Not to downplay this idea too much, but are you basing this on related knowledge of coding/etc or are you just guessing/approximating?

Even if it were as simple as copy-paste they'd need to test it on all browsers they support/make sure it's all implemented correctly/etc to avoid any mishaps.

I think that is slightly oversimplifying what needs to be done...else we'd likely have had it implemented by now(if not by gog then by those who make scripts and tools for the site).....it would be nice for some of us to have such, though.

Come on people, give them some more time. It took them six years to give us the ability to hide DLCs from the store.

I'm basing it on my own experience in programming (PHP, C++, etc). I'm pretty sure it's that easy (this is the "in a nutshell" version of how to do it), at least as long as you're not concerned with a modest increase in bandwidth and CPU usage because of the added functionality. You of course also want to make sure that no mistakes are made that break the code or introduce security issues but that's only a problem if you introduce completely new stuff into the code. Here we're talking about replicating existing code: You have separate functions for each feature, each function uses mostly local variables that need not be changed at all and maybe a few global ones that may need to be copied/tweaked along with the original function for the new duplicate function/feature. While I'm not a professional programmer, I do know enough about programming to know how you copy and tweak existing features in a code. It's not that hard unless the code of the site is a complete unstructured mess - but I have a hard time believing it's a mess as GOG is after all a commercial site that employs professional programmers who know how to properly code. Yes, this can be done in less than an evening's work even by an average programmer like myself.

Sounds like it might be doable, then....also it's nice to hear from someone who knows their stuff who can weigh in on such things. :)

From what I know and have heard the company hired some low bid contractor to make the site for the cheapest price possible, and that the code is indeed a mess. They might need to scrap it all and start anew to implement some things.
================================

Extrapolating from this, we can assume we will have a fully featured and functional site sometime around when we have a base on the moon(or mars) then. :)

Yes, that's the thing. It's not about the effort required, because these are pretty basic features, it's about them having an excessively conservative approach to introducing even the most modest changes to their code. I think they could be far less conservative and far more pragmatic when it comes to these issues. After all, gamers are not a group that's adverse to change and novelty as long as it increases the functionality of the site...

Read me last reply....it's less about pragmatism and more about very crappy site coding.

Oh, well, if that's the case then this entire website is long overdue for a complete overhaul. They need to get off their butts, i.e. hire new properly credentialed programmers, and start working on their new GOG.COM version 2.0 website - just as they're been doing with their client software. There is no excuse for a commercial website of their size to still rely on subpar code, they have the resources to fix this and the sooner they do it the better (for themselves and for their customers).

Their profit margins(sans cdpr games) aren't big enough & the need big enough(in their eyes), to push for such or encourage them to do such....most seem to use the site just to buy games and move on.

I own witcher 3 goty edition. Recently I've seen some free DLC for w3 and thought I didnt own it, so I've added it to my library... which added empty entry of basic (non-goty) w3, that did nothing but begged me to purchase the full game (while I already own the most definitive version out there). Took 2 days to remove this silent entry by request to support.

So, yeah - while its kinda debatable if remasters shouldnt be displayed to people who own original versions - different versions of the same game should definitely be marked as owned. Otherwise mistakes like that will keep happening, creating more and more work to support team (and more annoyance to customers) out of nowhere

Individual game hiding will solve most of the store clutter issues especially as the store grow in size. Default option is probably best to just leave it as it is even if they add further filter options.

Their margins might be thin but I have a hard time believing that they are quite that thin. Either way, even if this is the case, relying on bad code is not a long-term option. Expansions and updates to their website code are an inevitability down the road regardless of the specific feature being discussed in this thread. If they are unable to properly update and expand the code in its current state, then they will eventually run their website to the ground. If they don't have the money to overhaul their code, then they need to start a crowdfunding effort ASAP, and knowing the nature of GOG users I'm more than sure that they will be more than happy to contribute to such a project...

I believe from what I read they are below(and maybe a good amount below) $500,000 US per period.

Agreed on all counts except maybe the last bit...some might help with such an effort, but many are very frugal(look at sales where people who likely have money balk at some games not being 1-2 dollars lower) as well....but maybe you are right on that as well. :)

Much of the penny-pinching is because people are critical toward specific editions of released games, or critical of the studios releasing the games - GOG simply gets caught in the crossfire. I'm guilty of that myself at times. However, when it comes to GOG itself, idealism kicks in with many users of this platform because people truly believe in DRM-free content and are willing to put up with things they would not otherwise put up with. The idealism of the people making up the GOG community is the main reason why GOG has managed to compete with Steam and stay afloat all these years. I would myself definitely support any crowdfunding venture by GOG, I would happily give some €10 for an overhaul of their website and another €10 for a Linux version of the GOG Galaxy client, even though I haven't used Linux myself in years. I think that many Linux users currently not using GOG because of its lack of Linux support would also happily contribute. If it 's a matter of funding then it's up to GOG to initiate these crowdfunding initiatives - if they fail then at least we will all know that GOG isn't the one to blame for lacking features ;)

I am as well.....still, let's be honest a bit here(or more honest I mean).....some of us will find ANY excuse not to buy a game and add to our ever growing backlogs, just as some pirates will often find any excuse not to buy a game/other piece of media.

The problem isn't just how many might contribute if such were done, but the disparity of donations.....ever see a coin box for donations? Most of it is usually nickles and pennies....as in the least people can give in most cases.

Yes, some who donate do so to a high degree, but they are fewer and more far in between than those who give little or not at all.

Now i'm not saying such efforts wouldn't amount to much....we'd need to try it and see...but until then all we can do is speculate and from what i've seen of human nature in this regard the likely outcome(from looking at such) isn't as good as I wish it could be.