Well, again, anecdotal evidence does not constitute proof.

Clearly... as demonstrated by countless examples listed here, and throughout the internet... many people have NOT been able to make this work on a modern system, or have not been able to do so without significant "third party patching."

In my own case, I found THIS patch several years ago and have been able to use it to run D1 on modern hardware, but have NEVER been able to get it to run properly without this. There was always a slew of DirectDraw-related corruption issues which made the game unplayable.

http://www.strangebytes.com/index.php/projects/1-diablo-1-windows-7-vista-patch

Other people have had other issues. The list of them is extensive, and can be easily found by a basic Google search.

I'm glad for you that you happen to have systems which allowed the base game to run without issues. But this puts you into a SUBSET of the gaming public, and does not make you representative of everyone. MANY people have not been able to make it run, or at least not run properly (as my own experience with corrupted pallets and flickering displays, or crash-to-desktop events demonstrated).

I'm sure GoG's team looked into how many systems could run the "vanilla, original" D1 these days, and realized that selling just that would not really be practical. They spent extra time and resources (along with Blizzard) to create a NEW version. Why do you imagine that they did this? Just for the fun of it? Or because it was, in fact, NECESSARY to do in order to have an actually sellable product?

As I've said before... this is TEN DOLLARS. Less than the cost of a decent fast-food meal. The original game, in 1987, sold for about $70. Adjusted for inflation, that's $156 in current dollars. So, the re-released GoG version costs (in adjusted dollars) about 6.4% of the original selling price, AND it adds improvements (even if you don't care about those improvements).

Honestly, it seems like a bargain to me, EVEN if there were nothing new at all.

I didn't have to buy it. But I bought the original when I was a younger man, in 1987, and it's nice to have it entirely working again now, without having to jump through hoops. And it cost me (from my own standpoint) almost NOTHING... less, as I say, than it would cost to pick up a danish, juice, and coffee from Panera on the way to work!

I honestly can't imagine why so many people are "protesting" the re-release of this classic game. It's BIZARRE. It's freakishly strange.

Okay, a FEW make their positions quite clear... they call Diablo 1 "abandonware" and they have installed what are literally STOLEN installations of the game, and don't want to be guilted into buying a legitimate copy, or given grief about having done so. They want to feel "morally clean" over having "stolen property." Fine. Nobody is FORCING THEM TO BUY IT. Nobody is forcing anyone who, like you, has the original game in a perfectly working state on their modern hardware (which begs the question, though, why you're even reading these comments and posting in them, doesn't it? It's not like you NEED to buy the GoG version, is it?)

So... why are so many people evidently OPPOSED to the commercial re-release...with some improvements... of this classic game? It's truly odd.

You know, many people can't play Metro Exodus. It crashes, there are a lot of bugs in it, there are problems with sound and so on. Is this a reason to re-release the game? I do not think so. It works great for most people. If it didn’t work for you before, and now it works just fine - good for you. But I wonder, why should I buy it?

Not to mention the fact that GOG is lying on the description page. For example, they presented everything as if the 20-frame limit is only in the classic version, and there is no FPS CAP in the new one. Not true. And all those graphic options do not affect the image. Antialiasing and anisatropic filtering do nothing. Why are they needed in the setup program?
MANY are not equal MOST. And i am sure there are a LOT of people who cannot launch this NEW version. Do you have any statistics? What is the ratio of people who CAN play the game relative to those who are CAN'T? In any case, besides COMPATIBILITY, they promised IMPROVEMENTS. Where are they? Graphics are the same. Controls is the same. FPS is the same. What's the point? I have my own diablo disk, and the game works great.

I doubt very much that all the added fixes "do nothing." But whatever they do is something you seem not to be able to see, so that's fair to point out.

You ask the questeion "but I wonder, why should I buy it?"

To which my own answer is simply "you don't have to if you don't want to."

You already, by your own explanation, have not one but two fully working Diablo installations (that's another issue, as technically, you are only allowed to install it to one computer unless you have two purchased copies, by the original licensing agreement, but we'll ignore that for now).

