But that is conjunctural, not structural.
That is the exception, not the the rule itself.

Games do not become outdated through magic. They become outdated because someone didn't go to the trouble of updating them. I don't think this is due to malice, but when you have tens of games that have been updated on galaxy and not in the offline installers, it does mean that someone somewhere thinks there are more important things for him or her to do than make sure offline installers are up to date.

And, frankly, I find it sad that there are people who defend this kind of poor service.

And what have to do all of that with the optional or mandatory nature of a Client?

Must I undestand that the GOG plan is to mantain some installers up to date and keep others outdated for a strange logic plan?

I don't think so. That those outdated installers should be updated and mantained at the same level of Galaxy ones if needed, and if possible, does not change the fact that it is the exception. Because the vast majority of them are up to date.

I think the point mrkgnao is trying to make is that, if there is a discrepancy between the Galaxy and offline versions of a particular game, then, if someone wants to play the latest version, they have to use Galaxy. It's true that it may be only a small percentage of games where the offline installers are out-of-date, but I'd say it is still reasonable for those that aren't interested in Galaxy to criticise GOG for the poor service, especially for those that haven't been updated for months.

I take the opposite view. The way I see it, it is allowing their DRM-free values to slip that is putting GOG on a destructive path. If they gradually erode and eventually abandon DRM-free, then they will lose their one remaining unique selling point and end up having to compete with Steam/Epic on their turf. They will lose that battle (it's practically guaranteed) and, imo, that would be far more likely to lead to GOG's demise than a temporary user boycott.

So, the way I see it, boycotting now to show that we will not tolerate any further slippage of DRM-free is the lesser evil and will be better for GOG in the long run. If you truly care about DRM-free and want GOG to succeed, I suggest you consider joining the boycott. It is not about bringing GOG down - it is about pushing them to reinforce their DRM-free commitment, which is what differentiates GOG and will make them stronger.

This is why we need to support other DRM-free stores, so there is competition in the market and we have alternatives, rather than being totally dependent on GOG (and at their mercy). Your viewpoint is a self-fulfilling prophecy: you don't want to acknowledge or support other DRM-free stores, so there won't be any.

Zoom Platform is a really nice DRM-free store. They have many good DRM-free games that are worth playing and they have more games now than GOG did in their early days. They have to start somewhere and if more people like you were to support them, then we might be able to have a better selection of viable DRM-free stores, rather than putting all of our eggs in the GOG basket.

You can't really know this, unless you visited a parallel universe where Gog never decided to create Galaxy. Have you?

So what? They must be thinking the flawed assumption that Gog would prefer to go down hugging their bad decisions instead of doing the things we have been asking them to do and would end the boycott. Things like communicating with us customers, removing the DRM gate from the Cyberpunk Rewards and stop trying to bribe people into installing Galaxy. All of those are perfectly feasible as long as Gog changes their mentality back to a pro-consumer stance, mind you.

It's not a surprise there are people out at "steak" that think like that when there are people here that think the same, for example you. Naturally, they're wrong. If the boycott ever got to a point where they have to choose between closing their doors or surrendering to the requests it's insane to think they will choose to close. In fact, if they have any smarts they would change their path long before the boycott ever comes close to doing serious damage to their finances.

This is really exhausting. Do we have to post the gamepages that specifically state the Galaxy client is required for various content in several games here? Please save the gymnastics. Is it really a complete game if vast swaths of content and modes are locked out? Would the hardcore client-pushers agree to fund the difference for me in buying games here, since I'm locked out of these modes by virtue of not wanting the "optional" client?

No new customer is coming to this store because of how (allegedly) awesome the client is. In fact, especially with Galaxy 2.0, I see more complaining about the client that anything (though I assume these folks still do want a client). Ultimately, the client is a means to an end of getting games here. Not an attraction on its own. People might get excited about a new version of the client but it is still just a thing to be used to access games. If GOG went full-on DRM path and required it like Scheme and other stores do, that wouldn't change the nature of it. Just like a video game console is a box you buy to access Sonic/Mario/Kratos, the client is also ultimately a tool people put up with to access the content. Except for some people like me and others boycotting in this topic who would not put up with it and are already indeed fed up with it.

Also worth noting, the way GOG has it set up, most users would not even know there was an option to download games outside the client. If these forums weren't here with the old school users, even less people would know, since I don't really see mention of offline installers on the "cooler" channels like reddit and social media. This is why I cringe when people ask for GOG to update the forums...it's more likely they would just cut out the forums entirely and then us offline installer users are in deep, since we'd be losing user-generated resources like What Did Just Update thread, games with Galaxy DRM threads, etc and have to assimilate to the Galaxy collective or not have such information. New customers who care about these old-school values would be at even more a disadvantage than GOG has already seemed to have put them.

