joppo: I don't know what Sony does because I'm not their customer, but going by what you said their system is fairly different from Gog's.
Don't you think Gog will need to work more into shoehorning Sony's approach into their current system before implementing Sony's solution to the problem INSTEAD OF just doing what I recommended? Or do you think a wildly different system can simply use the same solution of another with nary a thought?
The fact that Sony doesn't take refunds means they never had to take them in consideration, which allows them to go for a solution that wouldn't be possible or optimal if they needed to account for refunds
like Gog will have to.
kohlrak: The whole point of the suggestion to gog is to point out GOG's current system has a problem that could be easioly addressed by adopting a new system. Obviously there would be some migration costs, but there are costs associated with addressing this issue, too. Make no mistake, i got the GOTY version and i end up grabbing the goodie packs when they become available, because I never know what is and is not included with anything on GOG. I have the same problem with Sony's system (Buy a complete edition of a game only to be missing DLC afterwards), but at least i know when that's the case with minimal effort (i see the content as unpurchased, while all included content with one pack is properly marked as purchased). Of course, I do this willy nilly knowing that it might tax GOG's underyling code system, but I think that's something that they have to deal with as a result of not implementing a smarter system. I'm not going to make things convenient for GOG when they made things really inconvenient for me. This is something that could be automated and should have been from the start, but the reason they didn't was because they had different goals back then and went back on those goals. GOG is a far cry from what it was like when the system it's using was first designed. I think with their changes in policy, they should take the time to accept the cost of those philosophical changes.
That same problem could be addressed without adopting a new system too, you know.
I'm not convinced there is any actual benefit to changing to Sony's model. In fact, Gog's model is just as valid as Sony's, maybe even better. It is just obviously incomplete. The solution I propose completes it and doesn't cost much. So why screw around with the foundation of Gog's store code? It can't be better, faster or simpler than
not doing it.
To use an analogy, let's say your neighbor has an old washing machine by brand X and one day one gear breaks. (In this scenario tossing the old machine out and buying a new one isn't an option. Pick whatever reason you want for that).
Unfortunately he can't find those old pieces for sale so he will have to solve the problem another way.
I come in and say:
"Well, you already have a 3D printer. If you just 3d-print a gear following this specification I'm giving you, the problem is solved." You come in and say:
"Gears of Brand Y machines are available if you wanna buy one. They do not fit your machine at all, but you could swap the whole internals to be identical to a Brand Y machine and then the gear will fit". See how hard it's unnecessarily going to be?
(I was gonna use a car analogy but eh)
As for the part of Gog going back in their goals and changes in their policy... Yes they did all that but I don't see how it relates to the fact that their store code was improperly designed 13 years ago. If anything the flawed design is from before Gog ditched the 'Good Old Games" moniker and started pursuing the dream of forging "The client to rule them all"™
and in the darkness bind them
