Project Warlock has its updated standalone installer.

Well, the 64-bit installer only, 32-bit version is still on 1.0.0.1. Hmmmm...

Look at the poor windows users complaining about being treated like a second class customer :)

Try being a Linux user:

- There is no Galaxy for Linux, so we don't even have that option if we were willing to use the client.
- Linux patches are regularly delayed even longer than the windows patches.
- There are very few standalone patches for Linux - generally we have to re-download the entire installer for every patch.

Hey, you opted in. Masochists don't get to complain when they get the pain they ask for.

Make this two of us DRM-free is the thing that really makes GOG special for me but I am sure GOG is aware of the fact that this is important to many customers and I doubt they will change this.

the stand alone installers are literally THE reason im here!

No, the description is wrong. They named it part 1 and part 2 while actually part 1 is 32bit and part 2 is 64 bit. Judas already fixed it.

Huh. Also the 64-bit installer went from 1.3GBs back to about 600MBs. Kind of does say something, especially considering what others have said in this thread.

As I said it never has been 1.3 GB. It was just misnamed. I downloaded the first offline installer and got both installers in the end. Now it is correct so that you can chose which offline installer you want to have.

It if only would be the patches... Often the whole Linux version of a game is delayed, sometimes even forever.

I don't get the whole concept of "testing patches", to be honest. What exactly do you test when you get a new patch? If the game still runs? If old saves still load? What else is there to "test"? GOG clearly isn't going to play through a whole game every time a new patch arrives, so... what are they testing? Seriously, I don't get it.

Remember Omerta... The game ran "fine" until a patch broke it. "Broke it" as in "game breaking bug". GOG missed a bug in a patch that prevented you from finishing one of the missions (of course they did, because they can't play through the whole game just because a patch arrived). Several months later, they received a patch that fixed that bug. GOG put the patch up for download and totally missed that it introduced a new game breaking bug. A bug that sent you straight to the end credits after finishing ANY mission. Tells a lot about their "testing" (and about the dev, but that's another story).

I think whatever GOG is testing is pretty much useless. All they can do is to test some very basic stuff, like save game compatibility - and this shouldn't take a lot of time (install patch, start game, load a save, see if it loads). They can't look for new bugs and they shouldn't check if other bugs were fixed.

Sometimes, GOG's offline installer can not install games. [1]
They just provide broken garbage to their users.
If they did test basic stuff for every single installer, those bugs should never happened.

GOG's testing is just a joke.

[1] https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_force_users_to_use_galaxy_with_broken_or_undownloadable_installers

Making a mistake when packing the installer has got nothing to do with testing a patch a dev provides. I mean, yeah, you're right, they should test if the GOG installer works before they offer it for download. But this isn't related to testing patches. "Testing patches" sounds really weird to me, to be honest. I'd definitely like to know what it even means, because... There's really only three possibilities:
1. Basic test regarding functionality (Does the game still start? Do saves still work?)
2. Full-fleged testing (playing through the the whole game, trying different things to find bugs)
3. Something in-between

1. shouldn't be called "testing" (it's just a short check) and definitely shouldn't cause a patch to be delayed for several days. 2. is just not going to happen. Seriously, that's way too much work. Not even the developers of the game will do this. And 3.? Well, that's kind of a waste of time... Checking random things of the game for completely random NEW bugs would be totally stupid.

Galaxy was GOG's answer to the problem in question here. It just happens they didn't genuinely expect somewhat vocal backslash against Galaxy. I honestly believe they expected people to be happy to have it. And personally I have been.