To be fair, the more I think about it, the more I realize that my real mistake was to start playing the game on release day. I've been around long enough to know that's asking for trouble. Steams rapid patch delivery just mitigates the problem of release bugs, it does not solve it.

Agreed, I can tolerate a bit of a delay but there's erally no excuse for 3.0.5 not to be available by now. If Gog want to compete with Steam they need to pull their finger out.

[edited: spelling]

Games shouldn't need significant patching at release. That's problem #1.

There should be some patching to fix minor issues and tweak balancing post-release. After all, this isn't Shadowrun Returns, so most of it is just content.

GOG not being able to have the patch ready for the weekend is something they really should communicate.

Tweaking balance after release is probably my biggest pet peeve about patching. I absolutely hate balance tweaks, at least for single player games. If the devs want to plan the way I play, they better do it before I get used to playing that way and start to enjoy it and/or rely on it in leveling up etc.

I don't mind balance tweaks for a new game. I do mind when a lot of story is borked up. I think hbs could have done a better job on this release.

I fear that game-makers are more and more accepting the idea that their customers will test for them after release. And I fear that the game-buyers are accepting that idea too.

It's up to the dev to have working games on release. Patches shouldn't even need to be applied for months, and in that case it's also up to the devs to get it out.

I will keep buying off GOG because I hate DRM. I'd rather wait a week, two weeks, whatever for a patch, especially when the game is very much in a playable state as this one is, than have any type of DRM.

If DRM doesn't bother you, I can understand going with Steam. But it saddens me that gamers are so accepting of DRM and would take that choice.

I'm firmly in the school of "games shouldn't need day one patches", especially those that are digital only. When a disc has to be pressed, I can understand a bug or two slipping through, but I would always rather a delayed release than a buggy release. Ever since "online consoles" became a thing, it seems to be not just common but almost universally accepted that patches - often HUGE patches - will be needed over the first few weeks of a game's release. IMO, that's unacceptable and using paying customers as bug testers (the only time I don't mind that is when a game is up-front and charges much less for beta versions pre-release).

So often one sees posts like "guess I shouldn't have bought/played the game on Day One"... while the industry increasingly pushes pre-orders. These two factors seem very at odds with one another, and frankly I don't like the feeling that I supported the dev by buying a game on release rather than getting it used or on sale late in it's life cycle, yet being the one to do their testing while late adopters who pay pennies for the game get a better experience.

In regards to GOG, I agree that long-delays in patches compared to "other" sources; I can recall several games I played copies from elsewhere after buying them on GOG until GOG's release caught up to the current version.

As I said earlier, I'd rather a working patch than a broken one, sure, and I have no trouble with GOG being a day or two behind Steam patches due to the automated nature of how Steam works for devs. It's when we find ourselves waiting a week or even longer for a patch that I get angry, and feel treated like a customer who doesn't matter.

Well on the plus side, if the wait goes on much longer we can jump straight to the 3.0.6 patch.

They've started beta testing this on Steam (for those that opt in to it). Not sure how long it'll be in beta for, but it might be released before anything changes here.

Actually all this talk about updates etc. has me thinking back to the days before digital distribution. Remember how back then, when patches came out, the devs would just release the patch directly on their website, allowing anyone who wanted it to simply download the patch?

What happened to that method of patch distribution!?! It didn't require other sites to "manage" this - it was just the developers/publishers. I reckon things would be so much better if we just went back to that way of doing things - so I reckon all devs should just release updates directly on their website(s), or even other websites (remember how lots of gaming websites would mirror some of these patches?).

CDPR released their day one activation patch on their website I believe.

Btw, how exactly is HK on "3" .05? Did they start at 3 for some reason?

Edit: And wth is with the extra decimal point....

I think that when they went to Director's Cut for DF, they went up a major version (2.x.x), so now that they've changed the mechanics significantly some more, they've upped another major version (3.x.x). Makes sense to me.

Not sure what you mean about the decimal...

Shadowrun Returns is 1.x.x, Shadowrun: Dragonfall is 2.x.x, and Shadowrun: Hong Kong is 3.x.x ie Shadowrun 1, 2, and 3. The x.#.x part is a moderate/large version change, where the x.x.# is a smaller update (normal patch). It can be 3.0.27 or something, its not limited to single digits.

It looks like steam already has a beta 3.0.6 now and still just 3.0.4 on GOG. I wish the dev's could directly push a patch onto the Galaxy downloader for their games, then there would only be a delay getting it to the website download links. That or all games had their own updater like how some games check for updates when you launch them.

x.y.z, you mean?

X is the major number (indicates the biggest changes - like a WoW expansion: from vanilla to TBC, it went from 1.something to 2.0), Y is the minor number (minor changes or significant bugfixes - continuing with the WoW analogy, content patches) and finally Z is the revision number - basically, bugfixes only. Sometimes it is called "release".

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/615227/how-to-do-version-numbers

I didn't have the biggest armor at the end, but an Ares Alpha (Smartlink version) and only 1.25 essence left. That was with version 3.0.0.
So yes, you can Cyber yourself out until you're nearly as "un"human as Racter and just about rival Ambrose. ;)
I had two cyberarms, two cyberlegs, bone lacing, dermal plates, datajack, cybereyes and a monofilament whip. I think the only thing I didn't mod was the brain slot and quite a few of my cyberware was alphaware, too, if there was an Alphaware version avaiable. I could have bought one of the brain biowares if I'd chosen not to buy the second best armor, but those honestly don't give many perks to a Rifle using Streetsam.

What's the point of GOG Galaxy if they can't upload the latest raw build as they get it ?

Installing through Galaxy is 10 GB download, while downloading from GOG site is ~3GB. This makes me think that Galaxy actually downloads the raw build locally. (the installed game is ~10GB).

So why, why, why ? don't they just upload the latest build from the vendor to Galaxy ? There is no need for Q&A, just upload the build.

Or let the customer download the source files as you get them from the vendor without any Q&A at his own risk...

Seriously, this has been a problem since forever and GoG just refuses to find a solution. Should have chosen the steam key...

The exact same thing happened with Pillars of Eternity, but since then Galaxy was up so I thought the problem is fixed...apparently not. Very, very disappointed with GoG...