In any SANELY coded digital storefront the store page disable should have NOTHING to do with detection of LICENSES assigned to account.
But I guess GOG isn't necessarily sanely coded (their API being example).

It didn't; I checked and the original game was still available on my account at the time of my posting. Only the additional discount was apparently tied to the store page, which while still a bug is nowhere near as serious as losing track of licenses; and it's now fixed, as well.

So dunno; it's not the first time I've had problems with GOG, but they've always been fairly small and they respond quickly, so I still rate myself as a satisfied customer.

Read what I wrote again.
I specificly meant that changing visibility of storefront page should have nothing to do with license DETECTION (I didn't mean PRESENCE).
Ergo: Store page should not be involved in ANY WAY in detecting your valid license for other product.
That should all be handled through internal system API and DB queries.
But I guess GOG isn't sanely coded so shit like in your case happens.

Did you put the game in your basket? I never removed it from my basket (as I am still not sure) and it still shows the 80% discount.
But please don't confuse assumptions with facts. IF in fact the doscount does not work anymore (which - as I said - at least for me is not the case) we still does not know WHY this would be the case. This being connected with the removal of the store page of the original game was just an assumption and not a fact.

Sashiburi Marko /s

I didn't confuse anything.
Yes, it wasn't confirmed nor properly debugged.
It could be a rare odd scenario.

BUT based on my own research I know FOR A FACT that GOG IS badly coded.
Even their API is an abomination from what I have seen.

So it's not something out of the ordinary to draw an assumption / suspicion that THIS (ergo: this case) kind of shit could very well "just happen".

Oh, it would not surprise me if this in fact was the case - GOG has a long history with *cough* technical problems. Anyway, like I said, even the bug itself has not been confirmed yet (it is not happening for me) so I am just saying that imo we should be careful how to phrase our words so that others can still see which are facts and which are assumptions. Maybe it is just me, but I like to be able to see that difference ... I am also one of those who hates the phrase "this game is good" or "this game is bad" and prefer "I like the game" or "I dislike the game" .. like I said, maybe it is just me :)

Regarding the game: I just watched a video showing a few scenes from the beginning and I have to say that I am not perfectly happy with the result. They removed some effects while they improved resolutions. lightning and clarity ... see for yourself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4BTmCDZOKU

I would still love to know how long these "additional story" parts are ... even with the 80% discount it is still money I's pay for a game I already own ...

No, it's not. It's a nice thing some people do. When CDPR gave away the Enhanced Editions of the first two Witcher games for free it was much applauded. You don't get applause for sticking to a standard.

No, you don't, although I believe you that you think that.

I'm paid for developing software. So I know exactly how much work (and blood, sweat and tears") goes into these products.
That only works because customers actually pay for the product, something that you seem not much aware of.

Oh, the irony...

I don't actually have time to engage in your petty games and to correct your lack of understanding of my points.

I said what I wanted to say on the matter.

If you still cannot understand (which is evident from your responses) then I am afraid that frankly I no longer have time nor will to explain any of it to you.
You simply speak like you would be defending the developer in quesiton - in fact SO MUCH like if you would be paid to promote / defend them. You seem just BLINDED by SOMETHING.
No offense. But I don't have time for this kind of conversation where no matter what I say and how hard I try to explain certain things to you you just discard it and say that I am wrong "because yes".
Peace. Bye.

Oh, the irony, part 2.
Your sole "argument" is "remasters should be free". It's not even an argument, it's a claim.
It's a valid opinion, but the way you present it making it sound like a rule (which is isn't and never was), and keep repeating this over and over like a mantra.

Yeah, have a nice weekend. I'll go check if the millions from Bloober Team arrived in my back account...

Tell this to the pilot who just landed a plane :D
Hey, if you talk to them could you please remind them that Blair Witch is buggy and I already sent them a ticket which so far has been ignored? What? Oh ... it was a joke ... damn :(

But other than that. Imo Regarding the question if remasters should be free, I'd always say that it depends on how much different the remastered is, because UPDATES are free and in some cases a remastered version is not more than just an update to the original (don't know if this is the case here - it depends imo on how the additional parts turn out that were absent from the original). Of course that still isn't a rule but something I'd wish for.

