Vainamoinen: The auto updater can not be optional, as that's a feature that's undeniably meant to replace executable patch files. It will become mandatory as developers will immediately delay and then stop delivering actual patches or even patched original game files ("it works on Steam"). In my opinion, implementing an 'auto update' possibility factually means making it mandatory.

Vainamoinen: The auto updater can not be optional, as that's a feature that's undeniably meant to replace executable patch files. It will become mandatory as developers will immediately delay and then stop delivering actual patches or even patched original game files ("it works on Steam"). In my opinion, implementing an 'auto update' possibility factually means making it mandatory.

"Automatic" here means a loss of control over the downloaded game files. It might be comfortable for some, but is clearly geared towards repeated and constant connection to the publisher's servers, always checking, scanning, updating, without bothering the player with actual info about it. Download once and archive all the patch files - a thing of the past. It's the opposite of what gog should stand for, i.e. the independence of game files from the publishing platform, all the while preserving the emergency feeling of the traditional 'patch'.

We all know that a "day one patch" generally meant that the developer fucked up and released his game too early. A day one update delivers the same files, but strangely isn't perceived as a fuckup any more. The number of patches a developer had to add was a direct measure of his incapability. The number of auto updates strangely isn't. I have my theories as to why that is so, and I'm certainly not getting in line for that mindset tomorrow. Sorry, but I just don't want to make updates too easy for developers because they're meant to test and finish their game before they release it.

I guess I sound old fashioned here - and that's probably exactly what I am. Judging from 25 years of gaming experience, I'll say that less and less developers are willing to deliver a finished game; I'll say that today Valve is even purposefully blurring that finish line with Early Access. Yesterday's open betas are sold full price today already, and tomorrow they'll sell yesterday's vaporware. Games will rise in popularity and fall into oblivion without ever leaving beta status. I assume you're seeing the beginnings as well.

GOG is in a pickle here because comfortable ways to change game files are an industry standard today and developers are demanding it. They are demanding it because ever more they are unwilling or unable to deliver a finished game.

I'll gather a few thoughts about the "client" later. In my opinion, there already is a kind of an optional GOG client. ;)

HGiles: Obviously, the 'next step for GOG.com' is to get the front page working with HTTPS. One small change for humankind, one huge leap forward for the safety and security of GOG.com. :D

trusteft: I don't want more clients. I am sick of clients.

shmerl: Nothing prevents GOG from offering both. Client doesn't need to be an exclusive way of installation. Desura does exactly that.

Vainamoinen: The auto updater can not be optional, as that's a feature that's undeniably meant to replace executable patch files. It will become mandatory as developers will immediately delay and then stop delivering actual patches or even patched original game files ("it works on Steam"). In my opinion, implementing an 'auto update' possibility factually means making it mandatory.

trusteft: At first maybe, but later it will be used as a Trojan horse. "it's not DRM, you just need to have it running for good things like updates and stuff!, but yeah, you have to run it"

Trust me, my people created the very first. :p I know of one when I can see it.

trusteft: At first maybe, but later it will be used as a Trojan horse. "it's not DRM, you just need to have it running for good things like updates and stuff!, but yeah, you have to run it"

Trust me, my people created the very first. :p I know of one when I can see it.

shmerl: Interesting. Can you share what were those things? I've heard various criticisms of the Witcher games, but usually from those who played it and didn't like for some reason.

trusteft: How about just sending a simple EMAIL to the owners of games which get an update?

Nicole28: This is going to sound very weird, but it might be better to take to heart, from those who were there, fellow gamers that played the game and not liked it. A part of it is, I don't deny that my standing could be from misconceptions and bias-ness towards certain gaming elements that I'm not willing to correct, and thus might not be the most objective of opinions. Not to mention, possibly unfaithful too.