Yeah, I'm in the same boat, but I went ahead and bought the remake anyway.

Nobody stops you from buying more than one copy?

Just more proof that many gamers are not happy unless they find something to whine about.

And I just do not get why peole are so obsessed with Acheivements. If you must have them, then go buy the Steam version of the game. Me,I will take DRM free over acheivements any day of the week.
And GOG does have plans to get acheivments in GOG Galaxy...it is just they want to be sure that GOG Galaxy is fully functional and stable before they start adding additional features to it. I think they learned something from what was obviously the premature release of GOG Galaxy Beta. It should have been more thoroughly tested before being made avaialbel in Beta.
For the record, it is working much better for me since it came out of Beta a few weeks ago. I don't have the endless waits to install I used to have.

I just beat the game using Wine + Linux.

I am very satisfied with the remastered version. :-)

About the price...
Is a dosen of silver a fair price for a remastered product?
Then I read game & cinema news and reboots pop up. And I don't feel good.

HD graphics with the same gameplay making it (hopefully) more apealing to new generations as well as for the veterans because of th epossibility to switch between old and new. That is why they do make these remasters.

However this comes with a big downside. The remastered are much more demanding and probably don't run on some older systems anymore at all.

So I can understand that there are some people who really would prefer the original DOS version but I can also understand why Doublefine is making these remastered versions. I personally like them as long as they don't change the "original" part of it.

I really don't like "DRM-Free Editions" of games!
But if missing achievements is the only difference then I couldn't care less.

Original files are indeed contained in full.data, we just have to wait until
someone is able to extract them :-)

I was just watching this comparison video and most of it looks good, but what's with the desert? Why those rock piles on the side of the road? I don't see the reason for some changes. :/

https://youtu.be/Nt5TMGkEjHU?t=3m41s

Those are the same as in the scene right after (where it looks more like the original). It was probably easier/cheaper to reuse them in this particular scene. But I agree, the original looked quite different (and better) here.

crashed at launch on my win 7 machine

runs ok on laptop with win 10 creators update

Where's the Mac version?

I preordered a month back when I saw this great game come out for all platforms. So, it was with a little surprise that when I try and download with Galaxy, I'm told it's not compatible. I see only the Windows version is available.
I'm not trying to start any fires, but I see no notice whatsoever about what happened (or is happening) to the Mac version.
Does anyone have any info, since it just seems odd that all references to the Mac version are no longer there.

It would've been nice for GoG to least leave some notice that the Mac version was being worked on and wouldn't be available the supposed day of release. I preordered specifically because I loved the original game but also since i wanted the play this on my Mac.

But how can these remakes cost more than a new indie game, if all they have to do is "put the old stuff in", and the result is even buggy? Plus, I am not sure that a game that looks nice as an oldie will still be perceived as a good game by new audiences once it's been made look new. Because it could be seen as one of the "new" buggy and clumsy point and click that flood the market. I am more likely to forgive the bad parts of the gameplay for an older game.
And people seem to like pixellated graphics for the genre anyway. Thimbleweed Park looks successful, and there are all those Wadjet Eye games, and Kathy Rain and many others that seem to tell so.
Do point and click lovers care for HD? It looks like the opposite. I know I have selected examples that are convenient for my pow...But I see a lot of people complaining with moder looking adventures that there seem to be a lack of substance behind the graphics, more often than not.
By the way I have tried to play Grim Fandango Remasted with my girlfriend, and the better graphics could not make a difference for her. As someone unexperienced to gaming, the remake was even more confusing because they mixed 2 modes of gameplay. Those funny controls and camera angles made her crazy and we gave up when the game kept freezing in the same spot on her Macbook. So much for remastering. So I am not sure that just updatind the graphics can make an old game appealing for the younger generation. Maybe an old game is an old game, for old dudes. As for me I am staying away from these I see as a cheap way to make easy cash and seem to be less playable and enjoyable than the originals.
As for a more radical remake, I could not even get past the intro in Gabriel Knight. When characters are pixellated my imagination can complete them better that those 3D stiff and expressionless mannequins.

That was my situation as well. I didn't mean that GOG was deliberately trying to "piss people off", so I'm sorry if that's how my message sounded. What I meant was that the pre-order page listed the game as being compatible with Mac (and Linux) and the release date as 18 April 2017, but in fact this was only the Windows release date. Whether intentional or not, it was misleading.

Normally, when I purchase a Windows-only game on my Mac, a warning comes up during checkout that the game is not compatible with my Mac. It would have been helpful if a similar warning came up when pre-ordering this game, to indicate that the Mac version would not be available on the advertised release date.

In fact, the game page still had Mac specs listed after release. These were only removed after my original post asking where the Mac download was. I'm sure this was just an oversight, but it still resulted in more confusion and indeed could have led Mac users to purchase the released game thinking it was compatible with their system.

I'm not blaming GOG for the delayed release - I know that's out of their hands - I just think their communication regarding the matter could have been much better. And as for skeletonbow's question, yes, I would prefer for them to delay making premature announcements, especially when those announcements involve taking pre-orders for a game that they don't have all the release details for. I would much rather a surprise announcement that the game has been released but is Windows-only, rather than them taking my money weeks ago but still being unable to tell me when I'll actually receive the product I paid for.

10-15$ is the average price for an indie game so the pricing imo is not that steep. They don't simply put everything old in it - afaik the process is much more complicate even though the end result seems to be just a polished version of what once was. And how could you say that the result is buggy? Maybe in the beginning but nearly every new indie game needs some bugfixing at the beginning.

But if the remastered versions would not have a paying audience I am sure Doublefine would stop making them at all. So your assumption does not seem to be correct.

Valid point but there are also several people who would not pay much at all for such pixelated games because they simply don't look expoensive enough. I'd think that is the reason why Doublefine decided to give their games at least the option to not look pixelated.

I can only speak for myself and I can tell you that I am thrilled to see one of my favorite games of the days in HD because the game surely will be fun but it really does not look very good anymore because of the HD monitors we use nowadays. So yes, I'd prefer a HD point + click with a good story and good puzzles to a pixelated games with good story and good puzzles. My focus will always be on gameplay but of course I appreciate it if the game also looks nice.

Also true because a good looking game witht bad gameplay will never be as good as a bad looking game with good gameplay. However a good looking game with good gameplay will mostly always be better than a bad looking game even with good gameplay. Without good gameplay the looks don't help much but in addition to the already good gameplay they add value to the game. At least that is the way I see it.

But isn't it unfair to judge because of one or a few opinions? Imo the Grim Fandango Controls were always bad and I was very glad to get the possibility to finally use mouse with it without having to use a mod. So I could still enjoy the game without being annoyed by the clumsy controls. About the bug you experienced - as I said many of those are in many games shortly after release - report them to the devs and ask for support you might get an updated version fixing the game.

Of course nobody forces you to buy these and why should you if you don't enjoy them? My whole point simply was telling you possible reasons of why Doublefine still is doing them. Ask yourself a different question: why investing tons of work in a remastered version if they could just resell the game (for about the same price like every old game is sold which nearly is the price of the remastered meaning about 7-10$) and be done with it?

Also a valid opinion. As for GK I will also always prefer the original version but I would not always prefer the original especially if the original is given me as a bonus (not really here but almost) when buying the remastered version. If they would give me a remastered version of GK3 which imo has terrible gameplay but a great story I'd probably prfer the remaster here.