fair enough.

I like to have full control, and i like to know what happens on my system. I have always preferred the old manual method of updating, to a third-party autopatcher.

I have no problem if the games themselves have a built-in updating function, as long as there still is downloadable update packs available if i wish to perform an offline update instead.

that is extremely rare though, and I have never experienced it.

Overall, even if a game or two had broken through patching, I still think that the amount of time I would have had to waste to manually patch all my games compared with the time I would have wasted re-downloading those few games again would still be in favour of a modern system of patching.

Same here, I'm the type that likes a "patch" folder o' patches for my games,

True but very often a new patch is not compatible with a mod until a new version of the mod comes out.

The inevitability of updates and patches is the primary reason why I hold back on buying new releases, but I think people are right that it's not GOG's fault if a game needs to be patched (a lot). However, I do notice an error sometimes which "voids" your download, and in that case you have to restart, but I don't know if this problem is also BKAC.

Exactly and it gets only even more cumbersome if you need to have other clients as well, like Origin or Uplay.

I would have to agree with the OP but since I'm technically barred from modern games anyway it's not much of an issue for me.

Indeed, if GOG ever took on an alpha or beta game (which is becoming increasingly common as a pre-order perk) then it would absolutely need to have a solid method of patch distribution.

Look at the D:OS kickstarter - the alpha is now available and it's Steam-only. The inability of GOG to offer a competing option likely has a direct impact on which service backers ultimately redeem on, which likely has an impact on their future purchasing behavior. Another issue that would need to be addressed. GOG's dedication to thorough quality control is laudable and well-suited to older titles, but incompatible with the rapid-fire patching typical of newer releases. For better or worse, games just don't release in a 100% stable state these days and are dependent on timely patches.

My 2-cents is that GOG should go for the best of both worlds: create a light-weight and optional auto-patcher program. It would detect which GOG games you have installed, notify you of updates, and allow you to choose when (and if) to install them. These patches could be delivered rapidly on the initiative of developers without requiring any specific oversight from GOG. Meanwhile, the game's installer as distributed from the GOG site would continue to uphold their high QC standards and updates to the installer would only be applied once they had passed those tests. The key is to provides a balance of options and gives control to the user as to which approach they want to use, while also providing the ability for developers to reach their customers in a timely and efficient manner.

What the crap, is that GOG's or the devs' reply?

I completely agree, it's not very user friendly. Though I don't really care because I usually wait before plmaying the games I buy so that I get a nicer experience (to avoid issues when the release has been rushed). I even bought The Witcher 2 day one (actually, pre-ordered it) and waited for the big patch before playing it.

That isn't true, GOG updated the main installers instead of releasing a patch due to the patch sizes but uninstalling then reinstalling was not necessary.

http://www.gog.com/forum/rise_of_the_triad_series/version_11_is_now_live_and_in_omg_its_coming_after_us_size

and

http://www.gog.com/forum/shadow_warrior_series/shadow_warrior_2013_has_been_updated_to_version_107

I think GOG's patching process is as close to perfect as it can be... at least for me :D

I used to think that having an optional client manage updates would be a good idea, until I realised that it would be of no practical use to me.

I only have a couple dozen games installed on my PC at any one time, so an auto-patching client would waste bandwidth redownloading the same updates whenever I choose to reinstall a game (unless the client gives me the option to save the patch permanently and then run it manually... which GOG already does).

I also store my all my game installers on removable hard drives, but as I create a new archive image of them to add better error detection (which will aid recovery if the hard drives start to fail) as well as encrypt them (making their contents worthless to thieves), the files end up looking very different to what I initially downloaded, and hence even having a client that could scan for installer files for uninstalled games in order to recommend missing patches... would be useless.

Also, an auto-patching client could defeat the DRM-free objective. It's the same as having DRM free retail games, but you need to patch them using an online patching process, thus effectively adding back DRM if you want to play the latest version of the game since you don't know when the servers hosting the online patches might go down forever.

So what I want is to be able to permanently download and save a DRM-free version of the game to hard drive (which GOG allows), be notified when new updates have been released which I haven't downloaded yet (which GOG now does), and then optionally download those updates so I can install them offline (which GOG allows). I really can't ask for better than this.

I couldn't resist buying Shadow Warrior (the 2013 release) on the recent sale, but I won't download it for a while yet because I expect updates to happen. I personally don't want to start playing a game until it's pretty close to being the final version. And then I'll download it once... and keep it forever.

There is a notification whenever there's an update; if you go to "my account" and click the button that says "new and updated" it'll show you only what has updated. Or you can just scroll down until you reach the game with the update notification flag. It's quite rare that GOG requires you to have to redownload an entire game and it has only ever happened because the patches involved were so large. They could, but with the way GOG currently handles patches - by providing only the base installer + latest patch - you'd end up downloading far more, as each patch has to include all previous updates (so when a large update comes up, all future updates would have to be at least as big as that too... e.g. if a 2GB update arrives then all further updates would also be >2GB).

GOG could provide each update separately, requiring them to be installed in order, but this would also be a hassle and I'm sure would lead to further complaints after more than a few patches have been released. Instead of installing the base game + latest patch as you do now, you'd have to install the base game, followed by patch 1, then patch 2, then patch 3, then patch 4 etc...

GOG could provide both kinds of updates, but then they'd need to build and test both sets of patches, including testing compatibility between them etc. This would likely mean that patches would take even longer to arrive than they do now and would increase the risk of issues cropping up. The base installer for ROTT showed as updated but I'm certain that was a mistake, as its version number was unchanged. Also I didn't have any issues applying the patch to the version I had installed. Well GOG has to wait for the developers to send them patches first (this is usually the main holdup - GOG can't release what they don't have), then they have to create a patcher, then test it to make sure it works properly & rebuild if there are any errors etc. and this all takes time.