This feels like another push at forcing Galaxy to me. The next step could be removing the website links entirely, "because nobody uses them".

Why do sites like "Mega.nz" manage to have integrated download managers within their website, yet we can't do that here?

Give us some damn options.

This is what I suggested in the announcement thread:

I wonder if a few 'download all' buttons added to each game or our libraries would address a lot of the complaints in this thread?

Can't you just shut it down after downloading? You don't have to run it all the time. Also even if you did, the way modern Windows works with page files and whatnot I doubt it would matter. Not saying you can't prefer the downloader, just saying I don't think your stated reasons are that critical.

Shutting it down is not the problem, it's it running properly without giving me grief that is, freezing, doing whatever else it does while running anyway, and as I pointed out, inconsistent speeds not encountered with anything else. It's the only piece of software on my system giving me that kind of grief. It seems to do that a fair bit and not just with me, so I gave it a few tries but we really are not compatible it and I.

At this point and when -more than if- that good old Downloader is fully retired, I'll still get my offline stuff but not from optional Galaxy, not the way it's built anyway.

Something I should have mentioned earlier: every time I've ran it, made me think of a game that somehow has bad hiccups because of bad implementation/optimization. Not saying that it is that, but there seem to be issues somewhere with it, probably translating differently with some people.
Actually they probably wouldn't even have to do that, a click on a link is no bother and it'll get downloading, the only variant with that is by which means: browser, add-on, 3rd party integration or whatever.

Wait. Did they say they were discontinuing ability to use it? (they stopped updating it a fair while ago)
Browsers are not reliable - never have been in terms of downloading big files (gigs!!)

Havent used Galaxy and probably wont until i get a new pc or hard drive....

Does it have option to be used as a download only client? ie only used to download the installers etc like gogdownloader is right now

Yes, but it is designed as a launcher first and foremost, and loaded with all kinds of social crap that many of us don't want to look at, let alone use. I'm suggesting that they make a branch for us non-social types just for downloading.

Fair enough. I know I tried Galaxy 2.0 in beta and thought it was super clunky. I just use my browser for the most part, so I don't have much experience. Only annoying thing about the browser is the game list being archaic.

Still, for those who have issues with the browser due to spotty internet or whatever, I'm glad the DRM free installer Galaxy option is there.

I would prefer if the original galaxy is offered as an option to download. I prefer it to the 2nd version.

That's not really the case as i understand it.

The browser links are for the exact same files as the ones the GOG Downloader downloads, so you aren't really saving anything server wise.

It may be the case, that the GOG Galaxy files are exactly the same too, though last I heard they also contained a copy of GOG Galaxy in the installer. If that is the case, there is utterly no need to have so many copies of GOG Galaxy, especially as they will all become redundant over time.

But perhaps if you download via GOG Galaxy you don't get it included as well?

One thing that is not exactly clear yet, from what I have read so far, is what browser links will remain?
Currently we have two types ... this is aside from the links used for GOG Downloader.

Not true. My old laptop would start up a browser pretty much instantly. Galaxy 2.0? More like 30 seconds. It's much faster now on my new system with an SSD, but that client is not as responsive as a browser.

Ah ok, I was suggesting that perhaps it was a case of freeing servers because the links are differently named (I can see that with my mouse hovering on those links), as in do not show the same exact address between the offline installers on the main download page and the gog downloader links on the 'More' page. Hence my conclusion that they may be hosted separately.

Here I (too?) could be wrong but the browser links that should remain are the ones labelled offline installers which are normally under the option 'Install with Galaxy'.

So unless a GOG staffer comes to say otherwise, I'll assume those are the browser links that will remain.

Edit: gog downloader indeed must be hosted separately as the address for those is /gogdownloader/filename as opposed to gog/downloads/filename for the offline installer ones under install with Galaxy.

I probably shouldn't mention this, but I have used Free Download Manager 5 successfully with the browser links. I have it setup to capture them (just for Linux download links).

I started using it when GOG Downloader stopped supporting Linux download links.

That said, I only did so for a while, because I started to use GOG Galaxy 1 for the Linux downloads, pain in the butt though it is, it seemed smarter to use the fully supported downloader.

I've still been using the GOG Downloader for all my Windows versions though.

Not true at all.

I occasionally use Galaxy 1 for the Linux downloads, and it is far more of a memory hog than my Chrome based browser, and quite horrible in its slowness really, especially after the downloading starts.

I freely admit though, that this PC is only for web use (downloads etc) and not playing many games ,,, and I don't use Multiplayer.

A big part of GOGs appeal to me, is the lack of Internet requirement ... aside from getting the games. And like so many others here, I am not the slightest bit interested in a Client.

GOG should respect they have two main types of customers - Client and non Client.

So much this. I use Galaxy, and I keep my library up-to-date with GOGRepo. But if they make Galaxy mandatory, I'm out.