The thing i don't understand (especially since the game itself was mostly done when they launched the Kickstarter - or the bulk of it done) -- they got more than their stated goal, they had plenty of time - why couldn't the game have been finished inside the KS budget (instead Steam Early access feels like a cash grab especially with discount during the last sale -- or it sure seems like it now - Wasteland 2 did exactly the same thing).
TBH im a bit disappointed to a point in regards with way dev's seem to just grab KS $$ just to throw themselves at Early Access at the nearest opportunity to grab more cash (pretty much using KS as a stepping stone). Am i being too cynical?. How is it really different to games which lauch directly into Early Access? :/.

i guess this is the new gog era sigh , day 1 patches , dlcs , pre order sigh

I'm guessing you missed out on the whole "game released a week and a half later than Day 1 release" debacle...?

well i did read about it but just kinda let down by how things are changing so fast , within a few months we all will be on gog galaxy rather than what it is now aren't we ?

You'd rather they not sell a new game on release day (D:OS notwithstanding) and just hold off until all the patches are done? Like months/years after release?

DLCs are an unfortunate reality for most new games. If you're opposed to them, don't buy them, or wait until a GOTY/Ultimate/Complete/We've Got Cookies Edition release (which is what I tend to do).
They key with Galaxy is it's optional, just like the GOG downloader. I don't intend to use it. It remains to be seen if those of us that opt out will be second class citizens and have to wait longer for patches. If that happens... well I guess I'll likely head elsewhere.

That seems to be the best way but soon you get so used to them that many times you flatout refuse to play the game till all the dlcs are owned...

Pretty much where I've been since Dragon Age:Origins. Any game that I know is going to get a constant stream of DLC is a pass for me until the complete package is released or the base/deluxe edition is on deep discount. I picked up ME3 deluxe edition cheap but have yet to play it. I'm waiting to see if the two or three story DLCs ever go on sale. If they don't, then I'll likely play it down the road (a year or so) and call it a day.

With Inquisition I'm waiting to see what the DLC plans are. If they're planning to go the same route as the ME series, then I'll wait before I decide whether or not to buy it.

As far as D:OS goes, I backed the kickstarter and even though I was excited to see it released, I'm holding off until the patching slows way down. As far as DLCs go, I'll also wait and see what they decide. If they're pumping a bunch of decent-looking DLC out, then I'll have to wait and see about it going on sale. If it doesn't, I'll play the game and not bother with it.

I'm not one that is of the opinion that without DLC you've got an 'incomplete game'. I can't think of any DLC-laden games I've played where I'd think there was something glaringly obviously missing if I didn't have the DLC. The first time I play a game with DLC and it's obvious that something major is missing... is the last time I buy a game from that developer.

Eh, I doubt the cynicism is much use until we get to whatever future. Up until Galaxy actually launches, everything is speculation, and if you read some of the color on the Galaxy board, that speculation can be a bit over the top.

The way D:OS has been handled in general (not so much on GOG's side) has been kind of fishy, but at the same time you still have stuff like Shadowrun Returns coming out. The DLC/add-on for that is excellent. Besides, it's really the bigger named games that have a load of patches.

Point is, the current majority of releases aren't quite like this.

What part of D:OS was 'kind of fishy'?

Also, given the drama that happened around the Shadowrun Returns DRM that's probably not the best counter example of 'kind of fishy' kickstarting :)

Best game ever. =)
20 hours gameplay and other teleportstone was there but I didn't see it.

You mean like... selling old games exclusively? Could be a market niche! Should GOG ever decide to do this, I already have a great idea for a name: Good Old Games ;) Coincidentally it's fitting the letters G O G...

Nah, all jokes aside, this is exactly what some people still want. I'm happy with day 1 releases on GOG (Original Sin is my second release purchase, after Blackguards), because DRM free means something to me, no matter how old or new a game is. But... Let's be honest: GOG is not yet ready for new games with DLC and patches. And I think Original Sin is going to show that in the next few weeks, because such huge and open games get a lot of patches. I hope Galaxy will solve this problem.

