That would just be guessing.

I download updates regularly for my games, and a good number seem to get updated at least once a month if not once a week almost.

So going back four or five versions is not much of a roll back in those cases.

But I am only guessing the rules behind what is considered a roll-back version ... it could be date based rather than version based.

And if not, then four versions to roll-back to, could be all the storage space GOG are happy to set aside per game.

We really don't know the ins and outs, and GOG are certainly guilty of doing things sometimes to appear good, that don't always have any or much substance to them.

Based on a relatively well reasoned assumption on what this rollback feature is meant for.

Ideally we would only need to run a download script once or twice per year to grab the latest version for each of our games along with any actually relevant older versions, rather than for example having a dozen consecutive versions for Baldur's Gate III downloaded automatically before I have even started to play that game.

And from what I have seen, that is the case with the rollback feature, as it is just meant to keep client users from being stuck with some buggy hotfix patches rather than to actually preserve any relevant older versions any customer who might be interested to back them up.

Surely before GOG could start having any more nuance with the rollback feature than listing only a few previous consecutive versions, they should have already set up a community based older offline installer testing thread to help them pinpoint which offline installers should be kept around as unsupported installers, or in another words, can you even imagine the outcry if this would become an exclusive feature for their "optional" client, as those who refuse to use the Galaxy client could be far more likely to be interested to preserve older versions of their games than those who may not even be downloading any offline installers at all?