Because these games will update regularly i am wondering whether there will be separate goglinks to download via browser or will updates be via galaxy only?

According to this post from Thiev games "are supplied with normal offline installers". But as far as I understand it only the last recent version of a game will be provided as an installer. With Galaxy you additionally will have access to all previous versions of the game which comes handy when the last version has problems.

Hmm, only way to figure out is to test it i guess
unlesss a blue one can clarify more clearly.
Though i cant test this out myself since i dont have any spare money to buy games for this month.

You are focused on RPG or RPG like games. RPG games are a bit of an exception as they base on player stats which are saved on some kind of server. There are a lot of other multiplayer games (shooter, strategy and even racing games) where every player starts at the same level in every game, match or race. It does not matter what happened in previous games and you do not have to play a certain amount of time to reach an advantage or to progress to a higher level.
In such games you get better only because your personal skills to play the game get better, not because some server says your avatar has better stats or a better equipment. And because the gameplay is based on your skills and not on some server stats it does not matter which server hosts a game.

Wasted gameplay? That sounds like work. I play games for fun, so gameplay cannot be wasted. :P
But beside that when the progress in a game lies in your own skills and experience and not in some server stats then there is no wasted gameplay. Nobody can take away the skills you have gained.

I personally don't care if multiplayer is DRM'ed because I don't like nasty humies and go for single player only, that being said the problem with enforcing a "no DRM" clause on multiplayer functionality is that MP isn't "magic" and developers are lazy so you'll inevitably need someone else's code to make it do its thing. Also, the netcode/listsever, DRM, and anti-cheat protections all tend to blend together in the typical MP game and it's very difficult to pick them apart. It's relatively easy to make something work in an offline black-box setting, but things just get nasty when other people's servers become involved.

Also, this isn't particularly new. Earth 2160, for example, has always required phoning home to activate MP. And based on reviews it's been in the store since 2009. GOG.com was founded in late 2008, so the glory days of no-DRM-whatsoever purism were, what, about eight months?

What Breja said... The fact that you have to pay extra to test something tells a lot about the business model.

Everybody who says this really, really do not understand the buinsness model, and should leave alphas well alone...So I guess it kind of solves itself?

I am totally with you on the client thing. I wish listed it as an optional thing and in my mind then what I wished for were like a version of the GOG downloadmanager but with all the cool features of a Steam *like* client (in GOG's case easy download and management and install of files downloaded to local drives.. I never for a second wished the original GOG download manager to be something that they won't maintain or won't guarantee will keep working.. Neither did I wish for our file download links to be buried, what I wanted was something with all the features of the old GOG download manager so that one could run it just like that by a simple setting or as full fled manager when it pleased one. Like lite mode for downloading only , manager mode for more features and if GOG wants a community mode with community features such as multiplayer and all the rest added - I never intended for stuff to be shoved down peoples throats and wanted it optional with so many nice features that people would embrace it !!!

With respect to your very long previous post in this thread then though you see that GOG needs "viable business" to survive , then I am not sure that you understands that GOG needs a lot more than that if they want to be a big player on the market and a *DRM FREE* contender to places like Steam in order to change the DRM concept to DRM FREE... Though GOG for me were a place I learned about because I found a GOG game (Good Old Game( then for me my support and "love for GOG" soon became because of the DRM FREE concept If GOG ever really strays from that then for me they have little to no place on the market......
But I think that maybe that GOG is also trying to walk a thin fine line here (?)
Maybe GOG really wants to deliver DRM FREE games to users who also are here for the DRM FREE freedom and ideological reasons while at the same time trying to expand, delver a much bigger selection of games and at the same time get many more people aboard, people that might still need a little ideological education no to pirate their downloads to all their friends (?) , and people that are more users and less tech savvy .
There exists a big number less tech savvy users which I think would normally go for other places (like Steam , BigFish Games and what not) and that is also one of the reasons that I originally suggested a "Steam like" download, installer and manager apparatus (for DRM FREE games) because that could allow GOG to expand their customer crowd considerably and many more customers = more business for GOG = GOG can become a bigger contender and much more viable alternative to e.g. Steam (which we all need if we want more stuff to be DRM FREE)
But The French Monk (GOG's managing director Guillaume Rambourg) and others must have seen that what people love most about Steam is not only "ease of access" to stuff but also the many "community features" and I think that it is for that reason they they have tried to strike what for me as old GOG fan is not an optimal balance but what for them most likely seem as a good balance (?)
Anyway , it's said often that money makes the world go around , so I think that what we see are the GOG attempt to strike a balance between business and ideals ! (?)

P.S.
Since GOG is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Polish CD Projekt then one can imagine that GOG policies are not forged by the French Monk alone but maybe also by CD Projekt ( www.cdprojekt.com ) (?)

That's the whole problem: they either can't handle that responsibility themselves or worry about other gamers not being able to do so.
Missing all the stop signs and still driving into the wall = the wall's fault by default.
/end sarcasm

I'm glad we agree as far as Galaxy is concerned. Regarding my earlier post I want to clarfiy that I am perfectly aware of the fact that in order to compete on this market, GOG has to grow. And in order to grow, GOG has to introduce changes in its business model. But the fact that I understand why they introduce such changes doesn't mean I have to automatically like the changes, as they make GOG more and more similar to all the other stores out there. If I understand you correctly, you are fine with anything GOG decides to do as long as they remain DRM-free (for the sake of the argument let's ignore the fact that many people consider some of the games already available on GOG not to be DRM-free). It is different for me - the primary reason I bought my games on GOG was NOT the fact that the games offered are DRM-free. It was because it was a small, highly-specialised store offering games I was emotionally attached to, which did not do all of the things other bigger stores did (aggressive sales, pre-orders, DLCs etc.). When they decided to change that, the 'ideological' (i.e. non-rational) reason to buy games exclusively from them was gone for me.

This doesn't change the fact that I still buy my games pretty much exclusively here. That's because on a rational level I still think this store is the best. And I care about DRM-free just enough to choose GOG over their competition. It's just that many people assume that DRM-free was always the most important reason why people cared for GOG - it may be true for the majority of users, but it just wasn't for me.

EDIT: Re-phrasing for clarity sake.

Good choice, GOG!

I do understand the business model. It's "Buy our game before we've finished developing it, so that we can see if it's worth it to put our time into it." A seperate "Become a tester DLC" for an Early Access game contradicts the whole Early Access concept (or rather its advertising). Most of the unsuccessful Early Access games on Steam never reached v1.0 and Double Fine even cancelled DF9 when Early Access sales weren't satisfying (at least they had the balls to do this officially). Early Access isn't about becoming a tester. It's about crowdfunding and about reducing the risk to put money into something that won't be successful.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a great idea! But developers should be honest enough to say "We need the Early Access money to fund the development of the game" (some devs are honest enough to say this!) instead of saying "Give us feedback and become a part of the development process!" And there definitely shouldn't be the need for a "DLC" to get forum access and to be allowed to give feedback.

Exactly, that's what I mean. You do not get it, this is your perception and no amount of arguing will change it. This is not for you. Doesn't mean it cannt be a nice and rewarding expience for someone else, though. My advice is that you should stay away from buying alpha/betas and wait until games are completed

Please release The Mystery Of The Druids!! + 15 Days!! :)