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 discussionThe recent controversy about installers haveing Galaxy showcases this.(172 posts)(172 posts)
(172 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
This is my favourite topic
Posted May 10, 2017
low rated
avatar
richlind33: As others have pointed out, downloading an offline installer *is* opting out, and GOG knows this perfectly fucking well.

The fact that they're unwilling to be honest about what they're doing tells me that GOG is a fly-by-night outfit on par with G2A, and I don't do business with G2A.

Capisce?
I see no evidence at all to that comparison. If I were GOG, I'd feel seriously insulted (yes, even taking into consideration all the stuff they've been doing the past few years that many forum users don't seem to agree with).

Where have they been dishonest? They always said Galaxy would stay optional; they never said that the traditional means of installing / delivering games (i.e. not via Galaxy) would remain the default forever.

They even informed us explicitly and told us which which installers would be affected.

Gr00t and BKGaming explained it perfectly. GOG is just making logical business decisions, which usually means catering to the majority of customers.
Posted May 10, 2017
low rated
avatar
skimmie: Where have they been dishonest? They always said Galaxy would stay optional; they never said that the traditional means of installing / delivering games (i.e. not via Galaxy) would remain the default forever.

They even informed us explicitly and told us which which installers would be affected.
People tend to blow this stuff out of portion. Mind you, I do think GOG should handle this better. As I've stated in the other thread, it's a nice concept just poor execution on GOG's part. But yea, they for sure never said that traditional installers would remain the way they are now or that they would not change how they function.

IF GOG can come up with something better than standalone installers and keep Galaxy optional than by all means they should do so... trying to keep unrealistic people from behaving irrational about such things is never going to happen.

The level of conspiracy theories around here is starting to get crazy... a checkbox you can disable, no matter how annoying, is by no means the end of the world,... but to some people they do act like it is.
Posted May 10, 2017
high rated
avatar
richlind33: Who'll be crying when the pirates have the last laugh? >_<
avatar
blotunga: Pirares will also have the option to install Galaxy. ;)
I already posted it in the other thread, but, actually, no, pirates won't have to deal with that shit. Pirates repack stuff for the end users' convenience. Galaxy bundling is a golden opportunity for release groups to not do any particularly heavy lifting but still have enough of a claim to put their nfo the degalaxified installer.
Posted May 10, 2017
high rated
avatar
richlind33: As others have pointed out, downloading an offline installer *is* opting out, and GOG knows this perfectly fucking well.

The fact that they're unwilling to be honest about what they're doing tells me that GOG is a fly-by-night outfit on par with G2A, and I don't do business with G2A.

Capisce?
avatar
skimmie: I see no evidence at all to that comparison. If I were GOG, I'd feel seriously insulted (yes, even taking into consideration all the stuff they've been doing the past few years that many forum users don't seem to agree with).

Where have they been dishonest? They always said Galaxy would stay optional; they never said that the traditional means of installing / delivering games (i.e. not via Galaxy) would remain the default forever.

They even informed us explicitly and told us which which installers would be affected.

Gr00t and BKGaming explained it perfectly. GOG is just making logical business decisions, which usually means catering to the majority of customers.

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/offline_installers_with_an_option_to_install_gog_galaxy/post12
.
"As for the option being opted in as default - after careful consideration, we've decided to go with this because we believe that it's easier for an experienced user to uncheck the box than it would be for a new user to figure out how to turn the feature on."
If you're too stupid to install Galaxy, how the fuck are you going to create an account and buy a game???

It's not just dishonest, it's blatantly and unapologetically dishonest.
Post edited May 10, 2017 by richlind33
Posted May 10, 2017
high rated
avatar
Elmofongo: No one, specifically the long time users of this site, wanted GOG Galaxy at all.

Who was this marketed towards, why was this needed, how is this making more profit for GOG than what we had before?

If GOG Galaxy was inevitably gonna lead to this current predicement and future potential fears, why was Galaxy not killed in its crib?Where was the massive backlash against GOG Galaxy when it was first revealed?

