Posted February 06, 2018
timppu: Ok, so now it is clear what you expect from them. I have already seen that for many others the idea that we would have to download our GOG game installers with Galaxy (no option to use a web browser instead) is breaking the promise of a client (Galaxy) being optional.
I guess their thinking is that Galaxy being optional means they never have to install nor use Galaxy, even for downloading the standalone offline installers. While I can understand that argument, I personally still would be fine with an official client that you need to use for downloads, as long as it does its job well. If I understood you right, you would be fine with such an approach as well (Galaxy required to download the offline installers), or at least you'd feel GOG hasn't broken its promise of the client being optional then.
Well we're getting into two different promises here. I just meant the "no DRM" promise. That does not preclude some kind of required downloader as long as you can make a backup that can be installed totally offline. Promising the client will always be optional is a little trickier. At what point does a downloader become a client? I bought some DRM free stuff from Amazon and Direct2Drive back in the day that required I use a program to download them, but after that they were DRM free files I could backup. To me that's not a "required client" but I'm sure there are many here who disagree.I guess their thinking is that Galaxy being optional means they never have to install nor use Galaxy, even for downloading the standalone offline installers. While I can understand that argument, I personally still would be fine with an official client that you need to use for downloads, as long as it does its job well. If I understood you right, you would be fine with such an approach as well (Galaxy required to download the offline installers), or at least you'd feel GOG hasn't broken its promise of the client being optional then.