I realise that this topic is going to stir up a lot of controversy from Galaxy haters and lovers alike, but I just wanted to give my take on the issue of GOG's Galaxy launcher as someone with a more neutral perspective. I actually used Galaxy quite a lot while I was on Windows (and liked it), but I have since been using the Heroic launcher ever since I moved to Linux, and I really don't miss using the Galaxy launcher at all. Granted, there are some features that are still missing from the Heroic Launcher that I wish they would add in future updates (such as achievements), but it doesn't make that much of a difference to me personally.

That being said, a part of me feels like GOG is wasting their time and resources on supporting a launcher like Galaxy, especially when there are perfectly acceptable alternatives available to the public. I realise that Heroic isn't a perfect launcher itself, but I really don't see the point of GOG spending all their money developing and maintaining a launcher when they could simply help support existing projects like Heroic to make them even better. Keep in mind that I don't think that GOG should be the only ones doing this, but Epic and Itch.io should also go this route as well. Both of these companies are needlessly sinking their money into launchers that only serve to drain resources and take valuable programmers away from other endeavours. Not only that, but this also makes it more annoying for users because they now have to install several launchers for every platform the use just to play their games. Why not have just one launcher that supports all of the smaller storefronts? I don't see why these companies can't work together to help fund a universal launcher from a third party that works on more than one platform.

GOG is already supporting Heroic through referral cuts.

They should've done this from the start with PlayNite, but poor upper management decisions and something something in-house client something something.

Good point. It's actually great that they're supporting Heroic this way (I use the referral links myself), but I think they should take it a step further and actually move in this direction completely. There's literally no point in having multiple launchers for all of these different companies. I think GOG was attempting to make an all in one launcher when they made Galaxy in the first place, but I don't think other companies (Like Epic or Itch.io) would fully support another gaming storefront in the same way that they would with a third party developer like Heroic. It may still be hard to put your company in the hands of a third party, but it might be necessary.

Honestly this would be better for there PR.

Be offering the API's to the programs that they trust (Heroic, Lutris, etc) they could get there name out more in these communities and it could be a beneficial as people new to GOG can discover these other communities and vice versa.

This would be more cost saving as well as these clients work natively in Linux so GOG wouldn't have to spend the resources to make a Linux version of Galaxy allowing them to use the funds elsewhere.

Honestly just looking at it from a cost standpoint I would support this as it could allow GOG to put more money into bringing more delisted games back.

Totally agree. It doesn't make sense to waste money on developing the launcher for such a small team. It might also help to strengthen the smaller storefronts in PC gaming. They could work together to take some of the market share away from Steam.

Hotter take: people should just stop using launchers.

Not a great solution when you have 500+ games in your library. It makes it far more annoying to manage and launch your games without a launcher. This problem is actually much worse when you have to reinstall your OS for whatever reason. I remember when I was on Windows I would have to reinstall the OS basically once a year due to some system breaking bug or update. It would have been an absolute nightmare having to reinstall all of those games every single time.

*recalls how many times he had to do that since the Win2000/XP days* Oh, yeah, that's right: 0! Heh.

I honestly have no idea what it even means to "manage" my games. I don't "manage" my games, I play them. Or how launching one could be "annoying". I have a folder on the desktop, in that folder I have shortcuts to, as luck would have it, over 500 games. I have no idea how some additional program could make things simpler than opening the folder and double-clicking on a given shortcut.

GOG has already made the perfect client for everything that it is supposed to do, and that is Galaxy version 1.2.

GOG doesn't need to "Support Heroic" or "ditch Galaxy."

Instead, could simply revert to Galaxy 1.2 as the only officially supported version, and then assign one dev to give it bare bones maintenance once in a while just to make sure it continues to perform all of its functions over time.

But for the most part, GOG could just implement Galaxy 1.2 again, and then totally leave it alone.

This would not cost GOG any significant amounts of money, and it would be better for GOG customers too, since Galaxy version 1.2 is infinitely better than is version 2.0 in every way.

I do agree though, that GOG should never dump a single penny more into the dumpster fire that is Galaxy 2.0.

I consider them a must for online multiplayer and brand-new/early access games which receive new updates constantly. Automatic updates.

Other than that, yeah, launchers are not so useful IMHO.

They do make minor updates here and there, but in general it hasn't changed all that much in quite a while. It's probably for the best. Knowing GOG and all, they'll just fuck something up in the process of overhauling stuff.

The problem is that there are a lot of people who no longer use Windows as their primary operating system, so having a simple solution in the form of a launcher for someone using Linux is a real life saver. I started supporting GOG because they sell DRM-Free games, but then I eventually realised that they're stuck on a DRM platform, so it didn't make much sense sticking with Windows for me personally. Making the switch to Linux wouldn't be possible without some kind of launcher.

I actually consider that more a plus than a minus :D