Huge sale... but still no way to sort ascending/descending price, nor filter based on user specified price ranges to make it easy to wade through 2000 games and find what you're looking for. :(

Best I could do was use wishlist and filter to games below $8 to avoid spending hours trying to find games manually.

Please help us to give you our money GOG. Wallet full of money sitting here, but time is finite... Probably going to miss out on something good because I don't have an hour to spend wading...

I can't possibly be the only one wanting this for 5 years straight. :) Maybe next sale? I remain hopeful.

Spec Ops: The Line was a late addition yesterday.

The only new additions today (so far) are the Flash Deals.

Carry on...

ATOM RPG recently received its final free major update, so now is a good time to jump in. They're also planning a standalone expansion possibly later this year where the save files will carry over.

Is this the best price for Echo in the flash deals?

Additionally what do you think of "Pillars Of Eternity"? I was thinking of buying it later in the sale.

Exactly what i been saying since i first joined, joined 2014 ( also joined Steam a few months later when i read about Steam ( and its existance) in the GOG forum, steam might be called manythings , but it is wasier to sort and quickly find things , even on my VGA screen the store doesnt has large images forcing me to reduce my browser to view at 80%,
and as a bonus we can hide games we don't want, they will be 'dimmed' and won't clutter up the pages cause the colour is less bright.

Anyway these little extras would be very welcome, they really proved to be time savers , helping gamers to find games we are interested in much faster.

Image optimisation can be improved, GOG pages load relative slow when many large images are shown at once, images can be optmised to load faster (Google for page optimisation)



navigate to:
https://gtmetrix.com/
and enter a url: eg: GOG.com


screenshot of one small part from the https://gtmetrix.com/


check example.png

Indeed, I can't think of any good reason for them to purposefully not do it. The only rational reason I can think of is that in the big picture of things when they look at the list of all possible features/functionality that their developers could work on, and assign priorities to given projects, this just hasn't reached high enough up the priority stack yet being outranked by things perceived to be of higher importance. And if so that's understandable too, but the lack of this feature does still make it difficult for some people to find what they're looking for without enduring personal inconvenience either in sinking a lot more time into it, or using 3rd party resources to try to work around the problem, also at potential inconvenience.

I think they eventually will add such a feature as I can't see any business case in their favour for not doing it, but man it's frustrating each sale to see it's still not a feature. :) On the upside though, lack of the feature does prevent me from whimsically spending more money than I likely would if it was easier to find what I want too.

The time of rejoicing will surely come in the future, biting my nails until then. :)

i checked and compared online 3 gamesites:

GOG - Steam and Gamersgate (GG)

GG is ofcourse the 'slowest' ( .. )

check attachment: gtmetrix_3sites.jpg


??? maybe i should have used the graphs instead of using the ones i used above....
anyway GOG and Steam have more red bars compared to GG, but GG is slowest, and many times down, had many downtimes.

Not sure why you're posting that to me. :) I'm not concerned with GOG's page load speed, I'm concerned with how long it takes me to scroll through a list of 2000 video games in a more or less jumbled sort order that isn't meaningful to me to try and find games that I might want to buy. I want to be able to sort them based on price from low to high, and then to have filtering options to filter our prices that fall outside of a range I specify, and to filter out content that I don't want to be part of the list such as DLC, or filter it to "just games". This way I have a short list of games that takes very little time to search through for whimsical purchases, rather than having to spend 20 minutes doing it.

The web page load time is irrelevant to me in that regard, it could take 5 minutes to load the page, I'll come back after I go make a sandwich. I'm concerned with the time it takes me to search through the already rendered web page to find the actual products I might consider buying whimsically after I've already went through my wishlist (which would also be nice to be able to sort by price and filter).

It's possible my original post might have been misunderstood.

" I'm concerned with how long it takes me to scroll through a list of 2000 video game..."


yes i know that, thats why the results might be important....

scrolling throug many many pages/lists takes 'hours' but after playing games for 40 years and visiting many many sites online in the past decade, webspeed is important, imgaine page 'lag', on a slow responding serevr, this will increase the number of hours, sometimes after scrolling for 'hours" you will notice the page llok like its resisting, scrolling gets hard especially on pages that have a 2 pixel large scroll bar ( shows how huge the content is)

Anyway all that scrolling will add to the amount of time needed ( and spend) to find what you were looking fo, split up into multiple pages might benefit or maybe not, you have to pres the next button or the number of the page...
The solution is simple: if GOG used some of the 'technisques' steam uses to find and sort games, that would save us lots of scrolling time.

Owned games showing as owned in the store again for me now. Plus, "base" and "upgrade" versions seem to be marked as owned where I own the "complete" version now too. That's a helpful change/fix!

That may very well be true, but it is a completely separate orthagonal issue. I do not want to see games that are priced outside of the budget I'm willing to spend, or outside of the price range I'm willing to spend, no matter how fast the pages loads, because that wastes my real world time.

GOG doesn't have to change it, they can keep it the way it is, but it just means that people who like me - want to be able to see a list of games under $5 or some other completely arbitrary price (not the fixed choices that exist for filtering based on price on some screens right now), and whiz through the list quickly for potential whimsical purchases are going to just close the page and go play guitar or something else if they desire playing guitar more than they desire scrolling through thousands of games. If GOG optimized the web page load speed 10000 times faster so that the page loads entirely within 10 milliseconds including all images, and displayed the entire page all at once with no scroll demand loading, I still don't want to navigate through it, it's too many games to scroll through and there is no viable way to filter it down to something reasonable that shows me what I want to see.

Speeding up page loading is an orthagonal issue, a welcome one for sure, but not relevant to what I'm actually asking them for as a feature. Count my vote for your suggestion too however, but like I said, if they make the page load in 1 millisecond and show all games on one static page, I'm still not scrolling through it. I got more important things to do than look through 2000 games for games I don't really need but "might" spend money whimsically on.

It's all about reducing the amount of maximum data that my eyes even have to see, and sorting it in a manner that is useful to aide in processing it mentally as quickly as possible.

Nobody else needs to want this feature or to understand it, or even why I want it or what the other usage cases might be for other people too - only GOG themselves need to really understand it and if they read my posts I'm positive their developers know what I'm asking for and that they'd almost certainly agree it would be a good feature to include in the future.

Other features and improvements are welcome too, but unrelated to this.

SO MUCH THIS!!

I do have a plan to download my entire GOG library but I too think that GOG adds too much in their packages that I am not interested in. I would rather use my system's copy of DosBox or ScummVM for example, and Windows packages also carry libraries and such. I was thinking of editing them and repackaging those files.

I was also thinking of streamlining the installation of the games. Like pushing a game into the RaspberryPi from the command line and have it playable in seconds. No install wizards, no interaction. I use a media centre interface without X.

Then it came to me that perhaps I could achieve both goals using squashfs to store the installed game (one file about the size of GOG's original package, but in a playable state) and use OverlayFS to provide a writing layer for per-game configuration and saves. If I could pull this off, I could manage not just the backups, but also the installations and removals of my entire library across all my devices using git-annex! Wonderful!

I think this is possible to achieve, but Windows games, with their registry files and so on could be more difficult. What do you think?
Where can I find more information about the contents of the install files after I extract them?

Well, I did it. I bought Bioshock Infinite, played for two hours, loved the shit out of it. Will probably never touch it again as first person fucks me silly. I'm dizzy and nauseous and just want this Saturday to end quickly.

Could be worse. I could have bought that new computer for Cyberpunk 2077 as I originally planned to. Best to relive that experience now.

Prediction :

One or more Assassin's Creed game(s) and The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim will be released during the sale .
Also we will receive another freebie .