I have removed it years ago in my browser :)

I just looked in the "what's new section" as I was told to do so. So yes, I cannot tell for sure if the shown content actually was working as well but imo it does not matter anymore since it's been proven that it won't work at all without internet connection and so it's worse enough with or without Galaxy.

While I agree this is no more and no less than DRM on the affected DLCs, there's really no one here to blame but Techland. What GOG could do is delist the game, but I don't think anyone wants that.

I hope Dying Light 2 gets released soon, so that hopefully this timed-DLC madness will end and it will all be available in the offline installer, no online activation required.

I do. I'd rather be sure that any game sold here is fully functional than need to search dozens of forum threads to find out various issues with this always-online crapware.

Further testing of the Dying Light issue - new results:

I made a mistake in testing - you need Galaxy to be able to go online (for proper testing the Galay service needed to be disabled). Sorry for wrongfully telling that Galaxy is not needed.

It seems as if it is possible to access those DLCs after going online once even though the DLCs are not listed anymore. See here for more details.

Thanks for the information. This game requires Galaxy to be able to access all the single-player content I've paid for, even though GOG claims Galaxy is not required for single-player. I asked GOG support if all the DLC is included in the offline installer, and they told me that it is, and attached a screenshot as proof. Clearly this was an outright lie. I will be demanding a refund for the base game + all DLC I've purchased. This is absurd.

How disappointing. I like the game well enough but never bought the DLC. I certainly won't thanks to the confirmation of you and Marco. I don't understand why this content can't be made available DRM-free as offline singleplayer content.

I submitted a support ticket asking for a definitive answer regarding this issue, and for them to fix this issue or issue me a refund.

Can those dlc's even be bought? I tought they were free offers integrated into the main game. Wich is no excuse for the fact they are drm protected behind techland servers.

If any of first free dlc's are included in the offline instaler, my hope is the other ones get included aswell.

The 10-in-12 content drops are free, but the point is that there is singleplayer content that is available only by using the Galaxy client. I purchased the game and all the DLC that's available for it. It's bad enough that there's no crossplay and I can't use a ton of DLC that's only available for the Steam version, but now on top of that, there's singleplayer content that's available with Galaxy, but not the offline installer.

Just for clarification. We are talking here about the latest free DLC content only not every DLC content. Does not really make it better though.

Yes. There are 10 content drops that were released in 12 months. All of the drops are free, but only half of them made their way into the offline installer. The other half is only available if you use Galaxy, which flies in the face of GOG's statement that Galaxy is not mandatory for singleplayer content.

EDIT: Bloody broken forum. Let's see if I can make this post humanly legible.

Back when the fresher, better GOG rolled out, I had commented on the, then added, "DRM-FREE. No activation or online connection required to play" bit on game pages as a possible sign of what may come down the road in terms of requirements during installation.
Back then, Destro was pretty quick to give reassurances that it was purely a wording thing, that the GOG Galaxy client was optional, and that nothing had changed regarding GOG's understanding of DRM and the way standalone installers work. He did deem it necessary, however, to point out that most GOG users don't know what DRM-free is, which read as implying that they don't care. I replied to his post a bit further down the thread, never to hear from Destro, or anyone else representing GOG, again.
A few others had also chimed in - the whole discussion is just a few posts long, from post #1670 up to #1687 (with a handfull of unrelated ones in between), for anyone interested.

Note that Destro was smart enough to talk only about the, at the time, present, and gave no reassurances, nor made any promises for the future. A few years down the road, and it looks like my concern/suspicion wasn't unfounded after all.

I misread, my apologies. But yes indeed that does not really change much :/