Offering a remastered, enhanced, whatever version for free to owners of the original is a gesture of goodwill, while not doing so is awfully greedy, but it needs to be alongside, not instead of, the original, and a sufficient reason should be that it can be seen as a "new", separate game, and the marketing for such rereleases usually goes along those lines after all, so replacing the original means that the users lose access to the game they have actually purchased, which goes against what (little) GOG still (claims to) stand for.

Like idbeholdME pointed out, there are also solid arguments for offering any version of a game, I guess in the form of having the current version, the initial version the game was released on the store with, and every patch in between, so those who want to stop at a certain point can install the first version and then patches one by one until the one they want to stop at. But this matter of remasters goes way beyond that.

I feel quite the same, as I do not want to spend a fortune on hardware. There are some titles that I just got to a bit later, would've been able to run the game fine in its original version, but now can't with the exclusively available enhanced/overhauled one. With consoles it was always a bit different, as developers need to optimize for a particular piece of hardware. That's why I'm fondly remembering the age of home computers where tech cycles were also significantly longer.

One infuriating example comes to mind with Sniper Elite 3, where they updated the game in some way which changed the system requirement for the game. Luckily there was a way to still find a (hidden away) pre-fuckery iteration in that case. Enhanced versions should always include access to the original.

If I can't get the original version, most likely I won't be buying.

I wouldn't necessary call it "unfair".

Nobody kept you from buying your game and securing the old installers.

And before you argue "but my old laptop wasn't able to run it" - I also have bought games in the past, well knowing that my (then) current PC couldn't run them in a satisfying matter...but also knowing that my next PC would.

In cases where companies release new versions of old games, they simply go by the (perfectly reasonable!) assumption, that potential NEW(!) buyers want the newest version - not the old one.

Now, in cases where an already bought old version gets completely removed/replaced in an account, with a newer version...that's a different beast.

But by replacing the old with the new version (they do that for free, as I may add), the companies reward you as a customer - they can't know whether you appreciate that reward, or not.
Seen from their perspective, they're doing something good for you.

Apart from that: different versions (old/new) may be asking for different problem solving - which doubles the workload for the support team.

This is often forgotten by the customers.

However: sometimes it's needed to remember some people, that the DRM-freeness of GOG games allows us all to secure our old versions at any time, BEFORE they may get replaced by new ones.

So people are forced to keep the installers? What's Galaxy for then?

If the system requirements change due to an update, then people must have the option for a rollback. If there is a way like in other games to downgrade to a previous version, then I won't say anything against the update, then everyone has the chance to play the old version, no matter if he lost his old installer files due to a hard drive crash or not.
In Skyrim's case it's still possible to run the old version (same for SR4 btw, old version with more DLCs or new version with Cross-Coop support), so no harm done.


The best solution would be to add a completely new game entry.
Maybe they will do so with the Witcher, maybe not.

Nobody is "forcing" you. It's simply the reasonable thing to do.

And regarding Galaxy: I never used it, I have no intention to ever change that.
Apart from that: I thought one of Galaxy's advantages over the offline installers was a rollback feature?

I totally agree with OP, it's easy just to add new version and keep the old one (at least for those who already bought it). But some companies prefer to destroy their digital legacy. For example:
1) Deep Silver added Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition as new ID in database alongside original one (for everyone), that's the reasonable option;
2) but recently Deep Silver replaced Saint's Row 4 by Re-Elected with requirement of Epic account in all stores, even Steam that have been fine without it before. Looks like there was Epic money case involved.

Er, isn't that the whole point of this discussion, when after a rerelease the original is no longer available?

Yes, the old version should always be available.
Remember that GoG was used to be called Good OLD Games and was meant to be a curator.

It's nice having the older version to act as a comparison too.
Consider the Dead Space remake; rather than just upgrading the graphics, they also added a bunch of extra dialogue and changes to character models. Necromorphs look considerably different to how they looked in the original, for example.

The overall environment design is different as well; the Ishimura in the original had a primarily "yellow" color scheme and looked more utilitarian.
The new version is more "blue" and darker and looks more...warhammer like, I guess.

As such, the "remake" may provide a different experience to the original, due to the changes in script, environment and models.

Does it really matter?
Fact is: if the OP already had the game in his possession before it got upgraded to (replaced by) a newer version, he could have downloaded/secured his old version at any time.

That's the huge advantage of buying DRM-free, after all.
That you can secure your game from getting accessed/changed by the store/publisher after purchase.