So what? What I articulated is how me and many others used it. I couldn't care less what the "official" definition of its function was. How is that even relevant to what I said? Downloader was an additional option, that wasn't Galaxy. Now, users have to choose between browser download or Galaxy.

Ok, go buy For the King (current version) here and get back to me if you can get to the title screen without Galaxy. Or any of the multiplayer games that REQUIRE Galaxy in order to play those modes. Yes, Galaxy itself doesn't force DRM, except in all the cases that games require it to access their content. Now's about the time where you might as well trot out your classic talking point that the Scheme store doesn't force DRM either; while technically true, it's a virtually meaningless statement since like 95% of the games do just that.

There's an argument you're missing, too: people like me don't want to "pad Galaxy's numbers" and it is a key reason to refrain from using Galaxy. There are already game modes locked behind what I (and FCKDRM.com would seem to) paint as DRM. This was the case even before Galaxy, but greatly proliferated during the Galaxy era. We see what happened with Downloader and users speculated not enough people cared to use it. What do you think happens when not enough people care to use offline "backup" installers, which are already basically hidden?

Citing a glitch and online multiplayer modes is desperate and not worth replying to.

As for Steam, it really depends. There's no DRM whatsoever on a Dosbox/Source Port game like Doom for example. For something more complicated though, I can see why having no installer would bring about possible complications in the future. I'm not sure I'd call that DRM if it doesn't require the client, but I can see why it wouldn't be good enough. However Galaxy is NOT that, no matter how much you pretend otherwise. Galaxy will download the SAME EXACT offline installers the downloader did, and you can back them up, and it's nowhere near the same.

I know you guys hear "client" and get triggered, but it's worth investing a modicum of thought into the difference between a program designed to download offline installers and never need to be used again if you want versus a program designed to force you to use it all the time.

Could say the same about statements like that Galaxy is "an optional client that forces no DRM upon you whatsoever", which under a technical reading is true but from a practical standpoint is essentially useless considering that so many of the games themselves need the "DRM" to play multiplayer (so why does it matter if the client itself is not inherently a DRM? It is able to be used as one and constantly is).

Generally speaking I don't see it making sense to get hung up on whether the entire game is blockaded by DRM, or just some of the game. Sure, the latter is I guess more palatable in a sense. Ultimately, though, both are unwanted and have no business on a store branded as "DRM-free". Do non-Galaxy users get partial money refunded from only being able to access a partial product? (rhetorical question)

Let's not be coy, I am talking about the Scheme games that do require the Scheme client. Which is the vast majority.

You're conflating multiple points into one. Galaxy does function similar to Scheme when it comes to games that require it in multiplayer (and the latest version of For the King, until it gets fixed). That is what I was talking about here, not the installers themselves or lack of installers.

Yes, because Galaxy is designed to be used to quickly download offline installers and get out /sarcasm. Come on, man. You have nerve implying that, after telling me about "the function of the Downloader". You can't honestly believe that officially "the function" of Galaxy was designed for people to do that. It is designed to always have people logged in and engaged hence the browser and social features. Galaxy's most ardent fans would surely tell you the same.

...What's your goal in this topic anyway, if I may ask?

lulz
teh ultimate defeat

Fairfox, what do you mean by this post, exactly?

We have had several posts now engaging in rational argument and I for one am having difficulty in understanding exactly what you are trying to say.

May I ask that you refrain from interrupting this discussion, especially if you wish to continue in such a childish manner.

nope, you may not ask that, fancy pants

this is 'unstoppable force meets an immovable object' territory

sumbody with 'No DRM, No Client, No Bull! :)' in their tag cannot be helped
dude has their answer.
they dont have to like it.
ho well

jump over my fox

Look I'll admit I don't play or care about mutiplayer, so it doesn't effect me. However I think the "online game" aspect makes for a very clear difference, don't you? I get that you could technically offer LAN and all that, but it's a big ask for developers when only an infinitesimally small number of people want it. I mean let's be honest, people in general want the client experience for everything, but they definitely want it for online games.

Still, if your overall point was "we want DRM free multiplayer!" then I wouldn't care, or even chime in. It's not my wheelhouse. It's the downloader vs. Galaxy thing I'm chiming in on. The downloader didn't magically make online Galaxy multiplayer not need Galaxy.

It's designed so you can use it the same as the downloader, loading it to download offline installer files and then closing it. Yes, it is designed to do that. Was it the main purpose? Of course not, but before they ditched the downloader they made sure Galaxy served the same purpose. They're being good dudes, but get endless crap for it anyway because that's the internet for ya.

And thanks for the thanks.

Looks like they doubled down(GOG, I \mean).....now they are going to drop the old galaxy version. :\

I wonder when the wishlist will pop up and how many votes that will get(I honestly wonder....but I guess it will be higher due to how many likely used that version of galaxy).

