It just shows if the argument is coherent, like saying that something must work 100% of the cases and time, or else... So I presume this requirement applies also to e.g. Steam offline mode, even though I've seen some Steam-proponents here implying that it should be enough that the offline mode usually works, and fails only occasionally.

I've already said that I am promoting an optional client/updater for GOG, in order to lure more people here (also to buy indie/newer games here). As long as it is indeed optional. I am personally fine with using only offline patches too, as long as:

- they are fully compatible with all base versions, ie. you can install them over any earlier version. Apparently this wasn't fulfilled with Shadow Warrior if I understood right, ie. the newest patch requires certain base level. Which is definitely something that should be avoided. I don't like reinstalling my games either just to update them, which is something I always have to do with Humble Bundle DRM-free games/installers by the way.

- they are incremental, ie. include all the changes from the earlier patches as well, so no need to run but only the latest patch. No mandatory intermediate versions. Closely related to the earlier point.

So as long as those are fulfilled, I promote autoupdating client mainly because it makes business sense for GOG to lure more people to GOG with ease of use.

I guess the logic is - why should gog bother improving when other services also do something else wrong?

It is a good way of thinking to make sure nothing ever gets done. Likewise - Valve should not really try to improve cloud saves or offline mode, because, you know, gog's patching system is bit iffy.

No, the logic was that you seem to show such 100% strictness only towards GOG. When I bring up an example regarding Steam, suddenly you are "*shrug*", and it suddenly doesn't seem so important anymore. Double standards.

I already have said several times that I am for an improved _optional_ GOG client. GOG should keep expanding the current downloader client, bit by bit, with new features.

Yeah, that's the fallacy.

It came from communist era, while on every critique to the govt, USSR responded "and in USA they beat negroes" - someone else makes something faulty too, we don't need to do shit.

I think a better analogy was USSR complaining about the homeless people in US. A bit like someone complaining that something in GOG must work 100% all the time, but the same doesn't seem to apply to Steam (e.g. offline mode), instead it is *shrug*.

I disagree completely with the TS and am honestly downright disgusted by his unfair lashing out at GOG.com for something that is clearly the fault of the developer of Shadow Warrior (2013). When a dev designs their patching system and game engine all around Steam, and makes their GOG patching an afterthought, is it the fault of GOG's model? It has nothing to do with GOG's model whatsoever. I like the GOG model. The only thing I would like is to have a manually downloadable backlist of every patch version ever. I want to download a patch, and install that patch. I despise auto-updates. I want to know what the patch notes are, and decide for myself whether or not to install a patch, and I want the ability to go back to a previous version of a game, or to stick with a version that I like because I do not like the updated changes to a game. This empowerment (as opposed to lazy mommy-hand-holding) of the gamer has been a part of PC gaming since the beginning, all the way until the DRM for lazy & apolitical gamers that is Steam. I choose empowerment and informed choice.

Since the beginning of PC gaming, there have been good patching and bad patching. The responsibility lies with the game devs for making an engine that thought about patching in the first place.

Dear GOG, please never make your patching system anything like Steam's. Give us manual patches, choice, and empowerment. Thanks.

It may be difficult for you to grasp, but apparently, not every issue is just as important as any other issue for some people.

For me, offline mode is not something really crucial, I don't do that often, but updating games? I do that all the time. But brining up steam on GOG forums in every topic in which someone complains about GOG's lack of features is pretty much pointless.

Even if that was true, and amok is having double standards, it still has nothing to do with GOG lacking updates policy.

Completely agree. Autopatching is horrific, especially for those of us with bad net connections. Plus, a lot of the time, the latest patch isn't even necessary to have a fully playable experience.

This is why everybody in this thread is talking about OPTIONAL autoupdate in GOG client, so everyone could decide how they update their games.

Just becuase you don't like something, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be avaible for everybody else.

I would actually prefer something in the middle, so that for those who want to use a GOG client, checking the versions of your installed games would be automatic, and updating a game could be merely e.g. clicking an update button inside the client (or even letting the client do that automatically whenever it sees there is a new update for some game on the GOG servers).

