adamhm: * Meanwhile they've been working on a client, GOG Galaxy, which they insist is entirely optional.
* However they've been working towards making GOG Galaxy the primary focus of GOG to the extent that:
- It's heavily promoted everywhere on the site and many users don't even know that the standalone offline installers are a thing because Galaxy is pushed so hard. For many users there is no distinction; "GOG Galaxy" == "GOG".
- They've used deceptive tactics to try to trick users into installing the Galaxy client (such as a BIG download button for Galaxy + hidden or small links for the game installers, or bundling the Galaxy installer with game installers and installing Galaxy by default, etc.)
You were here for long enough to remember that before Galaxy one of the main complaint seen on this forum and even in the "
gaming press" was how Gog (and by extension DRM-free gaming) was so much more of an hassle, less convenient, etc... than Steam. It's not like Galaxy was a random thought that they suddenly took them one morning, it was for a very long time one of the most requested feature. So yes they are heavily promoting them and it's the "default" but it's not because of some evil scheme it's simply that it's the solution that the huge majority of users will uses to download, keep their games updated and play online and that even among those who actually backup their installers.
The big button is not some sort of "deceptive tactics" as you said but simply to try to make it as easy and straightforward as possible for the majority of users who, for better and for worse, have been conditioned by Steam and think that downloading installers and double clicking on setup.exe a too much of an hassle nowadays.
adamhm: - The standalone offline installers are now getting neglected in many cases; missing updates, broken updates not being rolled back, etc.
Rollbacks never existed before Galaxy, the only reason why it was less of an issue back then was because there was barely any updates given that most of the games where X+ years old.
For the other part I agree that there are some "hiccups" in the updates of the offline installers and that it would be good if Gog was more reactive on that parts. IMHO it would be more productive to keep a list of those games and push Gog to act on those who are really out of sync, rather than mentioning it as a foot note every time there is a complaints against Galaxy.
adamhm: - Linux versions of many games are not being released here because of the lack of Galaxy support, etc.
* As a result of the above, it's clear that GOG Galaxy isn't as optional as they claim, and that GOG's "traditional" userbase/people who use the standalone installers are now effectively second-class customers. Linux users are pretty much third-class; an afterthought.
Linus users were never part of the "traditional" user base of Gog, Linux support was added pretty late and never was the primary focus and sadly for Linux users it didn't generate enough sales for Gog to really keep investing in this direction and that's probably the main reason for their lack in interest into making a Linux version of Galaxy.
adamhm: * At the same time, GOG's communication with the userbase has mostly stopped. It used to be that staff members would regularly interact with the community & seemed like GOG actually cared about gaming & their customers... now there's mostly silence, except for the occasional "good news" (tm).
Can you really blame them ? I am the first to recognize that Gog communication skills are severely lacking, but every time they tried to communicate and be open about something it backfired, add to that the dumb Twitter controversies and you can understand why they switched to radio silence mode. I don't think it's a good idea in the long run but I can definitely understand why they decided to do it.
adamhm: * And now GOG plans to drop the last of their "core values" and start selling games with DRM. They'll be promoting and profiting from DRM'ed games, and apparently they think this is ok because it'll only be offered through their client - the same client that they've made the primary focus of their store & direct their customers to as much as possible - and because they'll only be the ones selling the games & won't actually be the ones supplying them.
I don't really think that are really going to "profit" from it in any real way, they are going to get a cut from Epic cut, which is already much smaller than the usual 30% they are taking, I suspect that was they will get is probably just here to cover the costs of the extra support and the extended refund rather than making any real money.
IMHO the idea is not really to make any direct profit from those same but more increase Galaxy visibility and push the idea of an universal client. This whole "weird" deal with Epic is probably just a way to convince Epic to let them use their store as a Guinea pig, as in, "
you want us to integrate with your client ? do all the work and handle the support and it's ok".
Is it a good idea ? personally I am not convinced, it might increase visibility but given Epic not so stellar reputation and the confusion (i.e. this thread) it can generate, it might backfire. But on the other side I don't think it means they will start selling Steam or Epic games on the "main" store.