Test bump, why is it that every time I make a thread I don't see it on the forums?
Its targeted towards todays lazy waster generation who grew up with steam. Me I didn't want a client, indev, regional prices, day 1 dlc, aesthetic dlc, endless selling of bits of games (stardock), unfinished broken games (man o war?), floods of pixel/crafting/gamemaker indiegarbage, specials only for people who use facebook or twatter, drmd online saves, or any number of the other steam like features that certain groups have continuously pushed for over the last few years. I shopped here because I didn't want that and so did not use steam, simple, there was choice. Its not just just this news, but a culmination over time of all these things which has really soured my view on Gog, its nothing more than a pale shadow of steam now, and hence why I am not buying anything further. Even if they do backtrack from this, you wouldn't recover any trust in them.
Posted May 10, 2017
avatar
USERNAME:skimmie#Q&_^Q&Q#GROUP:4#Q&_^Q&Q#LINK:31#Q&_^Q&Q#Where have they been dishonest? They always said Galaxy would stay optional; they never said that the traditional means of installing / delivering games (i.e. not via Galaxy) would remain the default forever.

They even informed us explicitly and told us which which installers would be affected.#Q&_^Q&Q#LINK:31#Q&_^Q&Q#
avatar
Wrong. People like you live in a tiny, sheltered world that spares you from having to think about things that conflict with the preconceptions that have been stuffed into your tiny, sheltered minds. And I pity you.
Post edited May 10, 2017 by richlind33
Posted May 10, 2017
avatar
richlind33: Wrong. People like you live in tiny, sheltered worlds that spare you from having to think about things that conflict with the preconceptions that have been stuffed into your tiny, sheltered minds. And I pity you.
You nailed it, so edgy... screw it I was going to sink to your level, but nah.

Saying this "I consider those who employ opt-out marketing to be less than human, and would not wish their company on even the lowest of animals." all ready shows how irrational you are... why waist the time?
Post edited May 10, 2017 by user deleted
Posted May 10, 2017
high rated
avatar
Elmofongo: No one, specifically the long time users of this site, wanted GOG Galaxy at all.

Who was this marketed towards, why was this needed, how is this making more profit for GOG than what we had before?

If GOG Galaxy was inevitably gonna lead to this current predicement and future potential fears, why was Galaxy not killed in its crib?Where was the massive backlash against GOG Galaxy when it was first revealed?

Test bump, why is it that every time I make a thread I don't see it on the forums?
First statement is not true. A client like the Steam client was frequently requested long before it existed (as a measure to get on par featurewise with Steam). Some wanted GOG Galaxy. For example: I tried it out and I'm mostly neutral towards it as long as it doesn't get in the way (like now). I'm definitely not against it.

It was marketed for the average user, the same one that uses the Steam client. The one that needs a one click update possibility and likes achievements. It's better service for those users and that#s where the profit lies.

GOG always sweared GOG Galaxy would remain optional (forever).

All in all, I think you overestimate the early resentment against Galaxy. It's more of a gradual change and this is now just the last straw.

If you look at GOG over the years (regional pricing, encrypted installers, client, paid extras, lots of DLC,...) you see that they are mimicking Steam. Some of it is good, others is bad. It's a mixed experience.
Post edited May 10, 2017 by Trilarion
Posted May 10, 2017
avatar
USERNAME:richlind33#Q&_^Q&Q#GROUP:4#Q&_^Q&Q#LINK:36#Q&_^Q&Q#Wrong. People like you live in tiny, sheltered worlds that spare you from having to think about things that conflict with the preconceptions that have been stuffed into your tiny, sheltered minds. And I pity you.#Q&_^Q&Q#LINK:36#Q&_^Q&Q#
avatar
Throwing rocks is ill-advised if you live in glass house. So cut the crap and be civil if civil is what you want.
Posted May 10, 2017
high rated
I actually like and occasional use the optional Galaxy. I dislike it becoming mandatory. And I really dislike being spoon fed marketing BS.

The recent event showcases that gog wants to get rid of the browser downloads and be on Galaxy only.

I do get it. Having the launcher mandatory invites to more Steam-like features; it makes publisher appeasing easier. But in the end when it is mandatory there is no reason to stay on gog anymore. We do not need a 2nd Steam. We have one. And its popular by its fans. And even some of these buy games here for the 2nd time because its different. They will do shit if it ain't anymore.

