After all this time the "aggravating-ness" is something that should have long been sorted out. I'm not remotely into coding but Christ, I could write an InnoSetup template in 30mins that spits out a self-extracting .exe from a pre-installed folder, adds required .reg entries, adds the standard gog.ico for uninstallation, adds the standard EULA.txt, and all that needs changing each time is the source & default target folder name, .exe name, custom game icon and default Start Menu folder name (usually the same as folder name). The rest is "makework" Galaxy fluff not needed for offline installers.

I definitely cut them some slack for implementing unique tweaks needed to get 25 year old games to run, but most post 2010 games require little tweaking or tech support at GOG's end (that the dev couldn't provide themselves). Special custom icons do look better vs very old low res / DOS games, but also aren't that necessary for newer games and half the time look less distinctive than the one the dev included in the original .exe), insisting on writing a bunch of Galaxy related .info files (which weren't needed nor included in the older pre 2014 installers), etc. It's like watching someone complain the reason it takes ages to fill a bucket with water is the special hole-plugging sealant has to be checked each time whilst forgetting to mention he was the one who insisted on drilling that hole in the bucket of simplicity to start with...

It's been "claimed" but is it really true? I think that's more an excuse than an explanation. As others mentioned (and as you've pointed out yourself in the past), many modern games are "portable" meaning you just copy the game folder to another PC and that's it. When even a simple zip file + shortcut link will suffice as a "backup" installer, then it's utterly trivial to setup InnoSetup / 7zip to just make a self-extracting installer that adds a shortcut with the correct icon. The rest is GOG being unable to tell the difference between "what's needed" for offline installers vs "everything including the kitchen sink" that the Galaxy marketing guy wants included to market Galaxy to people who've already decided not to use it...

Even 3rd party stuff like GameSave Manager (which can handle cloud saves) doesn't use Galaxy info, whilst Playnite pulls its metadata from igdb.com. No-one asked GOG to keep reinventing the wheel each time. GOG's real problem is lack of prioritisation. All these job opening for Galaxy / UI developers, hoping to attract newcomers on the basis of Galaxy, Galaxy, Galaxy whilst giving a middle finger to the established base, and yet all I've read on Youtube, Reddit, etc, over the past 2 months from that same newcomer crowd is 1,001 variations of "Steam refunded my friend's Cyberpunk purchase in 3 hours. I've been waiting 5 weeks. Avoid buying anything on GOG in future". Someone, somewhere is WAY over-focusing on some mythical utopia of 'everyone wants to install 6x launchers and make Galaxy the senior leader of them and that's now all that matters' at the expense of almost EVERYTHING else (acceptable levels of customer services response times, offline installers, website bugs, forum bugs, 'slippage' of DRM-Free for 'bonus' content, etc).

Please correct me in case I'm wrong there, but, Galaxy - wasn't it meant to replace that separate software piece allowing you to connect to play online? If so there was a time Galaxy wasn't mandatory and there was no need to lock MP unless and until you got a copy of Galaxy 2.x running on your system.

Assuming this is the case, if GOG really wanted to, they could provide .dll libraries allowing connection to some remote MP server. Same with Achievements. They got a website, you can look up the exact same stupid information on here, why not offer a library allowing upload and display of that as well? Same with cloud-saves, if you really wanted to have them, there is no need for Galaxy! Iff they wanted to which obviously they don't. Unless they'd offer some MP-match-making, lobbies, anti-cheat, anti-bot measures from within the client, that is.

As I said initially, correct me if I'm wrong in my assumptions there somewhere!

If i was rich as Uncle Scrooge and Bill Gates, i would do that. :p

The "Steam-like" way have GOG have set it up (where it's coded into the game's .exe to make API calls to a client), Galaxy is still required to actively manage all that stuff (such as achievement unlocks) for the same reason the Steam client does. The main difference between GOG and Steam is the Galaxy dll's that are already bundled with GOG games are there as a fallback to stop the game (that's been coded to Galaxy) from crashing if Galaxy isn't running (eg, doing something that unlocks an achievement in offline installers). The dll's don't "replace" the client's functionality by themselves, they're there to handle when the game calls Galaxy for something but Galaxy isn't running.

Huh, when I decided to boycott I was thinking it would be hard to fight the buying impulse. I completely ignored the fact that Gog keeps sinking lower and lower, and with every time they lose the opportunity to make things right I renew my confidence that I have made the right decision.

So, if anyone who thought that a boycott was an extreme move changed their minds come add your name to this thread. Hopefully we'll get enough people to make Gog reconsider where they're going.

You're right. There is no intrinsic need for Galaxy for multiplayer. The only reason why they make it mandatory for multiplayer for some games is because they want to.

It might not be too late, if Gog does a 180º NOW. And it obviously falls to us to spark this reaction, as it obviously won't come from the morons at the ship's helm.

So, care to join the boycott?

Maybe, maybe not, we'll see.

The thing to keep in mind is that even prior to Galaxy, DRM-free gamers were treated as second-class citizens.

Updates were often late or non-existent, sometimes, features were missing and we often didn't have multiplayer (because it was implemented with some matchmaking services).

I also think LAN has been dying a slow death for some time. It was somewhat popular back when it was the only multi-player option, but its not as simple as online matchmaking and again, I wouldn't be surprised that a minority of users use it.

Overall, a lot of people will trade rights for convenience anytime. Heck, even among the 'drm-free' crowd, I'd be curious to know how many people primarily use the offline installers vs the number that primarily use Galaxy.

We're a niche market, probably less than 15-20% of the market overall. Game developers will not give us their prime focus. We'd have to convince a significant portion of the remaining 80-85% of the market to care to change this (good luck with that, I've been trying to get my friends to care about this for years and they think I'm odd for limiting my gaming selection to DRM-free pc games).

The main thing GOG has done with Galaxy is to get a bit of the DRM "I want my convenience, take away my rights please" pie. Now, whether they'll stop caring about DRM-free once their user-base is more diversified remains to be seen. With Steam around the corner, I think that would be a grave tactical mistake on their part, but we'll see.

wonder if it could be done with kickstarter

I do not think you are a corretly read your link from the dev
He said simply as the setup offline have a system bug, and GOG work for correct it (and moreover, the problem was solved the next day afhter the post)

I felt like i was reading a post of reddit, seriously...

I'm confused. Do you mean there are no offiline istallers, or that the installers are not updated?

I *think* this is all saying that the offline installers aren't up to date with the latest patches issued by the developers. I don't think they're saying that there are currently any games on sale without an offline installer (possibly apart from Gwent, but I don't play that so have no idea).

It looks like the thrust of the argument is a "thin end of the wedge" that the lack of updates might mean that in the future GoG won't provide offline installers at all.

I don't have many views on this - I mean, I see the risk that they're talking about, but beyond an issue with Postal years ago (where the patch to make it playable again took ages to get to GoG), I've never had a visible issue caused by out of date installers.

That being said, a lot of the concerns I had when Galaxy was developed (e.g. a loss of focus on the rest of the site, slowly bringing in DRM, etc) have come to pass - despite many users mocking me at the time and saying that a client was the best thing ever and would be fantastic for GoG...

No, I very much doubt it. It would be super costly with very little upside.