This is... so sadly on point.

Plenty of us who don't want anything to do with it are being constantly, unavoidably affected by GOG's blind focus on it. I'll only stop complaining about Galaxy when it stops being a direct detriment to us.

GOG runs a video game store, they can hardly be held responsible for what happens in the entire Galaxy!!!

It wouldn't be forced labor or indentured servitude, it would be an open source community effort. Not the mandate you appear to have misimplied.

I'm sure there are those lurking in the background who would love nothing more than to just kill every last ounce of javascript on this website and replace it with Rust or something. There are those who already have gone to the effort of offering communal services to provide for areas where GOG lacks!

This way, all GOG would have to do would be to vet the code and implement the final copy. As for the matter of the cost of living in Poland, you and I both know there's more than how much a ruble is worth.

Did the previous GOG Galaxy 1.0 ever left the beta state? My assumption is that it never did but I might be wrong about this. Nonetheless, Galaxy and its development have been something akin to a meme for a while now. It's unfortunate because these days it seems the only official activity contributing to ameliorate the obvious signs of GOG's neglect are the recent forum contests and the moderator's engagement with the community (which GOG ought to be very thankful for because there's a lot of nice people around compared to other places). Anyway, releasing new games is nice and all but it's tough to sell cruise holidays when your own ship looks as if it were sinking.

I disagree...I don't want to be treated the same, I actually want to be treated better than Galaxy users. In my opinion, that would be the only way to ensure DRM-free gaming has a true foothold here.

I know that all sounds callous so please let me explain. These choices do not occur in a vacuum. In an ideal world for media, I would love it if customers all had the options they wanted, some could have barebones files, others could have social media features if they connect in, others could stream and own nothing, and everyone could enjoy their individual choice. The problem is, we do not live in such a world. Companies have a vested interest in pushing everyone AWAY from ownership of products. We see the constant advertising blitz, so to speak, for Galaxy. The choices offered to customers are not given equal shine.

But it is even worse than that; this issue goes beyond the disparities we currently see between Galaxy and offline installers, beyond the marketing and the updates. Even if everyone was making "genuine" choices and all options were marketed equally, if enough people happened to choose the client route, then it is likely the company would still go "full Steam ahead" with the client as much as they could as fast as they could. It is too tempting for these companies. It is like telling EA a microtransaction here or there is okay. Or like telling Steam that proprietary DRM is okay in their exclusive game. Look at the miles they take every time anyone gives them an inch.

Agreed with rjbuffchix - The one really bad thing about the GOG Galaxy thing is how it divided the GOG community. It's a tool that only helps some and not all as oppose to everyone before being in the same boat.

It's a tool that divided the community because it doesn't even exist for part of the community.

It's still 100% optional and it helps anyone who uses it. The reason it divided the community is because people have attached improper meanings to the term "DRM-free", assuming that an OPTIONAL CLIENT is somehow contrary to the notion of being DRM-free. I've said it before, I'll say it again: the popular perception of what "DRM-free" means is extremely skewed. People seem to love to slap the DRM label onto anything that a studio or publisher does that they don't like, which is just outright disingenuous.

That's fair but those are bugs, that hardly qualifies. It's not like GOG chose those two specific games to oppress for some bizarre reason... but with the way people act here sometimes, I really wouldn't be surprised if they thought that way.

The first appears to be a bug caused by Galaxy (ie, pursuing the Steam route of offloading features that should be handled in-game to the client like saving settings to a .cfg file). The second isn't GOG's fault, but the reality is we'll always have buggy games, so it makes sense to give offline installer users the same ability to access the last known (older) bug-free versions of a game as Galaxy users have with rollback. Had Galaxy not existed, GOG would have already put up the older last bug-free version of the game (as they did pre-2016), so again Galaxy ends up indirectly causing these issues by artificially splitting the community in half, which is not healthy for the site at all.

