because you only provide the latest patch (instead of all) and are unable to notify me correctly within the library
since you introduced us to your new Notification-System.
Current example: Hob!
I've downloaded the Game at version 1.12.3.0 (15287) with the patch to 1.12.3.1_(15381). so far, so good.
Since then, there were some new patches (which I missed because, you know.. with several hundreds of games you don't want to look in every games detail page/changelog). Well, ok then.. downloaded the last (available) patch and it didn't work, because, guess what, wrong version installed.
So, instead of haveing download a series of patches of maybe 100-250 MB (don't know exactly), I'll have to download the ENTIRE GAME AGAIN to bring it to the newest version. Only because you provide the latest patch. And this SUCKS AS HELL..

Sorry for the rant, but these are things, that pisses me really off.

regards
michael

You could try contacting support and asking for the missing patches. Grabbing the new installer may be faster though, so I guess it depends on your internet speed and any data caps.
Alternatively, there's also the Galaxy option, which may or may not be something you want.

I have no problems with downloading large files. With 200 Mbps down that's no matter at all for me.
But that doesn't excuse this (IMHO) irresponsible Behaviour and ignoring people with small bandwidth or, in cases like me actually, generating uneccessary traffic, downloading time (regardless of the speed) because of delive the full game with a patch from previous version to the current only although previous patches exists (according to changelog)

Galaxy: no, not an option for me. And since Gog may think, this "shady" style of bringing us the Galaxy-Experience and IMHO degenerate the non-Galaxy Users to a second-class Customer with their current handling of everything about gog with non-galaxy vs. galaxy business regarding core features and Social Networking stuff (Notification-System for example) I took a step back of doing my gaming business here. but thats another story...


regards
michael

I get what you mean, I had a similar situation with Warband, logged in to download the update. Error, you have the wrong version.

My internet connection is 500-600kbps when downloading. Yeah I know, but that's top quality for Venezuelan standards.

So what did I do? Good thing Warband is not that heavy because I love my M&B games.

I do recall games with "Install version X, then patch 1, then patch 2, then patch 3, then DLC, then DLC patch 1" where installing the DLC out of order meant you couldn't apply any other patches. Having a single installer and patch is simpler, and depending on patch size, preferable. Not so with the specific patch sizes, but I still understand why they went with installer and single patch. Again, contacting support could give you access to the previous patches. Traffic is GOG's issue, and I do think I've generated a lot of it myself, through the weekly checking and downloading. Yes, that may be an issue.

Yes, I remember games like Neverwinter Nights with .. well... a lots of patches depending on your installed Extensions. And I would agree totally to the single patch practice, as long as it is cumulative, but in the case of my example with Hob, the latest patch isn't exactly cumulative and forces you therefore to a) have your game installed/available at the level which the patch want to start with or b) download the entire new version (with previously patches included). It was ment generally.

regards
michael

I agree with your complaint. And can't think of a good reason to NOT retain the links to older patches. Shoot, even older complete versions in the cases where a patch isn't available to those who don't use Galaxy. It costs essentially nothing to not delete a link. Or we can increase cost to Support by asking them to respond to our individual requests.

Of course, doing these things does not drive more customers to use Galaxy, so... but that's the cynic in me talking.

Simple customer service matter that costs very little, and may help with customer satisfaction and retention.

Not sure about this specific game but usually with game patches, doesn't the previous patches come included with the newest ones?

Key word: usually

So at a minimum gOg should be mindful - in those cases where one patch depends upon another patch - to leave access to all of the earlier patches necessary for installation of the latest available patch.

Frankly, I'm baffled by the whole thing. Patch files typically aren't huge and clearly gOg keep them around somewhere if Support is able to email a link to individual customers as needed. So it appears to me to be a matter of leaving up the link that was already created for the library page. Basically, do nothing to the old patch links when putting up a new patch or installer link.

Some pages would be HORRIBLY cluttered though. Like the Witcher 3, for instance. my folder is a huge mess because I have all the patches that were released.

Personally, I'm perfectly fine with that, so long as we can get at them. The Galaxy users get them with rollback, so it's a not a technical hurdle to overcome. So far as I can see, it's just a matter of links.

if only there were some kind of client structure that somebody would create to deal with these headaches.

snark aside, I would guess it's probably a UX thing. they don't want people to have to download 11 different patches in sequence. having redundant patches which combine different approaches to patch consolidation is confusing, requires the user to pay attention, and requires to UI development to deploy it properly to the user to prevent the chance of confusion.

Downloading eleven patches is better than having to completely download the entire thing all over again.
The one thing (of many...) that sucks about gog downloads, is that the indexing tells you sod all about which patch came out at which date, so you've no idea which you need.
Even now, with the single patch they let you have (assuming there even is one) could be several patches out of date.

Hear, hear. I've done my share of complaining about this very issue, but at this point, I've accepted they don't really give a fuck. ( Which, for the record, results in me spending part of my gaming budget elsewhere instead. )

Currently you only have the option to either use Galaxy for your game updates, or manually check your library every day ( at least for the games you currently care about most ), hoping that you won't miss any patch updates.

They should either merge patches into single files, or leave more of them online, at least all the recent patches. ( In some cases they disappeared after just a few days. )

Really they need a legacy section for old patches. In the extras or something. If they keep the old things there, you're right. There's no reason to deny access to them.