}

It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
arrow-down2arrowcart2close4fat-arrow-leftfat-arrow-rightfeedbackfriends2happy-facelogo-gognotificationnotifications-emptyownedremove-menusad-facesearch2wishlist-menuwishlisted2own_thingsheartstartick
avatar
BKGaming: Because Client B is directly integrated with the games and client A is not. Client B can be customized to tailor the experience by GOG and client A can not (at-least not to the point where it can be integrated with the games, just server side).
Oh come on, in the end both things talk across a bunch of wires and download a file or three or three thousand. Galaxy might or might not use http(s), but even that is sort of inconsequential. Handwaving about tailoring and experiences means nothing in a technical sense.
Post edited June 10, 2017 by clarry
avatar
clarry: If Galaxy can compare files, it must have access to those files and the relevant metadata about them.
It's probably a basic hash compare, not exactly rocket science.

avatar
clarry: If galaxy can do it automatically, so can anything else
If galaxy can install files automatically, installers can be created automatically
If galaxy can download untested updates, so can a browser
If galaxy can access these files, they are already uploaded, why can't we have them?
Because it's not some sort of open source code repository where peoples can freely download bits of files when they feel like it and install them manually with various level of success.

Their idea was for those who want the hottest updates, potentially not tested but with the possibility to rollback them they use Galaxy; for peoples who want offline patch / installer for archiving purpose, who might be stabler but might be a couple of days later, they have access to the offline installers.

Having an "in-between" system where peoples can download some auto-generated diff-patches (and diff with what, the previous version ? the previous patch ?), or even have access directly to the installed reference version, would most likely make things both more confusing and increase Gog support for very little real benefit.
avatar
Starkrun: Love to see GOG employees talking with the users, and as a Galaxy and Manual archivist I am 100% ok with waiting for a patch while Galaxy updates early... keep on doing what you do for us :)
avatar
timppu: Same here, even though I don't use Galaxy currently and rely only on the offline installers.

I feel the OP was complaining more on principle than something that really affects him. The thread title suggests that some GOG games will not get updates at all to the offline installer (only to the Galaxy version)... yet it was only a case of GOG informing users that while the Galaxy version got updated on Friday, the offline installer will get installed on next Monday.


Oh my god, that can't be legal can it? Someone call the police! All GOG staff not working on weekends? Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft...

If I really was playing games where it is critical to get updates ASAP (e.g. online multiplayer games where all players must use the same version of the game, or in-dev games with lots of serious bugs), then I would probably want to use a client for them anyway, either Galaxy or Steam. If not for other reason but that I don't have to install the frequent updates manually myself, but the client would always keep them updated automatically.

With games which are already stabilized and don't get updated that often anymore, no need for auto-updating, so I am fine with offline installers.

As a matter of fact, I would be fine even if GOG skips some of the less important updates for the offline installers, and gathers them into bigger packages which they then deliver to the offline installers less frequently. So, if some in-dev game is getting updates several times a week or even daily, I am not really expecting GOG to update the offline installers daily. In fact, at that point I start hoping they wouldn't update them constantly. Once a week, or with less critical updates even once a month, is quite fine to me.
Oddly enough, there was definitely one such case of a game not getting a patch (or a full re-dl as is happening more & more often of late...) in the past.

There was a patch released for Shadow Warrior 2 at one point, which steam & galaxy users got their proper patch.
After nothing happened for a while I brought it up in one or another thread wondering when/if we'd get the standalone patch, only for a blue to state there wouldn't be a patch until the next update from Shadow Warrior 2 was released (of which they'd no idea if there even would be one, as that's down to Flying Wild Hog releasing more content etc).

This I linked 2-3 times in other threads discussing lack of updates to games/patches & low & behold, recently another thread similarly mentioning lack of updates, so I went to the previous thread to copy/paste a link & I noticed something confusing.

I realised the blue had edited their post, removing the comment about "there won't be a patch".

Alas, I hadn't thought to screenshot or archive the page, but I do any time ever since then...
avatar
clarry: Oh come on, in the end both things talk across a bunch of wires and download a file or three or three thousand. Galaxy might or might not use http(s), but even that is sort of inconsequential. Handwaving about tailoring and experiences means nothing in a technical sense.
To be honest... in essence, they could probably handle the patches via the site in a similar manner. But for most of Galaxy's features, the browser would not be sufficient. However it's not as clean and dry as you like to think.

Based on what Thiev said, it sounds like the installers when created (I'm assuming this is automated) have a high chance of needing tweaks or other things. So this means a much higher probability of broken patches ending up on the site. With Galaxy, it downloads compressed files not installers, and has a much less chance of messing something up unless its a dev error.

You also only get the difference in what has actually changed, something the browser can not do and which can't be said for installers. A lot of times the installers don't get patches, they get a full new build. This means if that build was broken, and you didn't keep an old installer... you may now have to re-download the entire game again to play an old build.

