Are you saying that the base patch works the same on both DLC and non-DLC Shadowrun installations?

Why only DLC owners see it ? It's a GOG policy ?
Not works same . File hashes completely same and these files are identical %100 .

Game A has Update A1, Game A DLC has Update B1. Update B1 is visible only if you have Game A DLC, and not if you only have Game A.

As to why include both files, even if identical, in which order should one install game, dlc and updates? Game->Update->DLC->Update, Game->DLC->Update, Game->Update->DLC or something else entirely? And remember the pain that SoTS:TP is to update.

Yeah I want to said this . Completely agreed .

Excuse me , but i think you made a mistake :

Putting the Patch under the base game with a small note : works for base game & dlc would have been better

scenario a : you have the base game -> install base game then use the patch
scenario b : you have the base game + dlc -> install base game , dlc then then use the patch

the situation you created with the 2 patches (i understand why); could lead some users to :

install base game -> use patch (non dlc one) -> install dlc -> use patch (dlc one). I don't think it's what you wanted

that how i understand your explanation, the two patches could confuse some people. Unless i missed something

This in my opinion is why GOG needs a client with automatic updating of games so people do not need to deal with any of this stuff at all. With newer games coming here that are more prone to updates, sometimes even frequent ones initially, something better than the current system is really going to be needed I would say.

Last I read, the developers just finished working on something a month or so ago and were beginning to work on the updates for the DRM-free version of the game, so we should get it sometime in the coming months I imagine but I haven't seen them give any release dates yet. Keep an eye on the Postal 2 forums here on GOG and on Steam though as that is where the update info has been posted previously.

I'm really looking forward to that one. :)

Also, I finally got a chance to try out Postal 3 as a friend had it and brought it over for me to try. In my limited testing, Postal 3 is indeed buggy and feels "unfinished" as the various reviews and coverage suggests and worthy of avoiding in favour of Postal 2 with the new updates. ;o)

Personally, I'm totally in favour of that as an option, but of course not everyone here is comfortable with that being mandatory and rightfully so. ;o)

Some people prefer the ease of use of an auto-updater that handles the details with a magic button, and others prefer to have all the files available for download without any additional requirements to use additional software. Ultimately I think the number of people out there is large for both groups and that both need to be accommodated in the end one way or another, but it is very important to many people that if something new shows up that some people find "better" by some metric, that the existing options aren't taken away. So, the problems in the current system can be resolved for some people potentially but would still remain for GOG to solve for "old school" people who just want to be able to http download in a web browser or whatever.

I personally would like both options. I like to download all the files either manually or via GOGdownloader just to have a personal backup copy that isn't tied to any additional software or services online etc. just for the "rainy day" scenario should such online services cease to be in the future. But, I like software that makes my life easier via convenience too, so I would welcome a well thought out client with a friendly user interface that had options for doing updates automatically and/or manually and hiding the details from me - so long as that manual download option is also always available.

I'd be surprised if we don't eventually see such an optional update client appear in the future, or see such functionality put into a future version of the existing optional client though. Perhaps this could be one of those "future announcements" that they alluded to a couple months back.

I could be wrong but I feel it is safe to say that most users would probably prefer not to have to deal with updates and lots of additional file downloads, manual patching of games, etc. The current approach to the problem of software updates is archaic and while I am sure some folks do love living in that world I have trouble believing that a substantial number of people do not prefer convenience.

At some point you cannot cater to everyone and some people are not going to be happy. You just cannot please everyone all of the time. Ultimately I can only speak for myself but I know I do not want to even think about whether my games are at the most current version. I just want stuff taken care of and the technology to provide me that convenience exists so I expect companies to employ it.

I just don't think it is too much of a stretch to imagine that most people would prefer convenience and GOG's current system is not convenient. As for providing both options of client and manual downloads down the road, that probably isn't practical or worthwhile for the small number of people wanting to do things manually.

I want to play my games not screw around with their files regularly. I can't believe I am alone in feeling this way.

A GOG client has the potential to offer a lot of cool functionality over time as well. I think it would be a win for users here, not a loss in any way. And if they feel it is worthwhile, it certainly is possible to design a client that does not need to be running when the games are being played. It is also possible to design a client that downloads installers and patches as they offer them now and simply executes them and then offers the user the option to keep or delete them as desired. Those files would be capable of running independently of the client as well. In this way GOG could provide a client that is unique to this store particularly where it does not need to offer DRM and therefore it does not need to be running when the game is if the user doesn't want it to be.

It is absolutely possible to solve this problem in a variety of ways and I hope to see real progress on that this year.