It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionOffline Installer or Galaxy Online Installer ... why not two-in-one?(109 posts)(109 posts)
(109 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 28, 2021
low rated
I have spent some time recently, pondering why GOG have done what they have with the game installer.

It now seems quite dumb to me, that they have gone the way they have, and it does kind of lend some credence to those who air the conspiracy that GOG are ultimately aiming at getting rid of the Offline Installers.

I elaborate further.

Why did GOG make two types of installers out of one, when they produced Galaxy?
Surely they could have just adapted the original to support both types of GOG gamers, in one file. They just ended up creating more work for themselves.

Instead, they created a Galaxy version of the installer, which originally contained Galaxy in every game download. Something that many gamers at GOG complained about, because of the huge wasted archival space and increased download size.

GOG at that point, removed Galaxy from the Galaxy installer, and just made it a stub with no game content, that requires a web connection to both download Galaxy (if missing or in need of updating) plus instructions of which game to download with Galaxy. In essence they half solved the situation, because archiving was no longer possible, unless you downloaded the Offline Installer instead.

The logical thing to have done in my opinion, would have been to just add a stub element to the Offline Installer, that was user query based and contained all game content, but not the Galaxy App, but would download Galaxy if the user desired it.

I say this, because when you look at what is installed on the user's PC, the game folder contents are roughly 99% the same files. I fail to see where there needs to be two separate installer types. It could be somewhat like some games or apps contain a 32 bit and 64 version or a Linux installer etc.

To better explain this, look at the following.

The two current installer types for a game.

(1) Offline Installer - Contains all the game files, either in a single EXE file or with additional companion BIN files.

(2) Online Galaxy Installer - This is just a stub, that is a single small file that contains no game files, but has code to check if Galaxy exists on your PC and whether it needs updating if it does, plus it contains instructions to tell Galaxy which game you want downloaded and installed.

Consider instead, a combination of the two installer types in one file.

This kind of installer, contains all the same files as the Offline Installer, plus it contains code to check if Galaxy exists on your PC and whether it needs updating if it does. The Galaxy element would be optional, and could be disabled simply by deselecting a checkbox on the installer when first executed ... or maybe a query prompt could be presented instead.

The installer, while not including the Galaxy App, could additionally include the files that Galaxy would use for a Galaxy game install. These files should be small in number and size, so not add much to the installer file size.

So how would this installer work?

(1) Offline Installer User - They run the installer, deselect the Galaxy checkbox (or answer NO to any prompt), and then install the game as they always have.

(2) Online Galaxy Installer User - They run the installer, leave the Galaxy checkbox selected (or answer YES to any prompt) and then let the installer do its thing - Check for Galaxy and download if needed, then install using the game files in the installer, but where needed the Galaxy variant ones.

Why do all this, and not just leave things as they are?
I have four reasons for this.
(1) GOG are sending a clear message that the Offline Installer aspect is going to continually be supported.
(2) Perhaps more importantly, there is only one type of installer to update, and as we know there have been update issues with Offline Installers now for a while.
(3) Archiving is future proofed.
(4) GOG have less work to do when updating. That means more time available for other things.

Ask yourself the following.
(1) If you are an Offline Installer User, is it much of an imposition, to have to deselect that checkbox (or respond to a query)? Is it much of an issue to have a slightly larger Installer? Look at the update benefit. Surely it outweighs the slight inconveniences if updates are no longer an issue?

(2) If you are an Online Galaxy Installer User, what has really changed? You have the added ability to archive the installer. Sure, you have to respond to a prompt when you first execute the installer, but that is no biggie, and if you want to avoid that, just install the game from within Galaxy itself, and not use the web page option. So nothing in reality has really changed for you, except the benefit of having an installer to archive if you want.

