I’d like to point out that GOG could easily distribute "Preservation Program" updates as separate patches, leaving the original installer available for those whom these updates might negatively affect.

They actually already do this - the files for every game include a patch to upgrade the old version to the "Preservation Program" edition. But GOG doesn't care about you, and they are depriving you of stable, offline versions of these games.

And explain to me: how do people download old versions of games using lgogdownloader if GOG doesn't store them?


Anyone concerned that GOG is just ruining games and breaking mod compatibility can vote here:

https://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/please_save_offline_installers_of_previous_versions_of_games_if_you_add_them_to_the_gog_preservation_program

its evidently not preservation nor archiving, but i wont go into this discussion again, as only then reality hits and things dont work as one's expection that this hits, will just say the following:

GOG is just making products commercially available with some products being able to run easier on modern systems. As you mentioned: its store front: by definition its not the place or goal of a store front to do or be able to preserve anything.

Its a store, that is just it - and there is nothing wrong with that. It provides a good service with something that others dont offer, that should be good enough. However, the dreamlist, the voting, parasocial relationship, the marketing are creating false expectations and its expected that this (as often seen) does not end well - and tends to get worse (the Witcher 3 discussion is surreal).

Some users are just projecting (and asking) GOG to be what they want it to be or represent, but again, reality often shows otherwise hence the waves of outrage that come an go when realizing that the world does not work or even share that "ideal". T

he service/products GOG's has are great and should speak for themselves (even with some issues) but GOG's marketing pushing a reality that is not true or even possible IMO is not a positive thing - have you read how extreme some users have become in the forum/discord towards other gamers or even GOG staff? Some people are taking "preservation" too seriously and constantly pushing the line (and getting more annoying/abrasive),

But alas, this will be a GOG's problem, as its their business and their jobs, so at EoD, i can only provide my 2cent and move on with my life - as I usual say: this is hobby for me, not a job or cause.

I have most people on the internet just love to be upset for some reason. What's that Sony wants to go digital, get upset and ignore the fact most indie and AA release rarely have physical releases anymore.

Indeed, maybe is just me, i do recall a time when the voices of the love of the hobby even wo the internet spoke louder than the constanly need to get upset about everything and anything.

Its fine to disagree with something and disapprove something - but this constant outrage like the Sony thing is just a whole new level of bizarre (which "culminated" a even bizarre ""boycott"") or the classic "complain until Y does what i want" if coming from a child it would have a name for it: a tantrum (or sometimes i think is more akin to an addiction tbh)

Even more strange is framing all this like a moral and ethical crusade or a complex issue when reality (in what gaming is concerned) is just not buy stuff and move on (no need for new laws, drama, protests).

GOG in a way is just reaping the dividends of doubling down in making its "cause", now everything that GOG does that doesn't meet "approval" = outrage (to be fair, GOG could not have predicted that the internet becoming an outrage corner). Now everything that GOG tries to do leads to the same discussions and digging up grievances.

It's unfortunate that, since the total and private acquisition of GOG, any 'dividends' that may be reaped are no longer publicly announced in financial reports as they once were, making it difficult to verify how much reaping is actually being done.

Indeed, very likely that will be the case but note that nothing prevents GOG (before or after being sold) to disclose the revenue breakdown as they see fit - they have to following accounting rules and standards as the minimum legal obligation, but adding the split on how much GOG Patrons contributed is up to them.

More bizarre - and will never get to see - was how would GOG before being acquired would have disclosed the donations - as this would have to appear discriminated in the sources of revenue (given that GOG is not a charity or foundations, if donations are included as revenue would at the very least be akward and at worse a chat with the tax man.