I agree. The way this information is currently conveyed is just backward. Posting a notification to the forum should be the last thing that happens when a game is updated, not the only thing.

This information needs to be posted/attached/appended to a changelog that is accessible both on the general game page (in the right hand panel that lists Genre, Works on, ..., system requirements and so on) and on the game's page in the library. The latter is where we are notified there is an update. The changelog should include the entire history of updates to the game, not just the last change.

Go vote on the community wishlist - there are several requests to implement changelogs.

You're arguing about whether a dedicated client replaces access to your library via http/https entirely. That's not what is being discussed. I understand your concern, though, since you must be thinking of Steam.

I think PatTheMax was referring more to a usability issue that a properly implemented dedicated client could solve.

Rather than digging around in the forums on the website to see what the update was that you noticed on your library page, the client could examine your installed game and apply any updates relevant to your current platform as needed without you needing to manually download anything. It's a convenience that the website currently doesn't offer.

If you want to personally compare what has been updated on the website with what you have installed, and download something (full installer or patch) and apply it yourself, you should indeed still be able to do that.

So long as the client is not mandatory then GOG can still be considered DRM-free. But many people in the forums are worried that GOG Galaxy could become de facto mandatory over time. This could start with GOG no longer updating games through separate patches on the website, but through the client only. If downloading the game and patches cannot be done through the website anymore, I would argue that GOG could no longer call itself DRM-free. Here's hoping that GOG Galaxy will always be optional.

But that's not DRM. If you are familiar with Linux, most software is installed using a "dedicated client" we call a package manager. Downloading and installing software manually is rare, and if a package has to be installed and updated manually, it's considered a pain in the ass. Yet all the software installed with the dedicated client (apt-get, rpm, yum, etc.) is all free (as in freedom) software and very much DRM free. And if you really want to, you can manually download a package and invoke the package manager manually to install something.

A dedicated client is not DRM - it's considered a convenience in most of the modern and free software world. As long as it's not the only way to get software, your not losing anything, just gaining convenience.

Plus, I haven't heard ANYTHING to suggest that Galaxy would become mandatory, so I don't know where the worry is coming from. More likely, it might become so convenient that nobody sane would NOT use it because manually managing your ever-growing GOG library will be viewed as an exercise in masochism. I kind of already feel that way since my library has grown a lot in the last few years.

Here's the solution: rather than fearing Galaxy, make sure you advocate that it is either open-source so you can modify and improve it yourself so GOG can't control you, or lobby for an API that will support any number of clients, not just Galaxy..

Many people on GOG will disagree with that statement. Having to run an unnecessary client to play a computer game, especially if it demands to be online for a singleplayer game, is DRM. Right now GOG allows the user to manually download individual installers and patches without needing any kind of client to run--this is why it's DRM-free. Perhaps this conversation would be better on another forum since this is technically just for Outcast.

It's an interesting argument, whether or not the availability or (more correctly) accessibility of purchased content is part of the "No DRM" promise.

The line being drawn by IronArcturus would be exclusive access to content through a proprietary client (a browser or torrent client is not "proprietary" in the same sense).

Granted, it's not strictly DRM but we all get what he's saying and shouldn't focus to much on the technicality of it actually being DRM in the strict sense of the word.

If you purchase music e.g. on iTunes, it's practically DRM free (you can do with those m4a files as you please), yet you need either an iDevice or iTunes itself to access the store and be able to download your purchases.

So in short: Even with Galaxy being available, accessibility of purchases (and point release patches) should be widened not restricted.

I agree. When GOG Galaxy comes out, many are hoping it will make the GOG multiplayer gaming experience better, but we also don't want it to become mandatory to interfere with singleplayer games.

That's because GOG is...silly...with the version numbers.
What you see in the library is the game version as delivered/numbered by the developer, what you see on the download is the GOG installer version.

Yeah, it's stupid and confusing. And stupid. Also confusing.

I still don't understand why GOG can't just put the game's actual version number in the filename, or have both GOG's version and the game's version on there at once.

You sure do love updating Outcast. Probably what's happening is that you missed one of the many updates to the Outcast installer lately and didn't have previous latest version, as it seems these aren't incremental patches.

And about the version numbers, there's the GOG version and game version, and they're different in most titles.

What's happening with more recent updates? The Steam version is now several updates ahead of the GOG.com version.

I disagree.

DRM free means also a infrastructure where updates can't be enforced on you. Steam like update enforcement is a kind of digital right management... your right to run the version of software you want run is cut away. (sorry for this semi-necro but I think this important enough to be re-iterated despite being refuted well already by IronArcturus)

Ok, I don´t know what I´m doing wrong, or if I somehow didn´t understand what you guys were saying earlier in the thread. But I have downloaded the latest installer, the patch and the hotfix, and neither the patch or the hotfix will work. It says I have the wrong version. Shouldn´t the patch uploaded on GoG be matching the installer, you know, uploaded on GoG?

What does it show at the top of your opening menu for version number?