It’s not 100% optional, gwent, cyberpunk, absolver, most multiplayer at least require galaxy. Several games require galaxy.dll. All offline installers have been galaxified, both the methodology of installer creation and contained files. Also, support only respond to any question with “use our optional client”. Perhaps you mean 100% of things that don’t affect you do not require galaxy.

The reason it divided the community as it has: removed resource which could be used for other things. Provided a method of selling epic games, which means supporting a drm store, and also does not push devs to release on gog. Then it has invaded all offline installers, first came a full galaxy install in all installers and this was only removed as a big backlash. Now installers contain various components and the installer itself is galaxy streams. Then there is lack of parity, updates taking longer or not appearing at all, galaxy uses getting preorders where offline installers don’t get. Then there is the clear attitude to push all users onto galaxy one way or another to get into the microtransaction markets.

I try to avoid the term DRM nowadays as it really covers very little. Control mechanisms is a better term, it includes all the newer forms of lock in that is tried, such as online only content, online only achievements, store locked multiplayer, 3rd party account needs (paradox), very little offline play (absolver).

If you have no issue with it then that is fine, but don’t put words into the mouths of those who did not want, do not, have no use for, and only see bad things coming, from this (another) “optional client”.

I can't disagree with you on that but I don't see those as issues with Galaxy so much as they're issues with GOG's communication with developers in a few cases.

Things like multiplayer in the modern age are not easily done without some sort of client or infrastructure. Otherwise, we'd be going back to the days where you had to go through a billion steps (ones that the average gamer won't know how to do) just to play games online with friends. As for things like Cyberpunk, I don't see any issue with that. It's just a means of rewarding people who own previous CDPR games and that'd be difficult to do without a client; everything that's included is matched by other, easily obtainable objects in the game; at the end of the day, those are just cosmetics and a minor reward to fans of the company. I don't see that as DRM in the least.

The problem with the "removed resources" argument is that I could easily say the same if they were to scrap Galaxy. I, for one, never had any issue with having an OPTION of a game client, I just don't like being forced to have one for single-player games. The fact that I'm not forced to use Galaxy has saved me a few headaches, as well, as I usually play through Galaxy but a few games either don't work through Galaxy on my PC or stopped working (as was the case with Cyberpunk, funny enough). Because the client is optional, I'm not locked out of a game I paid for because of a technical issue I'm having client-side. People complaining about the resource allocation have no more right to demand GOG's attention than us Galaxy users do.

Also, being a DRM-free store doesn't mean they can't partner with other companies, even if those companies run DRM stores of their own. It doesn't impact us, it doesn't impact whether we own games here on GOG or not.

As for pushing devs to release on GOG, I'm with you on that: I believe GOG needs to start being strict with these devs, threatening to remove their game from the store if they don't keep things updated on par with other stores within a reasonable amount of time. Being a curated store, they'd be well within their rights to do so and I know they'd gain some goodwill with some of their current detractors.

Your statement regarding "control mechanisms"... that's fair. I just call people out when they misuse the term "DRM" because the DRM-free mission is an important one. Slapping the DRM label onto anything people don't like cheapens the term. As for your comments in regards to things such as third party accounts or little amounts of offline play, in those cases, I'd say you should direct your ire toward the devs rather than GOG, as they're the ones that pushed that.

I feel like a lot of people are doomsaying just because GOG is trying to market something they put time and money into. If they start legitimately forcing people to use it, then I'll be right alongside you demanding that they knock it off but for now, there's really nothing wrong with what GOG is doing with this. That goes for CD Projekt as a whole right now. Do they have things they need to work on? Absolutely, but they certainly do not deserve the vitriol and the mindless criticism they've been receiving over the past eight months (and longer, in the case of Galaxy).

There is a vast gulf of difference between GOG and Steam, if they drop the offline installers, the ONLY selling point is exclusives here which are few and not extremely good. If they drop the offline installers, there is literally no reason to keep shopping here, as Steam already does everything else GOG does MUCH, MUCH better.