If you're happy with what you have... as I, frankly was, after the patch I mentioned above... so much the better for you.

I went ahead and bought it anyway, because (a) I want GoG to continue to sell "good old games" made fully compliant with modern systems, and (b) I like having the option of LEGALLY installing it to multiple locations. And I suppose (c)... I like the "improvements" provided (which I can see, even if you can't).

I would recommend you take a long look at the patched Win7/Vista/etc. version I linked to above. It provides the same general patches, AND has something that this version does not... other (higher) resolutions. However, the higher resolutions (since the TILE SIZES do not change) means that the GAMEPLAY is changed... giving you the ability to see much further than you could in the original Diablo game. This makes gameplay a lot easier... it's essentially a "long sight cheat" which allows you to see enemies before they can see you, and thus drastically alters the gameplay. But it DOES represent an "improvement" which might be more appealing to you.

I'm perfectly happy having shelled out the cost of a McDonalds meal to get a new copy of Diablo... and to support those making it available again to a new generation.

But... if it isn't appealing to you... why should you spend your money on it? You shouldn't, simply stated.

EDIT: Again, for those bothered by the "lies" from above... here's what the game page says:

**********************************************************************************************

Traveler, stay awhile and listen...

Darkness stirs beneath Tristram. An ancient evil sweeps across the land, plunging it into civil war and terrorizing the populace. A mad king, his missing son, and a mysterious archbishop are all pieces of the puzzle you need to hack through. You have journeyed to the source of this evil. The town of Tristram - now inhabited only by a handful of survivors, broken and twisted by the madness that has befallen them. A cathedral stands there, built over the ruins of an ancient monastery. Eerie lights and ungodly sounds are heard echoing through its abandoned halls, and that is where you shall venture.

Embark, if you dare, on a quest to destroy The Prime Evil…

Experience the legendary action/RPG that influenced an entire genre.
Storm Diablo's halls as either a Warrior, a Sorcerer or a Rogue - each with unique skills and abilities.
Unite to destroy Diablo - up to 4 players can band together via Internet, or play head-to-head via direct IP.
Unprecedented replayability - over 200 different monsters inhabit Diablo's ever-changing labyrinth. Equip epic items to conquer fearsome bosses and their minions.
A spine-chilling story - experience the horror of a world held in the grasp of The Lord of Terror.


Ahhh, fresh meat!

Travelers looking for the authentic Diablo experience can play the game as it was in 1996, with period-appropriate 20 FPS SVGA graphics, and the ability to matchmake through the classic version of Blizzard’s Battle.net® online-gaming service.
For those wanting something a bit more modern, Blizzard and GOG.COM have collaborated on an updated version of the game tuned for today’s gaming PCs, which includes out-of-the-box Windows 10 compatibility, a host of bug fixes and high-resolution support via aspect ratio-correct upscaling.

The most voted game on the GOG.com wishlist, finally trapped in a DRM-free soulstone!
Return to the beginning of this dark saga, now in digital format for the first time ever.
Better value than Wirt's wares, guaranteed.

**********************************************************************

It says that the display mode for the original is 20fps, 800x600 (aka "SVGA") resolution. On any system which cannot handle such low framerates, your drivers (hopefully) can "interpolate" additional frames. Most can, but a few can't. It does result in some "herky-jerky" movement, however, potentially. And not every monitor or graphics card is capable of upscaling 800x600 (at 4:3) to 1920x1080 (at 16:9) or even higher. Many cases will result in "postage stamp" displays. Others... far more... will result in "fattened, stretched, distorted" graphics.

They never claimed to be "redesigning Diablo from the ground up for modern systems." Only making a version 100% compatible with modern systems.

That is... one more time... NOT A BAD THING.

If you don't think it's worth your money... vote with your wallet. Don't buy it.

I suspect that Diablo is going to prove to be one of GoG's all-time biggest sellers, though... but if I'm wrong, people like you voting with your wallet are the ones who'll make them change this.

But complaining that they didn't give you a "fully retooled from the ground up" remake of Diablo, as so many (maybe you, though I'm not sure) seem to be going on about?

