I like the offline installers, I prefer them to Galaxy, but does the average GOG customer really care? I feel like the people who post on the forums aren't necessarily a great representation of the customer base as a whole. Are there any stats available for what percentage of users use Galaxy vs. offline installers? Or just what percentage of users are on GOG Galaxy?

They only need patches. The next step would be to identify the main changes and collect those files then turn them into mini patches yourself so you don't have unnecessary multiple installers wasting space.

If you can and don't mind - please report back on how it went, successful or not.

Or that you are simply reading into things that aren't really there.
Maybe because we actually use and like Galaxy, like most GOG users... we are players and users first and foremost, not GOG drones. This was likely done to make getting updates sent to Galaxy packaged into standalone installers quicker and easier. Hence so there is less wait for the end user that uses standalone installers when a patch is sent to Galaxy by a developer or publisher.

If you say so.

You know, all the people related to gog that I see in the forums praises galaxy, claiming it is great, and also claim that a bit of DRM is good. But I don´t see any message from anybody working for Gog saying that the offline installers are great. Nothing. Never. I guess that as you have pointed out, very few people (or nobody, should I say) on gog likes offline installers.

What you think of Galaxy should have no relevance on the answer given to someone asking strictly and specifically about the offline installers though.

On the other hand, it makes sense for moderators to be fans of Galaxy because I doubt GOG would select moderators who oppose the direction set by the higher ups. Yeah, I'd also like to know how it doesn't require server space to allow it done with Galaxy...

Probably only the patched files are stored. The offline installers would require space that’s needed for the whole game. We also have to remember that in Galaxy you can rollback only to a few previous versions.

If that doesn't bear fruit, you could perhaps (Not ;)) "find an older version elsewhere online".
(inb4 someone says something about the above....I am talking about games one has already bought and owns)

A good question, similarly like it is a good question that people who don't care about offline installers, why would they buy games on GOG anyway, instead of e.g. Steam? (when we are talking about games that are available both in Steam and GOG, obviously)

For instance, yesterday GOG released four "new" (new to GOG) Tomb Raider games. I bought them in an instant even though I already had them on Steam too. The only reason: offline installers. If the same games appeared on e.g. Epic Store tomorrow, I would have absolutely zero reason to buy them there too.

If GOG had released them Galaxy-only, I wonder why anyone, me included, would have chosen to buy them from GOG, instead of, or in addition to, Steam?

So i guess my point was, people who don't care about offline installers have very little reason to buy games on GOG, instead of Steam. The only exception might be people who buy only older MS-DOS etc. games on GOG that are possibly not available on Steam or the Steam version doesn't work ok on modern PCs, but as far as I can tell, the number of such games is quite low, and consists mostly of very old PC games that probably don't bring GOG that many sales anymore. Like Ultima Underworld and Syndicate which were now offered for free.

Plus, it doesn't make much sense that if someone is on GOG to buy Ultima Underworld and Might & Magic collection, he would care that much about Galaxy anyway. Galaxy doesn't really bring any benefit to such old tiny games that don't get any updates anymore, don't have multiplayer support, nor achievements. One, at least theoretical, advantage is that then it is faster and simpler to update the offline installers straight from the updated Galaxy files, as they don't need to be re-compressed. Which should mean that on the whole, GOG offline installers should lag behind the Galaxy versions of games less, and it should rather become an exception than the rule that they lag behind.

For the question "why aren't there several versions of offline installers, if they are based on Galaxy versions which have several available", I presume it is because with Galaxy they can (probably) offer the updated versions as delta versions, while with offline installers they would have to multiply the amount of storage for each game, by the amount of different versions.

If the offline versions were created on the fly from the Galaxy versions every time someone downloads an offline installer, then maybe it would be more feasible to offer several versions of offline installers. I guess that would be theoretically possible but it would use lots of processing power, and there would be a (long) pause before the actual download would start, while the offline installer is being prepared.

Brand loyalty and convenience.

Build an early reputation for DRM free and etc, and a number of people who desire/like such will flock to said store and stay there....even if the shift is then moved to less desirable avenues(galaxy centric/focused, etc) over time.....just to have all their games in one place and/or because said customers have grown to like GOG so much.

I have hard time envisioning a person who doesn't mind gaming clients (like Steam or Galaxy) not already being a Steam customer as well, having lots of games on Steam.

Obviously the idea of "keeping the games only on GOG" doesn't work as they already have their gaming library divided to two or more different stores, and more often than not their Steam library is probably considerably bigger than their GOG library.

My GOG library is bigger than my Steam library (2173 vs 630 games), but that is because I _do_ mind gaming clients for most of my games (ie. single-player games that don't really benefit much or at all from the use of a gaming client). I prefer being able to install and play such games without first installing a client, especially on my work laptop. After all, both Steam and Galaxy clients have had serious security holes in them in the past, and my boss wouldn't like if I installed such insecure shit on my work laptop, even I dislike the idea. So far I haven't heard that any GOG offline installer would similarly expose the system to some online security holes.

If single-player GOG games started requiring Galaxy, even I wouldn't see any reason not to buy the same game from Steam instead. Then again, in such a case I would probably cut my game buying habits a lot, probably stopping to buy more games for a rather long time. i would buy games from Steam (or GOG) only if I was quite sure I will start playing it right after the purchase.

It likely boils down to cost and convenience for a number of people.....myself included.
(I could buy more on steam, but currently the offline installers save me some time of having to strip out DRM, thus somewhat making it more attractive to buy from GOG)

So would you continue buying from GOG, even if GOG removed all the offline installers tomorrow?

It appears even you prefer buying from GOG due to offline installers.

Are the MODs that have responded here, privy to all the facts regarding installers, Galaxy or otherwise? Or are they just forum based employees making guesses like most here?

I say that, because my understanding is that the source files Galaxy uses are essentially the same as the source files used for Offline Installers, just that the Galaxy versions are streamed with added elements ... very minor in size usually.

And this notion that it is all about patches when many games don't have a patch just a full update instead, strikes me as a bit misleading. Unless of course they are admitting that all Galaxy versions have patches and many offline installer patches are missing?

So if GOG are storing rollback elements for games (patches or full) for Galaxy, then the same sources for them should be available for Offline Installers, no extra server space needed.

If I am correct, then the whole thing is all about Galaxy promotion really, and not about what actually exists on servers.

I find it incredibly hard to believe in any case, that GOG don't keep a copy of everything. Maybe not on every server, but surely at some major ones.