Okay so I'll apologize now if I come off a little blunt, but this stuff is getting a little old on these forums...

Sure in development you can literally find ways to do just about anything, some ways are much better and more flexible than others. Galaxy offers direct integration with games and is much better suited for constant updated non-finalized released patches than this site would be, even if they were to build an automated process that could do this via the site and they would have to do that since GOG manually does this now for official patches and they can barely get those out in a timely manner via the site.

We literally could see hundreds of games a few months from now providing non-finalized patches that are updated 2 or more times in a single day. GOG can't keep up with that manually for sure, and they are already stretched thin with building Galaxy, trying to offer features like GOG connect, and some other stuff I can't mention. So from there perspective I don't see the point, they already built Galaxy to handle this. Refusing to install Galaxy and/or use it, is literally refusing to install an extra web browser, which essentially is what Galaxy is but with built in integration. They might offer it via the site, but I doubt it and if they did it would probably be years from now. GOG is generally slow to implement stuff.

That's as always you choice though on when or when to not use Galaxy, and I'm glad you have a choice (standalone installers work better in a number of situations), but if you get left behind in the process because you refuse to use Galaxy in other situations then that's not GOG's fault nor should they worry what small parentage of non Galaxy users there going to piss off by furthering to use the most flexible platform they have to offer new features. Direct integration will always beat an external web site when it comes to offering game specific functionality. They always stated that Galaxy would be optional, and that is true. Nobody has to use Galaxy, nearly everything in life is a choice. But it's also their choice when they decide how to best offer a feature and which product is better suited for it, sometimes that will be Galaxy and sometimes that will be the site.

It's not flexible at all for GOG to focus the same exact features in two systems, when one system is better suited for this process. All that does is kill productivity and you end up failing on both fronts for arguably a much smaller segment of people. So it might give you more choice, but's it's surely not as flexible from a development stand point.

No were not. I'm all for GOG providing site features that make sense for the site, and I'm all for trying to keep everyone happy but at some point you have to draw a line. Some features work better in Galaxy, it's a simple as that., and some features will work better via the site. I can't download movies via Galaxy, do I complain that feature is not present? No I open up my browser and use what works best to do that, which is the site in that situation. Galaxy is a tool simple as that, you use the tool that is built to do a job. Sure other tools can be built to handle it but why do so when tool that can handle the job better now and in the long run is already built.

Sometimes these things can take months, it's simply the way development works. I imagine they will offer stable builds only when those builds have been tested and offer a significant improvement over the last stable build.

But this ideological avoidance of game clients is absurd. You didn't ignore the web browser when it gave you access to the internet, you didn't avoid CD's when they gave you access to games. I can't blame people for being a little gun shy, Steam has left a very bad impression of what a game client should be to some people, but we use clients every day without even realizing were using one. Time to accept that, it a small file size on a hard-drive.

It's just my 2 cents, but let the down rep begin...

I've looked for a couple days now and still cannot see this. More help would be appreciated.

Thank you. I wanted to write something similiar, but couldn't find the proper wording.

BKGamer,

I could not disagree with you more on almost all your points. They can if they choose to. If every devs stopped something because it was hard or inconvenient, nothing goes forward. That's all I wanted to say really.

I respect what you say and understand it. I just disagree completely with almost all of it. GoG must maintain it's ethos.

Now, moving on. :)

This has zero do with it, makes me wonder if you even read what I wrote honestly. As a developer/programmer (not a game developer though) one of the most rewarding things is pushing through something hard and seeing the results.

Which is your right.

They announced on KS a release to the main branch of the beta. They've apparently provided it to GOG as well. This was four days ago, I guess it will get here eventually.

Are you sure it isn't already there (I don't currently own this game)? They shouldn't have to provide this to GOG at all, they should be able to automatically add it themselves via Galaxy.

What BK said. AFAIK from posts in the ManOWar subforum there is a button for beta-beta patches (or something) that what the devs upload without gogs seal of approval. You have to manually activate that to DL this parts. I never tried so sorry for the confusing description.

I don't use Galaxy. It's not updated on my game shelf.

Lol.
Mandatory "Betaception!"

Ah that explains it then. I've seen very few instances were GOG has provided an experimental patch via the site, you might be waiting a while then.

This is a trunk patch to the In Dev version, not a branch patch like the previous one. If GOG isn't going to make it available then they need to let us know.

Ah I missed the part where you said it was part of the main branch, yes those should probably be updated on the site. It's a gamble as this point on which games can actually upload their own patches without GOG's approval. I wish they would provide a list.

I would assume that patches are generally delivered to the vendor, i.e. GOG, and it's up to the vendor to then supply them through their standard distribution mechanism. I understand that branch patches are provided via Galaxy (though I don't like this, as it violates the "Galaxy will always be optional" promise). But my assumption was that trunk patches would continue to be provided via the game shelf. That's rather the whole point of supporting an In Dev release here. Otherwise if the beta isn't kept current, it's indistinguishable from a Coming Soon title with a one-time demo available, such as the System Shock remake.

I'd really like a bluetext to comment here.

The way Judas has explained it, the devs that have access to the new patching system allows them to upload a patch directly without going through GOG to those using Galaxy. From there GOG can "get" the patch and package it for a release as a tested standalone installer (likely a few days later). From what I can tell main branch patches (meaning those released to the default branch on Galaxy) always get an updated installer. But I could be wrong.

Those not using the new system though, yes have to go through GOG like they always have...