yes, it is a different disucssuin (and no snipping my posts changes this).

My post was on the topic "why do unsupported software stop working"

Your topic is "rant against Galaxy.. DRM! DRM! DRM!"

two different disucusions. I am dealing with the first topic here, the second I am not touching with a barge pole.
It does not work with the new updated framework, to make it work it must be updated.... again, this was the main point about my post
They told you 5 years ago that this would happen, and it has not been supported since then. The silence is due to it no longer being supporter.... as they told you back then... They no longer supported it (from 5 years ago) and no longer made any announcements about it, as it was no longer supported. Quite frankly, I am surprised that it still worked.... after not being supported for 5 years

The indifference here is from gOg users, who knew this and did not raise it then

Lmao, read another time thread's title: I've opened it pro GOG Downloader.

And my "rants" are against a behaviour too much similar to Valve or EA: unilateral decisions and GTFO customers! Not really against who wants using Galaxy.

Who wants. (if you understand, fine. If not, not my business)


Totally not what GOG was at its beginning. So, again: the two points are striclty connected.

Read me previous post, and yes - unconnected. I talk general, you specifik.

Already done and yes: keep playing being blind. As I said, not my business if it's your mental comfort zone.

sigh.. fundamentalists....

Can you point me to any proof for this ... I've not seen it?

In fact, everything I have seen has been the opposite of that statement.

There are many many posts here by people who have contacted Devs, and I have not read one yet, where GOG is to blame. the Devs always have some excuse or lead you on or just don't reply.

There is absolutely no reason for GOG to deny or withhold updates. In fact, it is to their benefit not to, as many just purchase from Steam rather than risk no updates or belated ones.

I'm not going to bother repeating myself for the other stuff you said, already been explained well enough.

But this notion they need to shut it down, ignores the fact that many thousand (maybe millions) of such links already exist, and that it is only new games coming online that might cause a little extra work.

When you think about it though and be realistic, that extra work is not much and involves a few seconds only.

And lets be completely honest here, GOG have many many things they should have done already but never have so far and are unlikely to do so, and saving those few seconds won't change a thing, but will keep a lot of customers, a significant portion of us happy, if they do spend those few seconds to continue providing for us. In real terms, that means money in their coffers.

If they choose to ignore us, well I know what I usually do when I am treated badly, so they can take that as being warned.

not if it requires a re-write of major parts of the downloader client to work with the new API's. Then it needs testing, acting on tests and so on. This can quickly escalate..... and suddenly involve a lot of resources to plow into a piece of software that was discontinued 5 years ago (Yes, I will keep repeating this until it sinks in)

because, and lets continue to be realistic here, why would a business even need to spend 2 seconds of its valuable time to make sure a piece of software that was discontinued 5 years ago would still work?

again - this discussion should have been had 5 years ago.

Note...this reply is likely going to sound all sorts of bad/rude, but it is just me being(as I see it) rational/logical** while looking from the outside in.....that said I post some words in support of GOG DLer/those who want to use it/etc at the end as well:

(**That isn't to say all those who want it aren't ever rational or logical)
============================================================ That(in general) is imo not a good stance to have all the time(it's ok sometimes).....i.e "Oh, it 'only' takes a bit of work, so they should do this".....yes, it may be a bit of extra time/work for this ONE thing, but if they give in to this one thing than others will want their one thing......and soon enough the time/money spent and work needed adds up.
------------------------------------------------------------ In all honesty(going by wishlist numbers) I am guessing the numbers are much lower than you/others purport/seem to think.
------------------------------------------------------------ Sadly, I don't think subtle "hints" of not buying/etc from a small group of users is going to change much.

=======================================================

All the above said, I wouldn't have minded if they kept it for others that used it, and it might've been nice if they announced/started work on a replacement for those who used such(or at least listed some good alternatives themselves for non-galaxy users)......but in the end it's sadly not our choice to make, and I feel the best thing for most who use it is to either find an alternate(or use the browser method if it works), pester someone who is good with such to maybe work on a replacement, or not buy and shop elsewhere(if they feel the need to do so, and it is that important to them).

As the serenity prayer says:

"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference."

Not to sound like i'm trying to "bash" anyone, but many(in general, not just here and on this topic) will often state things as being easier/harder than they are to support their own stances/ideas instead of trying to see how hard/easy some things truly are as that would run counter to supporting their stances in a good number of cases.

Some(again in general) don't like changing things unless they absolutely must or admitting change will be coming(that they aren't in control of), and to some of them even bringing such things up would be like admitting what was coming(to themselves), so some will often ignore such till the last minute.

When I started using it, there was no sense it was deprecated, just that they wanted to promote Galaxy, which wasn't even out of beta at that point. So not an excuse at all.

Where is your proof for any of that?

Maybe i should have said, completely rewritten, and very obviously a different beast. That said, I have never actually run Galaxy 2, so I can only go by comparisons by others between that and Galaxy 1, which I am unhappily forced to use on occasion ... for Linux downloads.

I don't see it as a dirty word at all, and it is not the features that bother me, but the impact they have, and the many screens you need to jump through, so I prefer simpler. Like I have mentioned a few times already, I have no beef with Galaxy, unless I am forced to use it. I have even defended it existence in the past, and still do for those who want to use it.

I will just ignore those, because I have over 900 games that I used it for that say otherwise. And as PCs go, the one I use for downloading is quite low powered, and the difference between the GOG Downloader and GOG Galaxy is very stark, with Galaxy being absolutely terrible.

Well, I don't know what to say really, except to use my many years of experience and knowledge and say someone has a crap PC. There are many out there, that look good in the specs department but have mismatched or bad parts, and in fact they are where most issues with running games, come from, where so many people falsely blame GOG, when it is really some manufacturer or PC builder who is at fault. That said, things are generally better these days than they were 20 years ago ... technology is more forgiving now of imperfections.

Clearly you don't know much about software or hardware.

Finally something we can almost agree on.

You misunderstood me entirely.
GD is better at its one job, than GG is at that same job or in any of its jobs in my estimation ... hence GG is the master of nothing, while GD is the master of downloading. That's not to say GD couldn't or shouldn't be improved, it could be.

I don't really understand how it's such a big issue to support better downloads from the browser / provide an official tool for non-Galaxy users?

I mean, I hear this argument all the time. "It's too expensive! It takes too much work to support it!"

And then there are two 3rd party / user-made tools which seemingly can manage this and a lot more. Despite the fact that they are maintained by one person (!), for free (!), per tool. I am of course talking about gogrepo and lgogdownloader.

I could understand if GOG just told us, 'we can't be arsed', or 'it's too much hassle, it's messy'. But these arguments (from people defending this decision) about the cost and resources? Don't really get them. If those guys can do it, by themselves, for free, why can't GOG do it?

Unless of course they think they have already done it, through Galaxy. Yet they forgot about the people who can't/don't want to use Galaxy...

Purchase more board games; I fully endorse more people playing pandemic through this pandemic. ;) It is a good game, I am not affiliated with the creator in any way.

What you said can be taken the wrong way, so I added the one word to make it clearer. :)

Or maybe I got it wrong?

In any case, downloading such huge files from a browser link is asking for trouble, especially if you are archiving and not going to test your download immediately. Some games are 50+ Gb and even with a good network connection can take a few hours to download, and no guarantee that if it fails the first time, it will pass the second etc ... and frankly I have got better things to do than waste my PC and Internet time, when I don't really need to, as GOG already provides a quick simple tool to prevent that, that doesn't hog resources.