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

×
avatar
KoЯni: I'm not patching these games, I just want to have a repository of offline installers. You know, to utilize one of the basic ideas of GOG - when you buy a game, it's yours. When you have it downloaded, that is. I already own plenty of files that have been removed from GOG along the way, so that's an additional bonus.

The problem would be easily solved by always updating game installers with latest patches and not naming language packs, DLCs, texture packs and what not a "patch" - this way, you can also keep separate patches for people to save on bandwidth if they want them, and I would actually not care about the versioning and file naming mess anymore, I would just download the latest installer (and addons, if any).
Again, it's very rare that a game's offline installer isn't the latest version, so in the vast majority of cases if you just want to back up, you ignore the patch files. I mean, plenty of GOG users back up their installers and they don't have this problem.
avatar
KoЯni: I'm not patching these games, I just want to have a repository of offline installers. You know, to utilize one of the basic ideas of GOG - when you buy a game, it's yours. When you have it downloaded, that is. I already own plenty of files that have been removed from GOG along the way, so that's an additional bonus.

The problem would be easily solved by always updating game installers with latest patches and not naming language packs, DLCs, texture packs and what not a "patch" - this way, you can also keep separate patches for people to save on bandwidth if they want them, and I would actually not care about the versioning and file naming mess anymore, I would just download the latest installer (and addons, if any).
avatar
Cavalary: Again, it's very rare that a game's offline installer isn't the latest version, so in the vast majority of cases if you just want to back up, you ignore the patch files. I mean, plenty of GOG users back up their installers and they don't have this problem.
That's the problem - it's very rare. If it was like this for most /all games, I would consider just keeping all the patches (and wasting disk space for some of them). When it's rare, you either need to keep track of whether there's such patch for each game or just ignore patches and don't have latest version of game files on your disk.

People who back up GOG installers ALWAYS have this problem. They are either unaware of it or having incomplete backup by skipping necessary patches or wasting lot of disk space unnecessarily. I doubt anyone with large game library go through each game periodically to manually verify and download the necessary patches only.

Again, this is not something requiring insane resources, just a bit of common sense in file naming and / or rebuilding installers of games (done for most games anyway - why not all?).
avatar
KoЯni: Again, this is not something requiring insane resources, just a bit of common sense in file naming and / or rebuilding installers of games (done for most games anyway - why not all?).
When you say, "Incomplete", the implication I generally have is if the final version and the last patch result in an identical result, is there a difference?
avatar
KoЯni: People who back up GOG installers ALWAYS have this problem. They are either unaware of it or having incomplete backup by skipping necessary patches or wasting lot of disk space unnecessarily. I doubt anyone with large game library go through each game periodically to manually verify and download the necessary patches only.

Again, this is not something requiring insane resources, just a bit of common sense in file naming and / or rebuilding installers of games (done for most games anyway - why not all?).
Yeah, they generally just ignore the patches and only redownload the actual installers when they change, often with some automation for the process in case of those with large libraries.
And there's a question about the word "necessary" there. Like the "latest" version of the (now-old) Witcher 3 included Chinese translation, but it was a separate patch, the main installer being left as it was before that. And that was a good thing imho, seeing as that patch was quite large, so you only got it if you specifically wanted to play in Chinese. And now there are six separate language patches for the classic version, each multiple GB in size, so you only get one if you want to play in that language.
But a better example is that Hitman: Blood Money patch you mentioned that, based on what I saw on a quick search, may fix something (maybe with saves?) later but causes the game to crash after the first mission if installed when you start a new game, so you really DON'T want it incorporated in the main installer.
So, yes, GOG should add a little more information, file date would help, along with ensuring that changelogs are always available properly, but while I've been bashing GOG left and right for over a decade now for a lot of reasons, this one really is far lesser than you make it seem, and the "solution" in the title to abandon patches altogether is really the wrong approach.
Anyway, when in doubt, GOGDB helps, in the changelog tab, see when the main installer changed and when the latest patches were added. Also see the updates thread, and maybe the offline installer version discrepancies one and the table for it.
avatar
KoЯni: Again, this is not something requiring insane resources, just a bit of common sense in file naming and / or rebuilding installers of games (done for most games anyway - why not all?).
avatar
dnovraD: When you say, "Incomplete", the implication I generally have is if the final version and the last patch result in an identical result, is there a difference?
If you download installer and patches (or even only the last patch - but for some games, good luck figuring out which one is the last), then you choose this approach:

wasting lot of disk space unnecessarily.
because, for most games, the latest installer already have the latest patch applied.

avatar
KoЯni: People who back up GOG installers ALWAYS have this problem. They are either unaware of it or having incomplete backup by skipping necessary patches or wasting lot of disk space unnecessarily. I doubt anyone with large game library go through each game periodically to manually verify and download the necessary patches only.

Again, this is not something requiring insane resources, just a bit of common sense in file naming and / or rebuilding installers of games (done for most games anyway - why not all?).
avatar
Cavalary: Yeah, they generally just ignore the patches and only redownload the actual installers when they change, often with some automation for the process in case of those with large libraries.
And there's a question about the word "necessary" there. Like the "latest" version of the (now-old) Witcher 3 included Chinese translation, but it was a separate patch, the main installer being left as it was before that. And that was a good thing imho, seeing as that patch was quite large, so you only got it if you specifically wanted to play in Chinese. And now there are six separate language patches for the classic version, each multiple GB in size, so you only get one if you want to play in that language.
But a better example is that Hitman: Blood Money patch you mentioned that, based on what I saw on a quick search, may fix something (maybe with saves?) later but causes the game to crash after the first mission if installed when you start a new game, so you really DON'T want it incorporated in the main installer.
So, yes, GOG should add a little more information, file date would help, along with ensuring that changelogs are always available properly, but while I've been bashing GOG left and right for over a decade now for a lot of reasons, this one really is far lesser than you make it seem, and the "solution" in the title to abandon patches altogether is really the wrong approach.
Anyway, when in doubt, GOGDB helps, in the changelog tab, see when the main installer changed and when the latest patches were added. Also see the updates thread, and maybe the offline installer version discrepancies one and the table for it.
Few good points there. Firstly, yeah, I already use gogrepoc.py script for automation. I also chose the installers-only path with just few manually downloaded patches that I'm aware of are needed to have the game up to date.
Regarding necessity - that's what I mentioned. A Chinese language pack for W3 shouldn't be called a patch, but language pack. Would make things much easier and logical.
And that HBM patch - just wow, you would think there should be screaming warning regarding that info. Maybe even file should be called optional patch and in game library on GOG there should be a warning regarding what you said. I mean GOG is mentioned to be delivering games that works out of the box, not another installers that require hours on google to make them work. Yeah, I know this is also the situation with modern games, but this is apparently a known issue that possibly won't be fixed - why no warning?
Finally, GOGDB is a good hint, thanks!
Post edited July 03, 2025 by KoЯni