I don't agree that boycotting equals 'giving up on GOG'. I still have hope that they can change course and start listening to their users again. The intention of the boycott is to send a message and apply some pressure in the hope they will change course. If I thought there was no chance things could improve, then I would probably just leave and move on.

Right. I am not saying there is hard proof that GOG plan to do away with the offline installers. But, there is evidence they are not prioritizing their maintenance and that GOG is investing a huge amount of resources in developing and pushing Galaxy. There is such a thing as drawing conclusions from the available evidence, even if it may be circumstantial.

If wolfsite or Gudadantza draw different conclusions, fair enough. But, even if they don't do away with the installers, the heavy pushing of Galaxy and lack of maintenance of the installers are themselves not good trends.

IIRC the files come from the same source...so there's not so much overhead.

Besides that, I think they'd be more likely to keep it around as it's one of their unique selling points. Of course even if GOG was thinking of ditching them: the more people want it and etc, the more likely GOG is to keep it....so criticism like this thread likely helps to make it more likely that the offline installers stick around.

For one thing, the data harvesting....I am guessing the more people using galaxy, the more money from such that they likely make.

Also imo it's mainly not us they're pushing it to...but most likely more so NEW customers who haven't signed up to GOG yet.

I still don't see your point. If it's about making profit off goods and services, then it's the store that needs promotion, in other words the company itself and the website (which is where you would get the games they make profit from and/or get the client in which you can do the same).

I don't see why a client that is both free and optional and already heavily advertised to a ridiculous degree on the website would need its own, additional promotion.

Sorry, apparently I missed this post.

For some people it can take a lot less than 100 hours a week to cause noticeable health issues (even an extra half hour on average per day can be enough if done for long enough). In general, what it does take is for overtime to become the norm rather than an apologetic exception.

Laws often allow for monetary compensation, which tends to be the more convenient option for companies, and may even be well appreciated by the worker, but often does virtually nothing to mitigate the resulting health issues. Even when compensation is not monetary, it's usually measured in work hours. Health-wise, extra free time does not match extra work time one to one.

I for one consider the status quo on this issue to be an ethical gray area at best, and will for sure not willingly show support to a company that is headed in that direction in order to produce a product whose purpose is ultimately to entertain people.

They gave the game away for free to everyone a few times. I'm not aware of them ever giving it away to only people who don't use Galaxy. Galaxy users would feel a bit less special if they gave the game to everyone but that way they wouldn't alienate the people who don't or can't use Galaxy.

Besides, Galaxy is supposed to be the cool free thing that gets people to pay for games. If they give away free games to get people to use Galaxy it makes me wonder what they're getting out of it. Paving the way to ditch offline installers, Linux users or DRM-free? Perhaps just lots of user data to sell.

I'm not going to boycott, but I am going to try and come to GOG less ... however I am still struggling with that, and inevitably turn up here every day ... usually more than once ... what can I say, I'm addicted to the place.

Truth be known though, I have considered boycotting ... but just for a few games that aren't here that should be ... like WWII GI. I know GOG probably aren't to blame for that state of affair, so that is the flaw or weakness in the strength of my motivation to do the boycott. But if I ever find out they are to blame, then there will be strong words, rest assured ... and no doubt some purchases from Humble or Zoom or Itch.io to show my disgust ... for games available at GOG.

Hell, I even did a trial run just in case, and bought the Botanicula Collector's Edition from Humble, which is available here in two parts but never been that cheap, especially collectively. I also bought 4 other DRM-Free games there not available here ... all bar one of the five also provided a Steam Key along with the direct download ... not that I am a Steam fanboy.

I'm not sure, of course, but I think that may have worried GOG, and they are now thinking of mending their ways.

Life is tough when it comes to gaming .... so many decisions to make.

P.S. Anyway, maintain the RAGE.

You can add me to the list, for all the reasons back in my post on page 4, and for being part of the company that produced cyberpunked2020. Haven’t spent a penny here since they finally admitted that only galaxy uses and pirates would get preload. Nothing good left in the company any more.

I am overwhelmed by the amount of replies to my post, thank you all for the information! I am sympathetic to the cause but I don't think I am going to go full boycott yet.

This point resonated with me the most, so I am mentioning it again:

If that is the case, then there is no good excuse for the offline installers to be behind the Galaxy versions.

If so, good! That's the whole point :-)

Which is the main reason I have no interest in installing an integrated client application on my computer.

This is basically what I was trying to get at - it would have to be something anti-consumer like that (or worse). I can for sure think of many other possible, similarly anti-consumer reasons, for example to be able to assert end-of-life of a game (by uninstalling it permanently) or to show personalized ads based on data mining without your express input or permission. I can see the appeal for a company to do such things, and I definitely disagree that they "have to" do any of that.

EDIT: Comment on consent removed. They do seem to have a lot of information on this in their "privacy policy" now. Also edited above text because some of my word choices were somewhat unfortunate.

In that case it wasn't much of an incentive to install Galaxy anyway so they may as well have given it to everyone again instead of further irritating the anti-launcher crowd.
Pretty anti-consumer in my book and one more reason to boycott GOG :-)

That's fine. It's exactly what I do when I don't want a game: I just don't buy it.

I'm hoping you will have your chance to boycott it. Of course that means the game would be released here first, so those who want it could get it, those who like you don't want it could not get it, Gog gets some money from purchases, everybody wins.

Aye

The way I boycott GOG is by buying more games on GOG.

Fine or not fine the problem here is that some people would prefer to boycott the store itself instead, if that walkng simulator is NOT availabe here, based in conspiracy theories and overreactions. And that only to mention the Devotion case.

Another demential fact is that It is being pushed the demand to retire some games under subjective visions. Why should not be valid the same for those games? If you dislike the state of those games then boycott them, do not purchase them.
But some of you prefer to boycot the interests of rest of users here.

Do you want a conspiracy? Who is the beneficiary of this agenda if some high seller games are retired from gog? Crystal clear for me.
Sorry. All of this is too unfair and cynic for me.