I think the question really is: is the old-version in some ways better than the new one? And does GOG want to store multiple copies of the game on their servers in full? Or do they have patch files really-to-go to downgrade, if it's only a few files that need removing and/or replacing here?

That really could be a pain with newer titles for GOG to stick these on the server, if they're big in size - and honestly, nobody should play CP 2077 version 1.0 TBH. 1.5 was fine, but version 2.0+ now are so much better, TBH. I dunno if GOG would want to store on their servers old-versions of say BG3, you know? They're probably super-huge.

Now, for some other games - especially older games - shouldn't be a big deal to house different versions and even OG versions, as those files probably ain't huge in size.

It makes sense for say System Shock 1: Enhanced (since newest version has stuttering issues, unlike version below it) or Two Worlds II to have older-versions here, as some mods like WorldMerge on Two Worlds II don't work on version 2.0+ (with the newer DLC's out there).

Then we have issues w/ say Deus Ex: HR. OG version on Steam often runs MUCH better than the DC version. DC can be a pain to get going right, even though it can be done w/ lots of modding, fixing, and a powerful system. We'd honestly need Deus Ex: HR Original Version's Complete Edition, for best performance. If someone had the guts - someone should take any content and additions (i.e. improved balancing and boss fights) from HR DC and somehow move it into the Old OG Complete Edition, which would be great.

Sleeping Dogs: Definitive is another one, where some prefer the old-version b/c it to many, just looks better. We really could use say Sleeping Dogs: Complete Edition of the Original Version here.

There's also Fallout 3's OG ending, if you do the sacrifice path - which in some ways feels a little different than what the game does if you also have Broken Steel DLC installed (i.e. GOTY Edition includes Broken Steel).

Seeing like OG Street Fighter II is interesting, especially compared to say Champion Ed, Turbo, Super (original), or Super Turbo. Honestly, I'd love to see SF 30th Anniversary Collection here b/c it has so many versions of the old Street Fighter Classics for each game in there. And I'd love to see it w/out Enigma here on GOG too, of course.

And of course, something like Thief: The Dark Project - some people prefer OG version without the Gold Edition changes, additions, etc.. Same goes for Gothic II - some prefer the Non-NOTR Edition. I don't think those games would eat up 60-200GB on GOG's servers, so old versions for those here would make sense. And, well...Gamersgate has Gothic II (old) for DRM-FREE download, so I can't see why it can't be here on GOG too; Gamersgate link for Gothic 2 OG here - https://www.gamersgate.com/product/gothic-ii/

Why?
Sure, it's broken and unstable in every possible way, but what created the controversy and hundreds of YouTube videos and zillions of social media posts was that first version, not any patched up, polished and fixed upgrade.

Anyone who wants to learn want the controversy was all about should play the first release version, playing the most recent patches doesn't give the real picture of anything.

And not having played the game I must rely on what has been reported, but apparently there were some innovative ways to exploit some bugs in the game. I believe these have been patched out since. In a multiplayer game that would be a major issue, but in a single player game exploiting bugs should be totally acceptable.

Not counting server storage issues (which should be of no real concern using server clouds), what's the harm in letting someone experience the first release version? Just put a disclaimer next to it that it's no longer supported.

Sure, you have a point - i.e. to experience it in its original form.

But, CP 2077 old-version (version 1.0) is a Beta-in-the-box and Complete Broken Mess. Nobody should Day 1 these games anyways in 2024 for many reasons, as they often are released as Alpha's or Beta's in a box. It's gonna be a wash.

I certainly wouldn't want to experience FF14 Online before its Revamp, you know? That's just a wash.

I could understand if say Version 1.0 was great and all, polished, etc - but nobody should want to play that kind of mess.

I certainly wouldn't want Pool or Radiance OG version here either, as it'd likely wipe my HDD and OS off the system either. Of course, that's way worse problems than say CP 2077 v 1.0.

Obligatory wishlist links:

original game files
Include SETUP.EXE in DOS games

Yes, it isn't reasonable to expect GOG to offer every single version (particularly the KQ4 example given above) but making available only partial copies, missing files that many would consider highly useful or even essential is very much a GOG problem that could be easily rectified. In the case of adventure games originally released with DOSBox being replaced by .exe-less ScummVM versions, it is very difficult to see how this could be a publisher requirement.

One other point though is in regards to games released on multiple formats where the PC version (typically with 4-colour CGA graphics) was the inferior one - GOG could ask the publishers to include permission to use abandonware copies for other systems on condition that buyers handle their own support and have any needed authorisation to run/emulate the system in question (ROMs for the Amstrad CPC and ZX-series of micros have been put in the public domain while Amiga ROMs require the purchase of a licence from Cloanto).

It was already mentioned that thanks to firmware ROMs, GOG probably should simply provide only the game ROMs, although at least I would have no problem if GOG could come up with a way to sell us legit firmware ROMs and then start selling those old game ROMs too separately or as a "DLC" to the DOS/Windows version.

While original release version might be fun to have around for comparison, most of us would likely be fine with GOG only adding versions that were the last to still run on this or that OS and every "last" bugfix iteration before the next more major update that is bound to start a new rapid cycle of bugfixes.

The latter should be of interest for even some gamers who only plan on playing their games on their latest systems and GOG should be more than able to determine most of the time on their own whenever they should be turning such cases as unsupported extras, while with the former cases GOG could handle stopping to do even the bare minimum "does this even start anymore" testing on [insert any OS they originally claimed this or that game could still run] by turning the latest known to work version as an unsupported extra, making a stickied announcement on the affected game's sub-forum and committing to later add whichever version(s) the community can later prove to be the actually last version to work with whatever OS GOG has now or in the future stopped using in their QA tests and then update the new information on the first post on the "End of [insert OS] support" thread.

Which option would sound more reasonable considering the cumulative energy, time and other resources wasted, every GOG customer who is even remotely interested with some day building a retroPC and trying to play their games on that, having to leave a download script running 24/7 just in case, or that GOG spends a bit more of their time and resources to ensure that access to any last version to work with this or that OS does not depend on the customer having have had the download script running at the right time, but of them having not totally forgotten to backup their installers, so that should this particular old update still have not been downloaded when GOG is about to go under, the customer doesn't have multiple terabytes worth of other updates for worry about too.

Or perhaps I am the only one here who has better things to do than download every update and then either immediately test each of them on every possible OS it might still be able to work with or backup them all and then waste a ton of money on multiple 10+ TB HDDs and a ton of time running validation checks to make sure that none of the few actually important installers per each game don't accidentally get corrupted on every backup drive.

(secretly gathers all gog staff and warp factor 10 the hell out of here)

I can agree and yet I just see no validation. Ps. Arguing is a mental gymnastic feat in futility. I do not disagree withnmany points made here. I am pointing out the realistic perspective of whom you are all petitioning.

Lots of work for low price games. Seriously. Think about it. One can hope. But this has been a dead horse several times on forum over thebyears.

The solution is very simple.
GOG could sell for instance Amiga Forever software package, and every Amiga game would be a DLC to that product.

Pros: everyone buying a game would be guaranteed to have a legal ROM.
Cons: those who already own it would be forced to buy it again, and from an extreme point of view that might be counted as a special form of DRM.

For all practical purposes though, it can be done.


But the point here is that it doesn't even need to be discussed really.
There are some Amiga games already on GOG. Very few, but if there's even one, then they have already found a way to make it happen.