I assume GOG doesn't want to go that far with the site installers because A) they built Galaxy for this function so a lot more work would be required B) they have built up reparation based on testing games/patches before they are added on the site & C) it may or may be more of a technical challenge that could lead to more issues than not .
avatar
fishbaits: There was a patch released for Shadow Warrior 2 at one point, which steam & galaxy users got their proper patch.
After nothing happened for a while I brought it up in one or another thread wondering when/if we'd get the standalone patch, only for a blue to state there wouldn't be a patch until the next update from Shadow Warrior 2 was released (of which they'd no idea if there even would be one, as that's down to Flying Wild Hog releasing more content etc).
How do you know that, or are you just assuming? Maybe the publisher had indicated already to GOG that there is shortly another patch coming with far more important fixes.

As I said, I personally am fine with the idea that sometimes GOG might skip some updates to gather more to one bigger update for the offline installer, and/or if they know another patch is coming soon anyway. Especially when we are talking about e.g. in-dev games which might be getting even daily patches. If you are really going to download all such daily patches, yes you definitely should use Galaxy in order to use its auto-update function.

For me personally, auto-update is important for online multiplayer games, but currently I am playing one such game only on Steam (Team Fortress 2). It is very important to me for a multiplayer game that I get the updates automatically and imminently, as otherwise I will be blocked from playing with others (I think), the game doesn't allow playing with old version against others.

avatar
fishbaits: Alas, I hadn't thought to screenshot or archive the page, but I do any time ever since then...
So what was the end result? Did the offline installer of Shadow Warrior 2 get further patches, or not? That is the important question to me at least. If it did, why do you think it is so important to archive some discussion where GOG staff said they will wait until the next update?
Post edited June 10, 2017 by timppu
avatar
fishbaits: There was a patch released for Shadow Warrior 2 at one point, which steam & galaxy users got their proper patch.
After nothing happened for a while I brought it up in one or another thread wondering when/if we'd get the standalone patch, only for a blue to state there wouldn't be a patch until the next update from Shadow Warrior 2 was released (of which they'd no idea if there even would be one, as that's down to Flying Wild Hog releasing more content etc).
avatar
timppu: [i] How do you know that, or are you just assuming? Maybe the publisher had indicated already to GOG that there is shortly another patch coming with far more important fixes.

As I said, I personally am fine with the idea that sometimes GOG might skip some updates to gather more to one bigger update for the offline installer, and/or if they know another patch is coming soon anyway. Especially when we are talking about e.g. in-dev games which might be getting even daily patches. If you are really going to download all such daily patches, yes you definitely should use Galaxy in order to use its auto-update function.[/i]

For me personally, auto-update is important for online multiplayer games, but currently I am playing one such game only on Steam (Team Fortress 2). It is very important to me for a multiplayer game that I get the updates automatically and imminently, as otherwise I will be blocked from playing with others (I think), the game doesn't allow playing with old version against others.

avatar
fishbaits: Alas, I hadn't thought to screenshot or archive the page, but I do any time ever since then...
avatar
timppu: So what was the end result? Did the offline installer of Shadow Warrior 2 get further patches, or not? That is the important question to me at least. If it did, why do you think it is so important to archive some discussion where GOG staff said they will wait until the next update?
If they knew there was an incoming patch, they would've most likely (if had any sense) said as much. There was zero mention on steam, devs twitters/fb etc nor on here that there was going to be any more patches.
Also, seeing as you bring multiplayer into this, it would've also meant no one could play steam - gog due to different patches too.

Why was it so important for them to edit out their statement? Think, common sense isn't difficult.
Yes, it did get patches later on, but that's not the point at all.
When one site gets a patch, they really all should.
When this site sends out patches via galaxy, then it should be sent to ALL installer variants.
avatar
fishbaits: If they knew there was an incoming patch, they would've most likely (if had any sense) said as much. There was zero mention on steam, devs twitters/fb etc nor on here that there was going to be any more patches.
Ok so you just assumed then, and you assumed wrong, as more patches came later and found their way to the offline installers as well.

Also, considering how new a game Shadow Warrior 2 was (and still is)... wouldn't it have been quite odd if it wouldn't be receiving more updates quite soon, especially due to its multiplayer aspect? Or did you feel that one previous update fixed all existing problems that the game had, and there was no need for another update?

Most likely GOG was aware of another incoming patch, if they had made their mind already to wait for the next patch. It is quite possible that the publisher had communicated this to e.g. GOG (esp, if GOG had asked that), even if the publisher had not communicated it to all end-users. That is just common sense.

avatar
fishbaits: Also, seeing as you bring multiplayer into this, it would've also meant no one could play steam - gog due to different patches too.
I already explained that I'd always personally use an auto-patching client for modern multiplayer games which need "constant" updates, for exactly that reason you mention. The game depends on everyone using the same version, so auto-update is very important. Also, more and more GOG games' multiplayer part requires Galaxy anyway, so...

My interest to the offline installers receiving updates too is more related to archiving my games, and there it matters less if a patch comes e.g. a week or even a month later (depending on its criticality too), as long as it comes.

avatar
fishbaits: Yes, it did get patches later on, but that's not the point at all.
That's the whole point. Your complaints seems to be some kind of moral principle thing, I look at it practically.

Wake me up when GOG really refuses to update the offline installers anymore, and the only way to get further updates is through Galaxy. Then I start caring.
Post edited June 11, 2017 by timppu