I'll try it out. I usually stick to singleplayer games as well, but I'm sure I'd want to try a couple of multiplayer games.

Overall, I try not to worry about it. If things don't turn out the way I like, I'll complain about it later. Worrying about it now will just stress me out, and I don't need that.

I prefer to keep the stand alone installer, rather than install the game through the client. I store my games on an external HDD and prefer to have the installer offline and easily to install whenever I like.


I'm not really worried about it, I'm just curious to see if GOG will keep it completely optional, or if they will slowly make it necessary. I would not put it past them to do a u-turn about it, much like they have done with regional pricing.

Willing to give it a shot, see how it goes. Crawl looks interesting, wouldn't mind playing it with people from here. If it comes out of the gate riddled with bugs, it'll get nuked until a better version gets built.
And yes, I agree. If Galaxy becomes a requirement at any point, a whole lot of people are going to freak the hell out.

Me too :D That is why I wrote "once the function to download standalone installer is integrated". At least as far as I understood the comments on the client there will be an option to use it just as downloader for standalone installers just like the gog downloader we have now does.

I always was under the impression that Galaxy was intended to provide a more "steam-like" (let's face it, not everyone hates steam, and the client is actually pretty nifty in some ways), experience, integrating forums, chats, friend lists, downloader, installer, updater and whatever else gog may cook up (like workshops or whatever) into one single nicely presented package.

But always optional, the DRM free nature of the games, precludes the client being necessary for any game, at all.

I was unaware of the multiplayer part, but I'm curious about it. I think it'd be cool if GOG actually cooked up some sort of VPN support into the client, making it unnecessary to use game ranger for some games, because that's what I think of when I think multiplayer support in Galaxy.

But will you also have to accept the installation of the rest of the client's features just to use the downloader?

I'm not trying to make an issue out of it, I know it's not a big thing, just having a curious discussion about it (just in case anyone thought I was trying to do another Galaxy-bashing theme, I'm not).

Morning Crow. Check your PM.

Ah that is what you mean. I am not bothered by it, but in my opinion I still think it is best to just keep the current gog downloader in addition to the client. I can't see that the current downloader needs much work so why not keep it so that everyone can use their preference.

Please don't wonder if I start a fight in this thread on day in the future. Everytime I see the title I read "Controversial Free-For-All Thread" instead of "Conversational Free-For-All Thread".

I wonder if my subconscious wants to tell me something. ;-)

Good afternoon :D Here it is quite ok, how are you doing?

That's what I think, I have never had a problem with the downloader, I know a few do, but with a little work it should be fine. That's what I meant about the client not necessarily being optional. If they kept the downloader then fine, but by getting rid of the downloader (eventually), they make Galaxy necessary for those who can't download via the browser.

Don't know. I'll see how it looks and works out when it launches. I usually stick to singleplayer over multiplayer too, but sometimes i like to play games with friends (examples: Trine 2, Hammerwatch, Civ v, EU IV, etc ).

As for the installing of games, i hope gog still allows us to download games manually. I don't use the gog installer and would prefer to keep it that way in the future.

I wonder how many games they can get to support multiplayer? I can't see them hosting their own gaming servers, I would think that would be too costly to support long-term.

That anime you like is shit.

SHIIIIIIIIIT!!!

Discuss!

I've said this before, but I'll say it again. A cheap type of multiplayer support that many here would love, would involve some sort of gameranger-like VPN tool.

Hell, it doesn't even need to be centralized if it's done properly.

As for more modern games, that don't include IPX in their network protocol options. I'd think they have their own servers in place, or other means of connecting.