See my post, #4. GOG already made their peace on the matter.

52 ESR doesn't work either, same with Palemoon.

That's not the point, even Firefox versions from 2018 don't work (ESR). So in October you would have had to say "oh, a three month version doesn't work", webtech has changed a lot in three months." It's not "webtech", it's bad design as well as shoddy programming (already pointed out in other threads) when every other website can manage just fine.

My thoughts exactly.

well, strictly speaking:
the Firefox 52.x ESR versions are based on the release of Firefox 52 in 2016(i think). Since then it only received security updates, no new features. So Darvonds argument that webtech changed a lot in 2 years still applies.
And since this branch of firefox is already past its EOL and doesn't receive further support you cannot really blame web designers for stopping to support it and urge people to update to Firefox 60 ESR.

Hm? You mean 2017. 52.0 was released March 7, 2017 and not only got security updates but also stability updates including things like "Fix for compatibility with Windows 10 April 2018 update". And the 52 ESR reached its EOL in September 2018, one month before the redesign. Also, I doubt people are blaming "web designers" but rather the people/person specifically at GOG who design/s for a store which should be accessible to as many people as possible. And like I said, other websites with their web designers manage just fine. They said IE users and people not using the latest versions of popular browsers (which includes forks of any kind) are out of luck. As that affects a good amount of people, no one can complain if threads pop up again and again and if it's mentioned again and again. You have to be aware that GOG is the absolute outlier here, not the people using forks, IE, ESR versions or whatever.

yeah, I only had in mind that the ESR gets a >1year support period and that the successor for 52 was released somewhere this year. And I was too lazy to look up the exact dates ;). my bad.
anyway, that doesn't change the fact that it didn't get new features during that period and as far as features/technology is concerned, it is a browser stuck in the past, not a current release.

If you want to make the argument that web technology moves too damn fast, often too fast for its own good and developers should be more conservative when coding web sites, fine by me.
But don't try the argument that your 18month old browser should work as well as a browser released last month because they are technical on an equal level.

I admit I don't know whats the deal with IE11 and its relevance on windows. Maybe that is a valid point to complain.

But if Mozilla drops support for one ESR and switches to a newer one, it doesn't seem that overly outrageous to me if a web designer removes that old version from their list of browsers to test against as well. No?
And from my experience if you stop testing new code on a platform it is only a matter of time until something breaks.

tbh i am mostly irritated by all the commotion because there is such an easy solution:
just update to the latest version ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

it's annoying enough that you have to fight with software vendors to deliver updates. Users shouldn't encourage that by refusing updates when they show up :p

It's the default on Windows 7/8.X, but is entirely unsupported. In spite of this, some users can't get it though their heads to consider another browser, even if Edge isn't available.

(Also, GOG officially said the word on IE11: No support.)

It gets security patches, so it's not "entirely" unsupported. It's also still 10% of the overall desktop browser share and 26% in South Korea specifically, should GOG ever bother to expand into that market (which it definitely should, considering it's either the most or second most important market in Asia).

Security patches aren't the same as feature updates. I could patch a Windows 3.11 program to be as secure as a hermetically sealed safe, but it would still be a sucky 16 bit program that looks like bad cake. Even on Microsoft's own support, they first point towards migrating from IE11, and outright state that IE11 isn't for consumer use.

Knowingly designing a webpage in such a manner that it only works with the absolute latest version of browsers is either snobbery of the worst kind or gross incompetence or both. Claiming that it is a necessity just adds insult to injury. I am not amused, and I will NOT forget this.

Thanks for the response! I have no idea why you were low rated. It's because I feel like it's easier to close the whole thing and it takes up less RAM, or at least I remember thinking that not having a separate process for each tab makes the whole browser eats less RAM. I think I read somewhere that it's that way while researching why does Chrome eat up so much RAM. When I was trying out the new FF after the multiple tab process launched, it felt like it consumed more RAM.

It is a complicated game, playing with multiple tabs vs the single process. There are many new ways to manage the memory, and the garbage collection is different. In Chrome, I'd tell you to experiment with the flags relating to memory experiments, see if you find settings which suit you.

About:config on Firefox is a special hell. I am afraid I have no idea how to tell you to accomplish what should be some simple tweaks. The only thing I'd suggest is telling Mozilla how much you value human readable advanced settings, like chrome://flags.

I actually don't have issues with Firefox config.

Btw I do agree with what others were saying though, that GOG should try not to implement stuff that breaks older browsers - after all, if Steam and other sites work, why should GOG do things that break them? It's not that hard to just keep elements that work, no? And since my old Chrome works, it's probably something that just broke the older FF's ability to display the cover games on the frontpage correctly. This site is for retrogamers after all, so why not try appeal to not so old browsers as well?

I agree.

firefox does nothing but break