That's just silly. Buy it, or don't. In your case... "don't" would seem to be the right choice, I think.

I made screenshots for comparison. THEY ARE LITERALLY DO NOTHING! You know, I work a lot with graphics. And I know exactly what anisatropic filtering and anti-aliasing do.

Realy? And if I wanted to buy them because of the "IMPROVEMENTS"? What if I read the description on the game page in GOG and thought that they had made some improvements? What if I had not previously taken a copy of the game from a friend who bought it? In this case, I would buy the game and find out that GOG lied to me. Well, they certainly did not lie LITERALLY. They just misled me.

That's what they said.

Travelers looking for the authentic Diablo experience can play the game as it was in 1996, with period-appropriate 20 FPS SVGA graphics
***
an updated version of the game tuned for today’s gaming PCs, which includes out-of-the-box Windows 10 compatibility, a host of bug fixes and high-resolution support

Admit it, it sounds like updated version has MORE THAN 20 FPS. Ah, and those improvements are "INCLUDED", right? In fact, these are the ONLY improvements they have made.

They do something quite a bit different when rendering a 3D scene than they do when rendering a 2D, tile-based system. The tiles are pixelated, by definition. You are upscaling them and doing that so that there are no artifacts and the like. The effects are also rendered "upscaling artifact free." But, of course, the tiles remain the same size, the same pixel resolution, and the same count of tiles filling up your screen.

Again... you can try the patch I linked you to above. You can set higher resolutions if you like. But it SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERS THE GAMEPLAY as a result... and that, to me, is not worth it. To you, it might be, though. Shakespeare would have called this "much ado about nothing," I think.

Nobody is getting anything else but what is promised... DIABLO. Not "a remake of Diablo." Not a "remastered edition" of Diablo. Just a version that they can be assured will run, without issues, on their current system. And for a trivial amount of money. Well, it didn't "sound that way" to me. But then, I understood that how the game engine works is NOT the same as a "3D rendered real-time scene" is rendered. Perhaps you were thinking that you were going to get 3D-rendered real-time dungeons (think "Dungeon Keeper II") with classic Diablo's gameplay?

The game was only, ever, tile-based. You'd have to rewrite the game from the bottom up... recreate all assets, recreate the game engine, you name it... to create any other version of Diablo.

And if they did that, they'd be justified in charging a LOT more than $9.99 USD.

If it says that it's wrong. The original resolution is only 640x480.

Well, SVGA is 800x600, and they say SVGA... so yeah, you're right. Now, SVGA can display lower resolutions as well, but those are not technically SVGA... just as SVGA can display lower color counts, but that doesn't make SVGA EGA.

For anyone interested... here's a short primer on SVGA.

https://www.techopedia.com/definition/1287/super-vga-svga

No, in that case the description is correct. Regular VGA was defined as having only 256k of ram so 640x480 was only supported in 16 colours (4-bit mode), 640x480x8bpp was considered super VGA.

really? hm, thats strange, perhaps gog version setted something up and when I try cd version it was working. At the end, I am happy to support it, perhaps I was hoping for a little bit more.... astill I am going to support and buy day 1 warcraft 1 and 2 if it will release here.

Actually, that's pretty common...

One part of the installation which GoG typically installs is a "Windows Compatibility Fix." If you're familiar, at all, with the "Compatibility Toolkit" (which is available separately for Windows up through 8, but is only available as part of a larger download as of Win10, rather stupidly I think!)... you'll be familiar with how this works.

GoG installers install a separate "fix database" for every program they install. And they tweak those "fix databases" from time to time.

I hate having the massive number of separate databases, so I simply consolidate their "fixes" into my one, main "Fix database" on a regular basis, and ensure that the fixes they're using are not conflicting with the ones I have created for my own disk-based versions.

In the case of Diablo, the "Compatibility fix" they installed does not merely recognize the GoG version, but will also impact your disk-based version...

... so, it's not surprising to see that your disk-based version works the same as the GoG version does, on your OS installation. It SHOULD. :)