Gog, do you have a new one in your higher ups who got bored and had to show his cluelessness about what gog means or why all off the sudden the scratching on your core moral?
Post edited May 10, 2017 by anothername
Posted May 10, 2017
high rated
avatar
Annoying is annoying already, even IF it's just a checkbox.

But if Galaxy is, itself, pre-downloaded within the game installer, then it is smartphone-level bloatware. Sorry but I didn't ask facebook to be bundled in.

And I don't simply ask the right to not install or use it, I ask the right to erase its installer. Especially if it, ultimately, comes muliplied by the amount of games I've bought.
Posted May 10, 2017
high rated
avatar
GR00T: What this really demonstrates is that GOG found a niche where they could start up a successful business. That was what attracted us DRM-free proponents in the first place and that was what made us stay. But, as they grew and more people joined the ranks, fewer and fewer of them were the types that were attracted here by the original concept and ideals of Good Old Games.

Now, with the much, much bigger user-base GOG has, we're just the loud minority. And GOG has come to realize that. They've figured that in order to compete with the 800 pound Steam gorilla, they have to become a hefty Steam-like gorilla. And if that means there's some collateral damage on the way to becoming that bigger behemoth, then so be it.

It's business. And there comes a point when a business gets big enough that they no longer have to cater to the niche/fringe customer. I saw this with Stardock. I saw this with BioWare. And now I'm seeing this with GOG.

Bottom line is, those of us that were attracted here by GOG's original concept and ideals are casualties of GOG's success. And we're expendable. Because there's simply not enough of us that give a shit about what GOG originally represented. The vast majority of users don't care.
I get all that, I really do. Even I can't help doubting how sound of a business course this is - after all, ig GOG becomes simply a copy of Steam with less games, what possible advantage will it have over it's competition? It's never going to "outsteam" Steam.

But that is hardly my concern, and I don't know shit about business and am notoriously terrible at predicting reactions of mass audience. My problem is how GOG is going about it. I said it before. If they want to just give up on DRM-free, client optional policies... that's fine. I mean, not with me, I won't be on board for that, but I know that that's their prerogative. But they should do so clearly and openly, not slowly encroaching on their old user base, circoumventing their own promises and sputing obviously bullshit marketing speak. I know it might be a silly thing to expect in business today, but GOG could choose to have some dignity and treat the customers that made them a success in the first place with enough respect to be upfront about their policies.
Posted May 10, 2017
high rated
The biggest problem and really only problem is that Galaxy will get downloaded with every offline installer (aka backup installer) and it will also start the install process automatically. Sure you can stop it in the settings. But why would you need it if you wan't to use offline instalers. Plus the unnecessary additional file size (150MB) especially when its clear that people who use download option from gog store use it explicitly in order not to use Galaxy.
Post edited May 10, 2017 by Matruchus
Posted May 10, 2017
Been here over 4 years, heavily active on this forum and a serious proponent for GoG and DRM free gaming.

And I happily use galaxy.

Do I think GoG have made a mistake in bundling Galaxy with the offline installers? Yes,big time.

But I most definitely don't think its an attempt to sneak Galaxy onto those that don't want to use it. They're simply trying to make it easier for the migrating users from the other platforms that have only experienced client based gaming.

GoG need to readdress the issue.
Posted May 10, 2017
avatar
mechmouse: Been here over 4 years, heavily active on this forum and a serious proponent for GoG and DRM free gaming.

And I happily use galaxy.

Do I think GoG have made a mistake in bundling Galaxy with the offline installers? Yes,big time.

But I most definitely don't think its an attempt to sneak Galaxy onto those that don't want to use it. They're simply trying to make it easier for the migrating users from the other platforms that have only experienced client based gaming.

GoG need to readdress the issue.
That is understandable. Which is why I offered them an option (in the other thread) with a pop up window that would offer users to install the game with or through galaxy and option to download offline installer. Its kind off how other stores do it. I mean Steam gives you a big pop up at once saying that you need the client to run the game. Why not do a similar thing here? Just do it as two options.
Post edited May 10, 2017 by Matruchus
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionThe recent controversy about installers haveing Galaxy showcases this.(172 posts)(172 posts)
(172 posts)