But under the hood, it would still use the current GOG game installers and updaters, for those of us who also want the files separately as a fallback, and use them manually without a client if we want. I presume that would be easier for GOG too as they wouldn't have to keep up two separate patching systems/file formats, but use only one, client or not.

But in order for that to really work, the patches should probably be incremental, and work with all earlier versions of the game. Well, not quite necessarily I guess, of course that magical update button in the client could also do all those extra steps itself (like uninstalling Shadow Warrior (but not the save games), downloading and installing a newer version, and finally downloading and installing a patch). It would still seem only as a one step to the end-user, only taking a longer time.

It is the same idea as with e.g. the Humble Bundle Android client. It didn't try to reinvent the wheel like coming up with its own file format and patching system for Android games, but it simply downloads and installs generic .apk installers. So a GOG client could similarly still use generic (innosetup?) .exe installers and patches. It doesn't necessarily have to be fancier than that, just hide it all from the end user if they so wish (by choosing to use the client)..

That might be but still it's not the best strategy of GOG to add delay on top of that. Just keep it as minimal and as convenient as possible. Nothing is more convenient as an optional auto patching mechanism.

No, but is has everything to do with him huffing and puffing about it on GOG. Actually the discussion at that point wasn't strictly about auto-update, but sometimes patches taking a long time to arrive to GOG, and the individual cases where merely applying one patch over the existing game is not necessarily enough.

Why should he care anyway? After all, he has already proclaimed he doesn't buy any indie games from GOG ever and is here only for the classics (except if they are also on Steam I guess, like Shadowman), and I've understood he doesn't even wish to see more indie games being released on GOG. Client or not. He wants to play the indies on Steam, and that's that.

So his whole point for these complaints seems to be to discourage _anyone_ from buying any newer/indie games from GOG.

I don't go to Steam forums complaining how shitty their support for older classics there is and trying to discourage Steam users from buying older games on Steam, because I don't buy classics (nor really indies for that matter) from Steam and hence couldn't care less how they treat their classics. But I still care about offline mode working properly as I have quite a few non-GOG games on Steam too.

The only good auto-patching system I see at the moment is the Windows internal patch distribution system. You can download all patches separately, you can opt-in or opt-out and you can even decide whether or not to install a certain update. You can tell it to download the patches, but not install them, you can tell it to only remind you about a new update or you can disable it completely. Perfect system in my opinion. I don't know if Linux can do something similar with its packet managers.

I would like to see the developers all distribute their patches over a central system like Windows Update rather than having lot's of clients for every developer or digital distribution platform. That being said, the developers would be most convenient to handle patching within their own auto-updater like already pointed out in my previous post.

I've been having issues with the patching lately, as well as the downloader. The latest patch for Shadow Warrior didn't launch, instead I had to go to the file location and find the right patch and launch it myself. Not a huge deal, except the magnifying glass tab in the downloader takes me to the wrong place. So I have to start at Computer>files>GoG.com>shadow warrior. It's been doing this for a while now, and for every game update. It used to be that you click on 'update' and everything would take care of itself. That's how it should work. And the file search function in the DL app has never worked right for me. It's become annoying and I think GOG needs to fix a few things. As to the Shadow Warrior debacle, I'm placing some of the blame on FWH.

~ to clarify, I still want full control over patching, I just want the patches to arrive in a timely manner and for the GOG DL to work as advertised.

Is it convenient if the game "automatically" uninstalls and reinstalls the whole game just to patch it? Or have to "automatically" re-download the whole game over again (which no patch should ever have to do)? Auto patching wouldn't fix those issues at all (which are the fault of the game developer). If your game is running fine, and you're enjoying your game, I'd say it's much more inconvenient to have to "automatically" uninstall/reinstall a whole game, and be unable to play the game until the process is complete, when the user just wanted to get in and play for 15 minutes. And you can be sure that most users will not understand the implications of enabling auto patching, thinking it's best for security reasons or to not get viruses, and then get hit with terrible patching that is the fault of the game devs.