I think patches will be available at the same time. If GOG does it right, they'll upload the patch ONCE and both "systems", our classic game shelf and Galaxy, will have access to the same file. Some devs are already "overstrained" to deliver one patch for GOG (see Omerta), so GOG shouldn't even think about asking them for two different patches for Galaxy and non-Galaxy versions.

No offence meant, but you couldn't have picked a worse example. Not sure if you're aware of the whole "DRM-free turned Steam exclusive" mess just before release, or that the highly regarded DLC was initially part of the game (stretch goal).

Heh, I thought of this while writing that post. The fact is though, GOG feels it's necessary to expand into new areas (newer games, indies, different platforms, etc) in order to remain competetive and profitable. I'm all for it. For those that think they should remain a seller of old games only, I think that's short-sighted thinking and likely GOG has realized it's not a viable way to remain in business.

Is it GOG that's not ready or the publisher/developers? Seems to me with D:OS it's not GOG that's the issue with getting patches on the game shelves. Perhaps I'm not paying close enough attention though.

Yeah, I'm hopeful as well that all Galaxy does is grab the same patch and apply it to the game, same as you would manually. If it requires a different build than the one on the shelf for whatever reason, then there could be issues.

They wouldn't. GOG is the one who'd be making the different versions, not the developers.

And at the very least, your suggestion of uploading it *once* requires that both versions be ready at the same time, which could mean a delay because of the non-Galaxy versions. Which would mean a delay versus the Steam ones, which could mean people on games like D:OS can't play together because of mismatches.

Basically the question comes down to,
Can GOG deliver the Galaxy/Non-Galaxy patches just as fast as Steam can deliver its patches. (I know the S-word is bad, but in these cases, it's relevant)

If they can't, I wouldn't be surprised to see them do Galaxy patching before Non-Galaxy. Maybe not by much of a difference, but the Galaxy ones should be the easiest.

Nah, everything's great with Original Sin so far. GOG just didn't upload one or two patches, because they introduced a new, severe bug, if I understood this correctly. What I'm talking about, is the "patching process". GOG flags the game (this annoying red number) and you have to look what changed. A client, telling you "You have v1.0.57 - Patch 1.0.67 is available for download. Do you want to patch your game?" is far more convenient. Especially if GOG sticks with its own version numbers (I have setup_divinity_original_sin_2.3.0.6 and have downloaded a patch to 1.0.67 which turned out to be patch_divinity_original_sin_2.4.0.10, which has nothing to do with any version number) and is going to bring more new games.

Just imagine they'll evolve into a real Steam competitor (=huge number of new games, which I think is GOG's goal). You'll be completely lost with that red number. I know myself... The number would probably be a three-digit number, because I'd be too lazy to click all updated games (I think this is still necessary to make it disappear).

I... don't think so. I've never seen a store doing anything to the patches. To avoid any misunderstandings: I'm talking about the contents of the patch - the actual code - not about the installer it's coming in.

Patches will have to work with two "different" versions of the game. The game running under Galaxy and the game without Galaxy. So everything that adresses Galaxy, will either have to be some "if (Galaxy == true)" stuff (don't know if that's possible), or implemented into a seperate version of the same patch. Asking devs for two different patches is a bad idea (GOG already gets most patches delayed), so it should be one patch for both game versions. That's what I was talking about. Ideally, Galaxy and non-Galaxy version will use the same installers - it's less work for GOG. If GOG has to do two different installers, there'll probably be a slight delay between Galaxy and non-Galaxy. But I think that should be negligible (don't know how long it takes to wrap an installer around a patch, but this shouldn't take too long).

Don't worry about the S-word... I prefer my games DRM free, but I'm not all anti-Steam and I'm not a GOG "Hammer Legion Member" ;) In fact, I think Steam does quite a few things right O.O