Me, I want less hassles and better guarantees with my game installer, and this seems the perfect solution to me.
Post edited February 28, 2021 by Timboli
Posted February 28, 2021
high rated
They DID do that, but it caused major controversy so eventually
there were two sets of installers, one bundled with galaxy and one without, eventually GOG just went back to normal offline installers because no one was using the galaxy bundled ones.
Post edited February 28, 2021 by Lord_Kane
Posted February 28, 2021
As Lord Kane said, much like the Packard Bell Corner PC: The Idea was sound, the execution was Packard Bel.
Posted February 28, 2021
low rated
I think the fear they will ditch offline installers altogether is paranoia, but I could see them making the offline installers only available through Galaxy someday. This is not DRM that violates any promise, and would probably make their lives ten times easier.
Posted February 28, 2021
high rated
avatar
Darvond: As Lord Kane said, much like the Packard Bell Corner PC: The Idea was sound, the execution was Packard Bel.
Agreed. It just left a bad impression with people, especially as it was installing Galaxy by default. Going back down that route will send the message to the community (rightly or wrongly) that GoG is further pushing everyone to Galaxy. The solution we have today might not be optimal for OP, and might mean that some of the offline installers aren't as up to date as they could be (although there's no evidence that GoG would be any better at updating the versions if OP's plan was followed), but it has left GoG with a minimal amount of noise to deal with on this matter.

As for the Packard Bell Corner PC - I had completely forgotten about that thing!
Posted February 28, 2021
avatar
pds41: As for the Packard Bell Corner PC - I had completely forgotten about that thing!
This, and other lurking memories of your childhood may be found on the one and only LGR whose oddware series will show you though the world of..."Oh right! That!"
Posted February 28, 2021
high rated
Well, they tried to smuggle a Galaxy installer as bloatware into every offline installer. That move didn't exactly go over well. I don't want to have anything unnecessary in my offline installers. Especially nothing related to Galaxy.

However, there is no reason why Galaxy shouldn't use the offline installers.
Posted February 28, 2021
high rated
avatar
StingingVelvet: I think the fear they will ditch offline installers altogether is paranoia
As "paranoid" as the "fear" of GOG ditching regional pricing?...
Posted February 28, 2021
high rated
avatar
Timboli: (1) If you are an Offline Installer User, is it much of an imposition, to have to deselect that checkbox (or respond to a query)? Is it much of an issue to have a slightly larger Installer? Look at the update benefit. Surely it outweighs the slight inconveniences if updates are no longer an issue?
If you have a large collection and install lots of games at once, that would p*ss me off pretty quickly to have to 'beg' for each offline installer to not default to using the Galaxy that I don't have installed each time. GOG already added Galaxy installers to each game and it was not well received at all. Hugely unecessary bloat and completely missed the fact that people use offline installers not because they're too stupid to use a client, but because they simply don't want to use any client - including Galaxy as well as Steam. If you want to add something to offline installers to let people install Galaxy in the most awkward and indirect way possible, why not just add a simple Galaxy download link green button on top of the adverts shown than mess around with re-adding Galaxy installers (stubs or not)?
avatar
StingingVelvet: I think the fear they will ditch offline installers altogether is paranoia, but I could see them making the offline installers only available through Galaxy someday.
What would be the point of that? Most of the "effort" put into making offline installers is actually making & hosting them (setting up the InnoSetup script, GOG making a custom icon, adding the required galaxy.dll libraries needed to handle client-less gameplay for games with achievements, compiling it, checksumming it, hosting it, etc). For game devs by far the biggest effort goes into supporting Galaxy features, eg, Galaxy specfic achievements. What you're describing is putting in the same amount of effort but merely arbitrarily hiding the final URL link inside web browser whilst showing it in Galaxy (which is the same glorified Chrome browser) which in most cases takes up a mere 100 bytes per game.

That saves nothing and is a completely fake "restriction" with obvious backlash. If anything it causes even fewer people to use offline installers and more reason to completely scrap them. It will also end up with the absurd situation where forcing people to install a client to get the offline installers for paid games ends up increasingly more hassle and less convenient than pirates who will offering the offline installers directly for free. And if GOG did completely scrap them, the same pirates would just offer offline installers "repacks". As an added bonus Linux users will be left with no way to download games and you'll probably break gogrepo too. Clearly nothing can go wrong there with that "Great Idea 2.0 (tm)"...
Post edited February 28, 2021 by AB2012
Posted February 28, 2021
high rated
I've read the original post in this thread twice, yet it still makes little sense to me. I don't see why anyone would want to change the current way of doing things. Offline installers should just be offline installers, as the name says. Is Galaxy offline? No.

