Hello?

Here's the relative truth NOONE SEES.

Those who use 'offline installers' and claim gog isnt drm because you can still dl offline files are the minority.
Those who use the client are the majority.
It is the second who dictate what gog actually is and right now it IS drm.
In the same way migration isnt a big deal until the native population are outnumbered 10:1.
To a foreigner the migrants and their language, culture are the native population, despite what the real natives pass on their children, and eventually noone will question the truth.
Sure, one can keep memory of who they are but they cant ignore the world around them.

GOG IS PEPSI.

Maybe YOUR reality is not THE reality of everyone?

Well I'm glad this thread exists, I just went to install a game for the first time in awhile and I'm wondering what the heck happened. Whether it's DRM or not or whatever the actual explanation is, I really hate having Galaxy shoved at me and the actual game downloads shuffled off out of site and relabeled, which is probably the step that comes before removing them entirely. Honestly I'm probably just going to start downloading everything I own to back up somewhere and then cease to use the site.

I really am sad to see GOG emulate Steam in any way, but if I'm forced to deal with that style of downloading/installing either way, Steam has better deals and it doesn't make sense to keep splitting my library between two sites. I've been using GOG all these years primarily for the convenience of just being able to download my games in the normal way without all the installer nonsense that I'm now having shoved down my throat.

edited for typos and clearer phrasing

When was the last time you visited the site?
Up until this change the first visible downloads where ones that contained a Galaxy installer as well and to get to the 'normal' ones you had to go to the more menu.
So this is actually a step forward.

When I joined GOG in 2012 I could go to my library and download the DRM-free installation files for a game, which I could then install on any PC I owned without needing any authorization or internet access.

Fast forward six years, and I can go to my library and download the DRM-free installation files for a game, which I can then install on any PC I own without needing any authorization or internet access.

BUT the difference is that now, above the link I need, is a big blue button to "install game with GOG Galaxy". And that's it. Do people feel that is having Galaxy "shoved down their throats"? Do people feel some strange overwhelming compulsion to press the BIG blue button? ;)

It says you've been registered since 2008 so you've seen the changes gog has made in their marketing/"values". After seeing how willing they are to backtrack on what they originally stood for are you really all that baffled?

People want to feel triggered. That's the only explanation I have.

Also, the link you want isn't displayed by default, you have to click the title for that section - once, and then the site remembers it (unless you clear your cookies, maybe?)

Not all of their users, mostly people who they hope will be users in the future. Galaxy isn't the only divergence from the original marketing/"values". I won't list them all but to name a couple...regional pricing and paid DLC. For some, maybe most, of us who dislike the idea of galaxy it's not just the client but the accumulation of backtracking on many of the original ideals that drew us to gog in the first place. So it leaves us wondering how much longer until gog gives-up on the fallacy that galaxy will stay optional. They've given us too many reasons to believe that they'll backtrack on being DRM-free too, when it's convenient. After thinking about that, again I (rhetorically) ask don't you see why some of us don't believe gog when they say that they'll stay DRM-free?

Edit: fixed some grammar

That's some good shit you're smoking, bro. ;p

GOG is a mixed bag, as are the peeps on this forum. Some see the good in it, some the bad. I try to see both. At the end of the day, I'd rate GOG "meh", which is better than Steam, but plenty of room for improvement.

I'd argue the number of people who wanted a client and profiles VASTLY outnumber the ones who did not. I guess which of us is right can only be debated, but I will point to Steam's overwhelming success as evidence of what the average gamer wants. And yes, if you want to lure that gamer to your platform then giving them the features they love (client, achievements, chat) along with a new incentive (DRM free) is a good way to do it.

Also I support regional pricing, because not all nations or economies are the same, and I support DLC, because tons of it is really good and I've been buying expansion content since Wolfenstein 3D.

Anything else?

How was Galaxy going against any of GOG's core values again? One world, one price; Fair treatment; and DRM Free were their core values at the time I joined. There was never a mention of "Never any optional client software. EVER."
I agree with all you said except regional pricing. Either a thing has a value to its creator or not. Arbitrarily assigning a value based on where in the world a person is is ludicrous. If it's only worth $3.00 for the creator in Brazil, then that's what it's worth. What they actually say is "Our value is somewhere in the vicinity of 70% of the US pricepoint, and we'll use countries like the US and the EU members to make up for undercharging our other customers". I don't like over paying for a product so that a publisher can afford to take a loss selling their game for peanuts elsewhere. Either that or they are making SO much profit by overcharging US and EU customers that they can innately afford to take that loss, which is just as egregious to me. I don't make a lot of money, but I have to pay a higher price because I live in an area where some people so make a lot of money. That's not fair pricing at all. That's gouging some customers to support being able to sell to others.

Other than that, IMHO, you are spot on. I've said my piece on Regional Pricing. GOG is still a champion of DRM free, and offering some Steam features to boot. They are Steam-ing better than Steam overall.

The value of a good or service is what the potential customer is prepared to pay, not what the creator wants for it.

Ideally, both should be satisfied, yes, but if the potential customer does not want to -or cannot- pay what the creator says, the creator gets nothing, so if the seller wants to sell to that customer, they either have to lower the price (if the customer cannot pay the current price) or at the very least improve the good/service to a level where the customer is satisfied with the set price.

25$US for a Swede is very likely worth less than the same 25$US for a Barzilian, because it's probably a much bigger part of the latter's monthly salary than it is for the former - as such, while the Swede might not think much about spending that money on a game, the Brazilian might very much need to calculate if they can really spend that much. So, if the store wants to sell games to Brazilians (ie. earn anything at all from them), they need to offer games at a price that Brazilians can afford, while the Swede is happy with a higher price because meh, it's not that much to them.

The value to the creator is what covers costs and brings profit. If it takes $40US x 1,500,000 sales to cover costs, then it takes that. But to charge US customers more and others less to get to that same number is not right. If a Russian game player only pays $1.50 US for a title that costs others $35US, then the extra cost comes from somewhere.

And so I must shoulder the burden? I don't live in a socialist society and that game companies want to support a socialist economy for their products is generally distasteful to me. Let people earn what they get instead of being supported by those who earn more. It is not my job to pay for Russians' or Chinese video games.