He just emailed me, saying you reminded him. I will email back soon. Thanks again.

You can gift it to yourself, but you can't redeem it.

Actually, no they are not.

From the game page: Form the checkout page: The latter is proven false by the fact that you can buy the DLC without owning the prerequsites on GOG, by gifting it.

There are no warnings, anywhere, that you can't add it to your library if you don't own them, which is not the same as being able to purchase it or play it.

No duh, you've already played your "because we say so" card.

Why yes Xyem, you can purchase all the standalone games you like but we won't support them, if you're okay with that. Oh, you want to buy that DLC under the same understanding? Tsk tsk tsk, I'm afraid I can't let you do that. Why?

Because I said so.

Yup, nothing like being treated like a child at all.

You also need to ask them to make the warning change wording when the option to gift is selected, rather than just vanishing i.e. the receipient must own these to redeem.

And normal customers are still being stopped from a completely reasonable action of adding DLC to their library before the game.

Yes, you can gift it to yourself and redeem it later, but I regard that as going through some cumbersome online activation procedure which your vice president(?) doesn't approve of, apparently.

Yeah, he was discussing DRM but there isn't much difference between being stopped from using something you've bought (single player game) by an online platform (Steam) and stopped from using something you've bought (gift code) by an online platform (GOG's website).

I have no issue at all with making something so it is easier to understand for those not as well versed. That's why I support "user-friendly" Linux distros. I do have an issue when while you are "dumbing it down", you also stop the people who know what they are doing from doing stuff!

I don't need a refund, I've given it away to the person who pointed out that the restriction also stops people who are going the "just GOG" route, just in the "wrong" order (DLC first).

I read through this thread at work today and all I can say is:

I have no idea what Judas' salary is but there's no way it is enough if he has to argue against the "logic" used in this thread and staying just so calm.

But the best part is GOG really seems to change the wording because of one person...that's just wow. ^^

If my logic is wrong, please explain how so, so I may correct it.

Welcome back, by the way. You may have noticed not much have changed :)

This is not about wrong and right logic, this is about what makes sense and is most convenient for most people and buying a DLC before the base game is not the everyday scenario but was simply brought up by you to support your argumentation. Thousands of people buy games here everyday and GOG has to cater to the pro like you as well as to the "Noob" who buys a digital game for the first time, cut them some slack.
There also is no point in arguing with you as you have already made up your mind about what the right course of action is here and apparently you succeeded as they are changing the wording.

I really don't want to start a hassle here anyway as your reputation clearly shows you seem to be a pretty decent guy in general I just felt the need to say something about this whole thing.

That's fine. You actually responded in a completely different way to what I was expecting, which is good.

When you put the word logic in quotation marks, it came across as you doing air quotes, as in.. saying my logic wasn't really logical (hence the request for you to explain why not). Perhaps you don't have the same idiom in Germany...?

Except GOG don't cater to the pro like me. The only thing I can think of that they have done while I've been here is providing the tarball, which they only do for the Linux versions (it has been asked for the DOSbox games for ages).

Can you think of anything else they have done to cater to the pro because I can think of a lot of things they have done that have stopped the pro..

I'll cut them some slack when they stop removing functionality, saying they will put it back in but never do.
I'll cut them some slack when they actually do a big site update that fixes the things that are complained about or make the site more functional instead of just increasing the number of problems.
I'll cut them some slack when they add more useful filters (like filtering out owned games) or hell, just make the filters they already have work properly (select the "under $10" filter and it will show you $11 games, see attachment).
I'll cut them some slack when they stop making obvious coding mistakes, like letting people sign up for accounts with the same name as existing accounts, which not only should be enforced by the database, but should have been spotted by the test suite during development.

I'll cut them some slack when they do something "for the pro". I'll even cut them some slack if they would do something for the people who own a significant portion of their catalogue, instead of making it cumbersome and then more cumbersome each update.

I'll cut them infinite slack if they let me submit patches to their code base to fix it!

I didn't succeed as I still can't add DLC to my library before the base game. They aren't even changing the wording because I asked them to, they are changing it to match what Judas claimed (that you are warned before you buy it), because I pointed out that it doesn't warn you.. and even then I had to make a further suggestion to make it actually correct.

Thanks :)

Sure it has. The site has gotten worse but Barefoot Essentials has gotten better.

Why they still haven't hired him is beyond me :P

Have you ever heard the expression "to put the cart before the horses" ;)?

Indeed. Unfortunately, it doesn't apply.

I'm not suggesting GOG make it so you can use the DLC before you own the game (which would be putting the cart before the horse), I am suggesting GOG allow you to buy it (and have it added it to your library) before you own the base game.. which would be buying the cart before the horse, which can make sense (e.g. if the cart is on a time-limited sale).

Ah, damnit... I had a brilliant analogy of putting the cart before the horse, and THEN needing to dismantle the whole thing and putting the cart behind the horse for things to work. You've dodged that masterfully. Of well - at least that one more idiom I've worked into a conversation. Too bad I only found out it was 3 days old after having already posted it...

I still think you should accept that what you're trying to do is an edge usecase. Very few people would buy DLC for something the don't have. There may be reasons to do so, they may be valid and completely reasonable, but it's still something many would consider "weird".
Most importantly - please don't torment Judas any further. He has tried his best using common sense and fairly loose and disorganized language to answer your largely academic points, and I simply don't see it getting any better.
The world isn't totally logical, we should speak out against that, but in this case I'd just give up.

Funny how something so simple can be made to appear so complex by constantly moving the goalposts.