I'll try again tomorrow, I guess...
Posted February 28, 2021
avatar
Timboli: (1) If you are an Offline Installer User, is it much of an imposition, to have to deselect that checkbox (or respond to a query)? Is it much of an issue to have a slightly larger Installer? Look at the update benefit. Surely it outweighs the slight inconveniences if updates are no longer an issue?
avatar
AB2012: If you have a large collection and install lots of games at once, that would p*ss me off pretty quickly to have to 'beg' for each offline installer to not default to using the Galaxy that I don't have installed each time.
Wouldnt the installer remember that choice? Whenever i install a new game it already defaults to my game drive folder, i dont need to choose it everytime.

I understand the problem the op is looking at, but it's not my area of expertise how that issue could be solved.

What happens when a patch is released, and a user wants that patch only, versus another user that wants the full files.
Posted February 28, 2021
avatar
AB2012: ...
I completely agree with you - to such a point, where there's not much I would add to your comment.

The only thing I'd also point out in terms of installer bloat is that we already have people who don't like the way that the DOS game installers all come packaged with Dosbox at c12 MB a throw when they would rather use a central dosbox install to cover it off. I know that the Galaxy installer would be a stub, but even so, it's still going to further antagonise this fairly vocal group.

Plus, from time to time, the Galaxy stub would end up needing updating; they would end up having to repackage everything when this happened, which would be a terrible waste of resources.
Posted February 28, 2021
avatar
Timboli: ...
It’s all well and good talking about creating one installer with an option, but this a company who cannot eve get the text of a release thread correct!
Also, what happens with the inevitable “forgot to uncheck that box”? Then you suddenly have spyware installed all over your machine. This happened to me, I accidentally used a (g) installer, thankfully nothing ran and it was all boxed off.

A final point also, it’s not just galaxy which is the problem, but the galaxy way of things. Ever since even before galaxy, website was broken and never fixed, then things moved to social media (giveaways and such), then you start seeing microtransactions and online only games, games with online shops etc. Cyberpunk will shortly be moved to multiplayer microtransaction powered. So it’s not just the tool itself but the culture around it, and the people who so desperately want it here, it’s that steam away from steam effect. Offline installers will go at some point, no maintains them for the small part of the original customer base (the rest left long ago), so it’s a moot point.
DRM free was a nice idea, and obviously a good selling point back in the day, but it’s dead, dead’s dead baby.
Posted February 28, 2021
avatar
darkangelz: Wouldnt the installer remember that choice? Whenever i install a new game it already defaults to my game drive folder, i dont need to choose it everytime.
It "remembers" last used install path because GOG store that in the registry key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\GOG.com and sure it's possible to store other information the same way. The real question is "why" is it even needed? The whole point of self-contained offline installers is to work offline. As has been shown with the prior removal of Galaxy installers, nothing was lost when they were removed. People who wanted Galaxy weren't suddenly confused as to where to download it from given it's plastered on almost every page of GOG.com site including every game download page. And people who don't want Galaxy don't need it to be re-added.

avatar
darkangelz: I understand the problem the op is looking at, but it's not my area of expertise how that issue could be solved.
The problem Timboli is complaining about is (GOG create some "stub" in offline files downloaded via Galaxy that's somehow different from GOG offline installers) doesn't need to exist at all. If people want to use Galaxy to download the offline installer files, just link to the same files that the GOG.com game page does. Anything else is GOG reinventing the wheel for the sake of it.
Post edited February 28, 2021 by AB2012
Posted February 28, 2021
low rated
avatar
StingingVelvet: I think the fear they will ditch offline installers altogether is paranoia, but I could see them making the offline installers only available through Galaxy someday. This is not DRM that violates any promise, and would probably make their lives ten times easier.
yeah , as long as i can dl using api
but i can't see why they couldn't make them available in the webpage and just automate everything
publisher uploads version checks box to make it public → then bots should just automatically make it available everywhere in the correct format within hours
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionOffline Installer or Galaxy Online Installer ... why not two-in-one?(109 posts)(109 posts)
(109 posts)