Does it really matter at which point the client is mandatory, as long as it is mandatory? To me that's just splitting hairs.

I'd say that depends on whether those games can be reinstalled offline in future without needing a client. If you couldn't reinstall them at all a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc, time in future if the server's went down and need to be online to authenticate every reinstall, that pretty much involves DRM. In fact "you can play offline, but need to be online for every install" wouldn't be functionally any different to Steam's "Offline Mode". And it would actually be far worse than the 'technically DRM-free' list of Steam games you can play without the Steam client, as at least for those you can create a zip file of the game folder after the first install and have a 100% offline "installer" that's portable between Windows reinstalls without needing a client for the 2nd reinstall onwards. That counts far more for long-term game-preservation than anything client related (which themselves can change over time, ie, how long before Galaxy becomes "Windows 10 only" to install games which still work flawlessly on XP to W8 but have more issues with W10?...)

CLIENTS AREN'T DRM GOOD GOD.

Anyway... Yes they are still good guys, because they operate a DRM free shop that tries to be fair to everyone whenever it can and there's nothing wrong with charging for actually substantial post-release content. The realities of business mean they're never going to be perfect in everyone's eyes, no company can ever be, but they do their best which is all you can ask of anyone.


Even requiring the client to install would not inherently require internet access, server access or be DRM. Look at ScummVM for example, a client that operates many games DRM free. A client is just a client. DRM means asking permission to install/play your games. They're different things entirely and the GOG forum's inability to see this is endlessly frustrating.

ScummVM is a source port / emulator with a launcher than a "storefront client" in the GOG / Steam / uPlay, etc, sense. Like GZDoom, all it does is start with a menu that "points" to where you manually placed data files from games you already own offline. They're little more than substitute for having to create Start Menu shortcuts like "Scummvm.exe -f -p"C:\Program Files\ScummVM\samnmax" samnmax". They don't provide / sell games / download anything through itself like store clients. "Client = launcher" is precisely another flimsy redefintion that adds even more frustrating confusion to the debate, as ScummVM / GZDoom or "frontends" for DOSBox, etc, are functionally nothing like Galaxy / Steam.

I believe silly season has started.

God, this again.

Nope, nope, nope. I'm out. Sorry.

How many goddamned clients does it take to change a lightbulb? o.O

I can completely understand your notion.

That depends, do you want a lightbulb which is in tthe vast majority of light bulbs being relaesed, with a lot of light bulb key seller completion pushing prices down to a reasonable level. Or a curated minimal release amount of shovelware light bulbs at a vastly inflated price, with an "optional" installer?

I mean, he's right, although I think he could have just assumed you meant "a proprietary client talking to a proprietary API" (like most of us using the word "client" in this context do) and shut up about it.

That describes the majority of customers on Steam but I do not think it describes the majority of customers here. Also, I personally feel the amount of users on Galaxy is heavily skewed by it being bundled into installers in multiple instances, as well as advertised so heavily. Along the same lines, I don't think the majority of customers here would leave if Galaxy was not an option.

SCHEME is the worst thing to happen in gaming history and at this point is a monopoly. Yes there are other (equally horrible) stores from horrible publishers, but in a broader sense the real "monopoly" that Scheme implemented is DRM service-gaming forever. This monopoly will NOT be broken up at this point, whether the lead company waving the banner is Valve or a different one.

The sheep can have Scheme. I will own my games, not rent them (save the licensing rhetoric...by "own" I mean the games are in my possession, OFFLINE, to backup as much as I want, to put on whatever PCs I want, to reinstall 20 years later when I want, without the need for online anything ever beyond the initial download).

Is it so much to ask to have a niche market where a company like GOG can stand out by offering something beyond the pitiful mainstream approach? Money CAN be made here just like all the successful Kickstarters that reboot old franchises and genres. The industry and its media spins this narrative that no one cares about X or Y, or that Z is outdated. Yet then a revival of X, Y, Z occurs thanks to gamers making their voices heard. So too can happen here.

It doesn't describe the majority of forum users, but I guarantee it describes the majority of GOG users.
Do you think that all of GOGs customer base just stopped buying games when Steam became dominant and only started buying again when GOG arrived?
Of course not. The truth is GOG and Steam's customers are one and the same. Steam succeeded because it offered something of benefit; convenience and ease, both to customers and developers / publishers.

GOG is capitalising on that trend by making Galaxy better, optional and configurable.

You kinda failed to to include the second part... ;-)

Now seriously... I really don't get why people don't understand that GOG wants to compete with Steam, and to do that, they HAVE to offer similar convenience - hence Galaxy. This has nothing to do with DRM, it's customer service.
That Galaxy gets pushed (sometimes in obnoxious ways, like with the infested installers) is a simple business decision. Now that they have a working client it's simply cheaper to have it handling stiff like installing updates, which saves support time and money. That's the reason why Galaxy was pushed into the market with Witcher 3. They wanted as little fuss as possible to get the patches rolling. Steam offered that, so they had to follow suit - otherwise it would have been embarrassing. An AAA company can't keep their products up to date for customers without fuss...
Half true. I don't have a Steam account. And I would still buy here if the installers were simple setup programs that made old games running on machine without having to worry about DOSBox and configs and EMS and XMS and himem.sys.

On the other hand I really welcome the convenience Galaxy offers. It's not essential, but welcome. But I'm aware I'm a niche customer.

The big question is, why people buy here instead of Steam and Co. Esp, people who use all the platforms. From what I've heard from friends and acquaintances, the "feeling of actually owning the games" has a big part in it.

And I wonder how many people started shopping here because they don't want auto updating, social crap, always online games etc? I certainly did, now I have stopped as it has become just like steam,. The clue is the word alternative, it means something different to what is there, not something which is exactly the same. And this isn't the client, it's the social parts of it, the targeted at twitch and other things, the industry garbage like day 1dlc, the unfished shovelware that is just marvellous and we should be thankful as it would t be here without galaxy constantly patching it, woohoo!