Why? Are the bits and bytes getting old?

"lUpgrading classics for present-day
Even if the game is older than you are, we test it thoroughly, fix all the bugs, and apply patches so it runs flawlessly on your next-gen PC and on modern OSs."l

(gOg has officially dropped XP support, though some game pages have not been updated)

Yes, that is what you want. And I'm fine with you wanting that. But I don't. And I don't care whether you find that ridiculous. I also don't care to argue about this issue, as I don't begrudge you or anyone else using the downloader and trying to get it back. I am not standing against anyone here.

Just don't act like your wants are everyone elses and don't insinuate that there is no alternative to using one client or another simply because it's one you don't like. That's all I ask.

The treatment of Downloader should concern all offline installer users, including those who only download by browser and even those who download the offline installers by using Galaxy in the capacity of a "Downloader replacement". By removing Downloader, the fact remains that an alternative to Galaxy was removed. I don't think I need to point out examples of how heavy the push of Galaxy has already been on all of us. The concern is that eventually the offline installers will go poof entirely because "only a very very small portion of users care about them anyway".

Yet GOG have repeatedly stated flatly that this will not happen, built offline installer downloader functionality into Galaxy, and for 12 years have provided said offline installers. Yes they are putting a lot of effort into Galaxy, because the vast majority want clients and GOG want to grow their business, but they have never stopped supporting exactly what you want. However "bloated" Galaxy might be, it's offering the exact functionality you desire.

And before anyone says it, yes I know there was an issue a month ago with a game requiring Galaxy (which was fixed), and yes I know there's currently one with Deus Ex (which will surely be fixed). None of this changes what I just said, as long as it is taken care of in a timely manner.

And Dungeon Siege III DLC not working via offline installer but apparently updated already on Galaxy. Add that to your list. Do you find "accept what companies give you, and like it!" to be an effective approach to getting what you want? You're proving my point for me that Galaxy is THE priority and that offline "backup" installers are an afterthought at best (as this seemingly-intentional naming would also itself lead people to believe, but I digress).

I accept what they give me because they give me exactly what I want, and what you supposedly want. For 12 years they have given me offline installers for every game I bought, and an application that downloads them quickly. That's all I want, and they give it to me. You can complain Galaxy is a bloated app and ask for changes, but the idea they're not giving you exactly what I said above is silly.

A handful of rare glitches aside, they do exactly what the more passionate DRM haters here want... literally exactly what they want... and get endless complaints anyway.

Please stop using "exactly" let alone "literally exactly". I want them to stop prioritizing Galaxy...have they at any point done "exactly" that? Yeah..."exactly". This topic includes people who want Downloader back. Despite approaching 1,000 wishlist votes so far, I don't see GOG doing "exactly" what we want in this respect either.

My main concern is more future-based. While I object to the bloat and think the bloat is enough to distinguish Galaxy as not a suitable replacement for Downloader (as has been discussed ad nauseum in these Downloader topics), it's really the idea of "padding Galaxy's numbers" that is cause for concern to me.

Clients are how the vast majority of consumers want their games delivered, even on here. GOG are not going to drop their client or stop improving it, because it would be ridiculous for them to do so from a business perspective. This is a false trail, a bark up the wrong tree, pissing into the wind, etc. etc. If that's your goal, you've already lost. You lost years ago.

For me, the important thing is that DRM free offline installers are always offered as well. This is what GOG promised, and outside a few recent glitches this is what they have delivered. The complaints about the loss of the downloader should be focused on how else to get those installers effectively and quickly, which can be tackled by demands for a better Galaxy experience or better browser downloads as we've discussed before. However asking them to give Galaxy less priority isn't going to work. 1,000 signatures doesn't mean anything at all.

It's almost as if Galaxy, which was actually originally advertised and promoted, among other things, as a solution to get patches faster than with the installers is actually.... working as intended.

Yep maybe you weren't there but a couple of years ago a common complaints against Gog was that patches were nearly always a couple of days late when compared to Steam. Gog said at the time that it was because if the extra steps required to create the installers (i.e. packaging, testing, etc...), so one of the big bullet points of Galaxy was that it would allow devs to directly upload fixes without having to wait for Gog to create and upload the installers.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough but you're conflating multiple points I was making. My examples of wanting them to stop prioritizing Galaxy were showing the flaw in your argument of "they're doing literally exactly everything you want", as, if they were, this would mean they weren't prioritizing Galaxy. Obviously they're not, therefore they are not "literally exactly" doing what I want contrary to your claim. Along the same lines, they are not doing "literally exactly" what the wishlist voters are telling them either. I'm showing the flaw of all your rhetoric of "exactly" the same, which is flat out untrue regardless of what side (if any) people come out on Galaxy/Downloader.
And that does ZERO good for us non-Galaxy users who have installers that remain days, weeks, and iirc in some cases months out of date. In fact I would say that "parity" with Scheme has been a detriment overall to GOG's audience since it has seemingly steered GOG to care about non-Galaxy versions even less. Oh, and don't forget that Galaxy also has a monopoly of sorts on the "rollback" feature! If you don't use Galaxy to get installers, and you happen to have bought a new version of an existing game that was broken by some update (either game itself or system), tough luck! Maybe it will eventually get fixed, but you have to wait. Maybe you can try to contact Support, though apparently other users have discovered that some old versions get purged and are no longer available even for Support to send you. Of course we can all try the recommendation of their "optional" client Galaxy though.

You want, according to your tagline, "no DRM, no client, no bull." Guess what, GOG are providing that, and they're basically the only ones providing it for their entire catalog. They are providing exactly what people want, and limiting their library significantly to do so. If they said screw it and only offered offline DRM installers for certain games, they could probably grow their catalog significantly overnight. However they're not, they're sticking to their principles and offering exactly what I want and what your tag asks for.

The downloader has nothing to do with that. it was a more convenient way to download compared to browser, but that's it. Ask them to make the downloading more convenient, sure. I have no issue with that request, be it a better browser interface or Galaxy improvements. It's the hinting at insidious plans to do away with DRM free installers that annoys me. They're going to great lengths to keep giving you what you want, and all you can do is assume the worst of them.

That is exactly my concern, which is why I don't like people here speaking as if browser downloads were not used by anyone. They are giving GOG every reason to do what you're describing.

Definitely a great point. I certainly don't mean to speak that way myself. It's moreso that I know a lot of users don't want to put up with perceived inconvenience of browser downloading, thus by removing Downloader, it funnels them to Galaxy, thus padding Galaxy's numbers. I had appreciated what Downloader did but since its removal it has been exclusively browser downloads for me...

For all the people arguing that we are fine without the downloader. I would just like to say that it did what we wanted and worked perfectly fine even after they didn't support it for six years. I'm quite sure it would have continued to work indefinitely, so we're not talking about taking away resources from your precious Galaxy. We're talking about the downloader being taken away to push us towards Galaxy and being told to lump it. If the tiny downloader was no competition for Galaxy (apparently the greatest thing since hot cakes) and didn't need to be supported then why did they need to kill it?