Absolutely. It really depends on how much work went into it. Not only added content, but also new assets and stuff. Some are obvious cash grabs, some are created with much love and care. Most are somewhere in-between.

What bothers me is when people feel entitled to get stuff for free other people put a lot of work into. Devs are companies - if they charge money - and how much - for an upgraded version of a game is a business decision. My guess is, a game that is still expensive (see NMS which is still officially $60) will get free upgrades, to keep it alive. A game has is already dropped in price will more likely have a new price tag attached for the upgraded version - and giving that to previous owners for a small "upgrade-price" is IMO fair enough.

But sometimes even regular "updates" required a lot of work and time. I know that you look at this from the POV of a dev but you should also look at this from the POV of the customer. The customer should not have to think about things like "how hard could it be for them to realize this" and usually the customer does not think about such things at all. So "fair" from the POV of a customer is, if he gets something for his money of which he is thinking it would be worth paying the additional money - and this usually is additional content only.

Sure and it is the customer's decision to buy or not to buy. However, if a customer is USED to get such remasters for free (since many devs do give away remasters for free to owners of the original) it is hard for him to still think that the additional money would be worth it. It's not a rule but it happens so often that it is no wonder that many are thinking that this should not be the case at all. I would not call them entitled though ... they are simply used to this being the case.

"Fair" here is imo subjective as well. "Fair" in the eyes of a dev wouldl be "I worked for it, so I want to have money for it". "Fair" in the eyes of a customer would be more like "others are doing such things as a free update and they demand money". There is no right or wrong, just different perspectives. In the end no dev can force a customer to buy the product and no customer can force a dev to get the work for free. If the customer buys depends on expectations and the subjective definition of "fair" which might be different for every person.

Regular updates are bugfixes and dealing with compatibility issues. Those are - and should be - included in the price you pay for the game.

Actually I do. Or maybe both. I already played the game, and liked it. A lot actually. It's good as it is. I paid, I had my fun.
Getting something new out of it - well it would have been nice to get it for free, but I don't feel entitled to that, at all. For me - as a consumer - the devs made an offer "We worked on the game some more, and made an (in our view) improved version. Since you already have the original, it's only 5€". To which I can say yes or no. There's really nothing more to it. I said yes, knowing it's a gamble - maybe the new stuff feels tacked on, maybe it was cut out in the first place for a reason. Or, on the other hand, it's content that then, with the time and budget, couldn't be implemented, but now it's possible. For a price. We'll see, I guess.

And remasters and new editions are not mostly free, that's simply not true. It's still a reason to thank every dev/pub who goes that way. Some companies/divisions, like EA Sports build their whole business model on selling the same game all over again, with some minor improvements. Not that I like that, but I'm very free to ignore those products.
And as gamers, we are already privileged in this regard, because we mostly do get at least a discount. Bought a movie and want the DC? Pay again. Bought an album and want the version with the bonus track? Pay again. Bought a novel, but want the version with the new appendix and map? Pay again.

From a presentation point of view I always felt this game was a missed opportunity. They had Rutger Hauer. Why not do his scenes in FMV?

Hard to "confirm" something already fixed but... basic outline is:

- Game gets announced with 80% discount
- I add it to my cart, don't finish the purchase

* days later *

- I see game has been removed from the store, and upgrade is back to 10% discount
- I remove it, still at 10%
- I add it again, still at 10%
- I pretend to finish payment, PayPal still shows total as if it were at 10% discount
- I cancel the transaction and post about it on the forums

* hours later *

- I come back, 80% discount
- I finish the transaction and post about the bug having been fixed

So no, it wasn't user error; at most it could've been a regional issue, though it's more likely that it was just short-lived enough few noticed.

And as a software engineer myself, let me confirm that stuff like this happens all the time on nearly every kind of platform; QA time isn't unlimited, so it's obvious you'll put special emphasis on stuff that actually harms users and your business, which means some QoL stuff can slip through the cracks sometimes, requiring a quick "hotfix". And awfully-designed APIs are also, sadly, common in the industry; I haven't used GOG's yet, but I've had to deal with banks' internal APIs at work, and you'd think maximizing the users' suffering was an actual design goal.

So really, as long as these kind of inconveniences are fixed quickly and there are no serious bugs on the scale of what I've heard from a certain four-letter company *cough*, I count myself as a satisfied customer.