Idea: Maybe combine forces with them and use strength in numbers?

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

I applaud your efforts, but if GOG is willing to drop the old galaxy version(which likely has many more users) I don't think GOG DLer is likely to ever come back.

Do you know how many users GOG has? To them that's a drop in the ocean.

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

Because to some(including likely some here) anything made by a big corporation is automatically bad and nefarious, and must be rallied against/abhorred.

Also some dislike change.

For those who keep repeating all the negatives (dog knows why you are even here), they have all been responded to previously and soundly discounted using logic and reason ... every single one of them, no exception. If you are not sure about that, I suggest you read again .... perhaps with an open mind this time, and no agenda.

Continually repeating false or ill-considered arguments is not going to change the facts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My program, GOGDownload Checker, has been updated to v1.2, and uploaded.

The update includes support for BZ2 files, and RAR files now require UnRAR, as 7-Zip surprisingly does not test RAR files, despite being able to open them. I have also added support for PDF files, and have been looking into media files, though not added that yet. Several more options have been added to the console window, as can be seen in the screenshot at GitHub.

See my project here - https://github.com/Twombs/GOGDownload-Checker

Latest release here - https://github.com/Twombs/GOGDownload-Checker/releases

At best, my program is just a slow stop-gap measure, but needed right now, because file integrity for archiving is vitally important.
It is not a replacement for the GOG Downloader, only a helper while it is missing.

My program is not a 100% guarantee, but it is far better than nothing.

This is why we need the GOG Downloader back.

LET GOG KNOW HOW YOU FEEL BY VOTING
https://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/keep_the_gog_downloader_and_keep_it_up_to_date

We are up to 831 votes now.

Gj Timboli +1 from me.
It is possible to merge gogrepo to yours into a gui app?:P

I for one want online multiplayer, without DRM. And, technically speaking, there are DRM-free ways to have online multiplayer, so... ...but you're right that that's a bit of a separate discussion. The way I'm relating it to Downloader here is that Galaxy continues to normalize DRMed multiplayer despite the store here itself being a DRM-free store. Hence not wanting to pad Galaxy's numbers by using it, even if the use is for a different purpose. Because at the end of the day, they can still pull a power move by saying something like "95% of our userbase is on Galaxy so we're going to get rid of browser downloads and you can just use that". Which I know you will say isn't so bad, isn't DRM, isn't different from Downloader, etc, and in a sense you wouldn't be wrong to say those things, but...it's what's next after that which I would really worry about: getting rid of offline "backup" installers when not enough people use them (or they can at least paint the picture that not enough people use them, which one could easily argue is already ongoing).


If it wasn't for this store I wouldn't be here among the world of PC gaming anymore. I really value this place. I can't speak for myself but I like to think when I give negative feedback it is in the form of harsh but reasoned criticisms, not merely "giving them crap". I articulate reasons for why I think whatever decision is bad, even if I'm in the minority.

I don't personally care, but I support your quest.

Fair enough, cheers. I think the thing to fight for now would be maybe a low impact mode for Galaxy though, or better website downloading options. I think those are more realistic than them bringing back the downloader and supporting two apps.

People sticking fingers in their ears and calling those with valid criticisms wrong/etc doesn't discount them.

I find it a bit ironic that you are asking others to have an open mind, while seemingly shutting out/down those with opposing views(the valid ones I mean) so easily.

It is likely not coming back...

(also now they are sadly about to phase out the old version of Galaxy)

I don't want to drag this on forever either but wanted to point out that for what it's worth, myself and others have addressed that idea across these Downloader topics, multiple times at that. Mainly, it was when people were saying Galaxy does the same thing as Downloader (sounds familiar), the point was made that this is not really the case and would be more relevant as an analogy IF there was a "Galaxy-lite" that was basically Downloader but simply had "Galaxy" brand in the name. I had also made the point that I simply have more trust in the "GOG brand" than the "Galaxy brand" which, despite GOG's attempts to consolidate them, have different connotations.

Also, it is missing the point a bit to say they would be "supporting two apps" (though again true, barely, in a totally literal sense). How many times in these topics has the point been made that they stopped supporting the Downloader 5 years ago? A lot! Those of us who want Downloader back aren't telling GOG to support it at the level of Galaxy or anything. All we want are the Downloader links restored. We in this topic are asking for minimal if any real work. Just bring it back to it's state it was in, "officially unsupported". I realize this seems a bit of equivocating here since "support" would yes technically include letting it exist, but that's why I'm saying it would be minimal, since no resources otherwise going to it.

Wishlist votes at 839.

I'd think the best chance would be everyone downloads the same Galaxy app, but in the settings there's a "lite mode" toggle that turns off most things outside of your game list and download options. A lot of people probably play GOG games on older computers too, so you could try and sell it also as a solution for them. I think that's your best shot.