ah I see, but if I can misread your post and misunderstand it, so can the average user and that is just going restart the whole controversy all over again and then the pitchforks and torches will come out. again and given GOG's notoriously poor PR skills I don't think it would be a good idea.

Amazingly feasible, but we are dealing with people who fail at even at describing the basics of their own service, and who keep secrets and strange decisions all around.

PLEASE PLEASE PEOPLE, go back and read my opening post properly.

Clearly many of you must be skimming and not getting the important detail.
I cannot believe how many of you are getting that so wrong.
I know many struggle with long posts, but honestly ... if you are not going to bother to read properly, you should not be responding.

What I am suggesting as the one and only installer, does not contain the Galaxy App. I say that a few times in my first post. All it contains is the code to download Galaxy, much as the current stub does now, but in my instance it is optional and can simply be skipped at install time, by deselecting a checkbox.

That means Galaxy is never downloaded and never used, if you don't want it to be.

Let me say it again - GALAXY IS NOT INCLUDED in the installer, regardless.

P.S. I don't mean to insult any of you, but I always find this very frustrating when my posts are not read properly. I went to a lot of trouble to avoid any misunderstanding, even gave an example and repeated myself a few times in different ways.

and you dont get what I am saying, you are assuming that people a) have the observation skills and b) GOG has the communication skills to show this, if anything this thread should show why your idea while smart and even brilliant, wouldnt work in real application because people dont read or look.

Nah, I get what you are saying, I just don't necessarily agree with it completely ... otherwise I would never bother to post any ideas.

Hell, I even had the following post and replies to use as a template for avoiding misunderstandings ... hence why I included an example.

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gogrepopy_python_script_for_regularly_backing_up_your_purchased_gog_collection_for_full_offline_e/post2712

I try to avoid being too cynical in my older age, but communications are only as good as the writer and reader ... especially the reader. If the reader isn't diligent enough, it doesn't matter what you say or how good your communication skills are.

I know what you're saying but as I mentioned in post #10, people who aren't interested in Galaxy at all do not want yet another hoop to jump through in the form of introducing a new checkbox in offline installers that needs to be unticked each time to not default to go online to download the Galaxy app that the person in question has already decided to not use. That's just an unnecessary nuisance that will massively p*ss people off en masse. I don't think it will "save" GOG anything in support calls either as no-one today is stupid enough they can't find Galaxy now and those running a whitelisted firewall (block by default, allow by exception) can't download Galaxy via installers unless they manually add the installer to their Firewall which takes longer than downloading via the web site. Where's the advantage in any of this vs if you want to download Galaxy just do it once here?

I know what you're saying but perhaps I should repeat what I said earlier - people use installers not because we're too stupid to find this page, but rather because we just don't want to use Galaxy at all. As I said if you really want to advertise Galaxy in offline installers, just add a green URL button on top of the advert shows in offline installers that opens the Galaxy download page via your web browser. No problem with firewalls, no annoying "no really, I'm using this OFFLINE installer because I don't want to go ONLINE to get Galaxy" checkboxes to untick, and no bloated special downloader code.

True, but this place is special that it tends to explode at the slightest sparks, which is...headache inducing at the very least, its even effected me at moments, double so for the paranoia this can induce.

I hate to say it, as it could be misinterpreted as being antagonistic, but if 90%+ people have misread your initial post, including native English speakers, it does suggest that you could have been a little clearer - the fault isn't always with the user/reader.

That being said, I'd go back to the point of "why does the Galaxy need to be anywhere near any of the installers at all"? If people want to use Galaxy, have a "big Download Galaxy" button on the homepage, and then let them do everything through Galaxy (or have it as part of the account set up process - "Click here if you want to install Galaxy, our optional client"). Everything behind the homepage could then be set up solely linking to the offline installers, except possibly a big "Install Galaxy" link at the top of the account page.

I do actually cover all that in my opening post.

I talk about the advantages and disadvantages, and state the probable advantages easily outweigh the disadvantages.

The whole impetus for me starting this thread, is because GOG are having issues and a good number of us are either losing their faith in GOG or have done so already.