Are they the same people who for a decade and a half have been screeching "No Scheme No Buy" and doing all they can to ensure games are DRMed, just so long as its "their" own favorite DRM. Who cares?
And can you take me along? One-way ticket, please. :)

Allmost NONE of them sells drm-free builds. The few remaining games (humble bundle? LOL) left to be purchaseable are a handfull of indies and there will be no more drm-free games coming from bigger studios, because the market is dead for those. When thinking about drm-free those developers think of GOG and no one else.

So yeah. If GOG goes under, the "drm-free gaming party" is over. I will not touch ZOOM with a pointy stick, do not rust them A BIT. Selling delisted games is almost like acting as a warez site. WILL NEVER PAY FOR WAREZ.

If GOG goes under, I will pirate ALL games in the future, never to buy one again. One the one side quite sad (I have many games here), but one the other side I will save a LOT of money that way. Their loss...

Continuing the tradition.

New not-purchases as of 26/02/2021:
- Grim Legends: The Forsaken Bride : $1.15
- Grim Legends 2: Song of the Dark Swan : $1.15
- Grim Legends 3: The Dark City : $1.15
- My Brother Rabbit : $1.67
- Felix the Reaper : $0.85
- Last Day of June : $1.78

Adding the $17.98 from my previous post my new total is $25.73 saved so far.
I'm excited for the announced arcade classics that I'll be able to not buy and add to this tally soon.



Yes, but I only have coordinates for an universe where EA has conquered the world and out-ruled the existence of games that aren't always online MTX-infested lootbox crap devoid of any originality that requires their client to work and have limited activations. Oh and every game has a minimum 85 DLCs. They have exorbitant prices and never go on sale.

There's a reason I'm not there myself, you know ;-)

Can you explain that? Are you sure they dont have a different kind of deal than GOG for whatever game you are implying?

I thought I'd keep a record of games I would definitely have bought, were it not for the boycott.

GAMES NOT BOUGHT IN 2021
(1) 18/1/21: Dread Nautical - $10
(2) 18/1/21: Operencia: The Stolen Sun - $15
(3) 29/1/21: Way of the Samurai 3 Deluxe - $2.5
(4) 29/1/21: Way of the Samurai 4 + DLC - $3.5
(5) 10/2/21: Drakensang - $3
(6) 10/2/21: Commander Keen Complete Pack - $1.5
(7) 10/2/21: XCOM 2 - $4.5
(8) 26/2/21: Cardaclysm: Shards of the Four - $9

Total so far: $49 (rounded down)

Good topic. I really want GOG to listen to some of the concerns pointed out on the first post. Right now, GOG is the only place where I can buy DRM-free games for a good price since they have support to local currency here in Brazil (other stores like Itch.io and Humble Bundle are great and I have bought there on the past, but the USD conversion is too high right now). However, I have a lot of games to play, so I guess I don't need to purchase anything here for a long time.

The points I really want to see addressed are those concerning off-line installers (I use Galaxy, but keep a backup of the installers too), removing those "DRM-esque" games that require for SP content some sort of activation (would be better if the devs patched it out) and over all a more clear way of communicating with us.

One thing I also thing is important: many game aren't being patched for a long time, GOG should do something about this. Dragons Dogma iirc don't have some patches, Saints Row The Third and IV have some problems too. If the publisher/devs still receive our money, we should receive the same support than other stores...

I would also like to see the come back of GOG-Mixes.


To GOG: I don't hate you, I'm only afraid that you may lost your way. I've been a loyal client, buying only here since 2015, and I wish we can keep that relationship.

Your points are all factual, nothing can be denied.
I hate the fact that GOG is the only place with a really solid library, though. I'd totally boycott it as well -both for a matter of principle and on a personal level for the recent awfulness of customer support and the god forsaken "community", but as somebody who refuses any kind of DRM I really don't have much choice. Granted, I bought only Commander Keen in 2021, but since I have no backlog I wonder when my next purchase will be.

I dislike CDP as much as I dislike any corporation -which means A LOT, and yet I love videogames and I want to suppoprt the small fishes (developers, for sure not big publishers).

I agree completely. The reason GOG can act the way they do, is exactly because they are effectively a monopoly.

Boycotts and strikes, which are the primary methods of breaking a monopoly, are true only if you pay some personal price for them, such as resisting the temptation to buy that newly-released game (e.g. in my case, today, Cardaclysm).

As for not having a backlog, if I may be so bold, at a rate of 100+ games a year, if you just decide to replay games you haven't touched in, say, the last three years, you can still have years of boycott ahead of you.

But I'm not trying to push you. It's a personal decision that needs to be made on one's own. And any path is valid.

Well, I have many very replayable games among those I already completed, that's a fair point.
All right, I guess it's time for me to join the "movement", then! It's really time things here start to improve, and apparently the only language the heads understand is money.