Offline Installers are the major concern to many of us. Also the time GOG cannot seem to devote to other issues that need addressing. To up their game, they need to change something ... and we don't want them getting rid of Offline Installers as a necessary cutback or only making them available through Galaxy.

I've read your post several times, and you seem to be saying that because there's some weird "pseudo-offline stub" you can download via Galaxy (which I don't know as I've never used Galaxy myself), then "that should be added to the proper offline installers", when to me the obvious time-saving solution is the exact opposite - scrap the fake pseudo Galaxy-offline stub and just download the same proper offline installer files in Galaxy as people see in the web browser...

Understood 100%, but to me half the reason they keep losing faith is they keep d*cking around with making offline stuff less offline, over-advertising Galaxy and constantly wasting resources reinventing the wheel in all the wrong areas without getting the basics right...

I did kind of cover that in my last reply before yours.
I had every reason to try and make my opening post as clear as possible, as you can see by my first attempt (the link I provided).
Yes, sometimes the writer is as much to blame as the reader when communication goes astray.
I tried real hard to get it right, and I don't know what else I could have done to improve things.

I do actually cover that in my opening post.
The summary of which, is that with only one installer, it is easier to keep it updated for all of us.
GOG have seemingly been struggling with Offline Installers for a few months now.
Something clearly has to change for things to improve in that regard, and I don't want it to be the wrong thing.

Until recently, I had only ever used Galaxy 1.0, a few times and not recently. and I had only ever downloaded the Offline Installers with it ... and mostly Linux ones at that.

So recently I did an experiment, using the GALAXY INSTALLER option on a game library page.
That downloaded what they call a stub or shell file for the game, and was only a few hundred kilobytes in size.
After downloading it, I executed it.
The first thing it did, without asking me, was to download the latest version of Galaxy 2.0 and then install it.
(NOTE - I was quite surprised that worked, as I was using Windows 7 which is supposedly not supported by Galaxy 2)
Then it proceeded to use that version of Galaxy to download the game.
I got the impression that Galaxy downloaded each and every file from GOG straight to an install folder ... no big download files that it extracted content from.
Then Galaxy stated it was doing some kind of setup, which didn't seem much more than creating shortcuts, but may have also been some quick stuff related to making the game compatible with Galaxy.

Look, I agree they have gone too far overboard promoting Galaxy, at least from the perspective of us Offline Installer users. No doubt they are trying to lure more Steam based customers here, make it as attractive as possible to them.

If GOG took onboard my suggestion about one installer for all, they could get the basics right.

I don't have an issue with de-selecting one checkbox every time I install a game. It's not like I will be installing several in a day .. maybe only once every few days, so its not a big imposition. And if it means the universal installer is always updated, I see it as a win win for all of us really.

Don't really understand what you mean by that.

In that case, even more reason and simpler to do the single installer I mention.

That would mean almost no size difference compared to the current Offline Installer file. Just a bit of added code for checking and downloading Galaxy if desired and needed, and some instructions to pass to Galaxy for the chosen game.

Barefoot essentials is a script package from Barefoot_Monkey that adds functionality to the forum, among other things. One of those functions is a quick post and quick reply feature (that I'm actually using right now, so it must have just been the first page of this topic) that allows you to quote a post or make a new post without opening a pop-up (it has an entry space at the bottom of the thread).

Back on your original topic, I don't know if it's that way with ALL games on GOG, but every one that I've installed with offline installers include the Galaxy .dll files. That's only around 5 or 6 games, but I can test a few in a bit and report some results. I'm obviously not going to install 800 games, but I'll spot check a few for you.

While most of us Offline Installer users see Galaxy as pointless and unwanted, MD5 verification aside, I understand why Galaxy exists.

Steam have the largest number of Gamers by far, and they are used to and no doubt expect a client.
For GOG to successfully gain more customers, then it stands to reason they need to make themselves attractive enough and familiar enough to those who might be interested.

Their profit from selling more games, is not just good for GOG, it is also good for us.

We want GOG to survive and keep getting and selling more DRM-Free games.