Then they should source their data from another source. GOG adds those dependencies to increase compatibility on newer systems. The failure of a very niche segment of the community should not hold back the advancement of the community at large. You have valid points, but you wish to discard valid points because you don't agree with them. They streamlined their testing rigs and compatibility due to budgetary concerns. They stopped supporting obsolete operating systems because they are obsolete and it is increasingly unviable to support them. Since we're dressing straw men, by your logic, they should damn the costs and continue support for DOS and Windows 3.1.

No one is dictating what system one can or cannot use. I am simply stating that GOG was not trying to restore games to work on their original OS, and OS compatibility is OFTEN phased out over time.

I don't love GOG. They've pissed me off many times. But to condemn them for not further stretching themselves to please 0.004% of the community when they are ALREADY struggling mightily is disingenuous and to the detriment of a majority of the community who don't waste their time on dead systems. If you're making retro systems or emulating them, why not go get a copy of the original game that works as designed for that system? The argument that GOG should support dead OS is so silly and it still pops up every now and again with people making ridiculous demands like the game that they originally bought the disc for in 2003 worked on XP, why doesn't the GOG release?

No they do not. Adding galaxy.dll's to offline installers has absolutely nothing to do with improving OS / hardware compatibility whatsoever (nor does Galaxy enhance any of that itself). They add those dependencies to stop games that have been compiled to make Galaxy calls for achievements / cloud saves, etc, from crashing when making Galaxy API calls when Galaxy isn't running. It's an entirely self-inflicted problem that has nothing whatsoever to do with "enhancing OS compatibility".

That's the worst analogy you could make since GOG did start putting back original DOS .exe's that they removed for DOS games that GOG pre-packages for ScummVM after people requested they be given they choice of running under DOSBox, (and after it was also pointed out that Abandonware 1 : GOG 0 does little to improve sales or GOG's image as the "curator" of old games...)

This is the biggest straw man of all, since offline installer users are not "holding back" Galaxy users. The truth in that area is regularly the exact opposite...

I'm not discarding your points because I disagree, I'm simply discarding the unhealthy confusion based control freakism that rises to the surface amongst the regular visible few who seem to get triggered that someone "dare" use an older OS and that they are "undeserving" of shopping at GOG. It's a stupid elitist argument to make since all the Galaxy in the world hasn't made GOG profitable, nor does it make games incompatible with W10 magically compatible.

Testing on older OS's is not even the issue and no-one's demanding that GOG start re-testing Vista, XP, etc. The underlying actual cause of this stuff is the unhealthy obsessive Galaxification and gradual degradation of offline installers that constantly causes various issues in various games (Deus Ex:MD DLC didn't unlock properly, Saints Row 3 settings are broken and remain unfixed after 7 months, etc) are just 2 more examples sharing the same commonly related underlying cause of GOG forcing half-broken Galaxy integration into offline installers that causes issues that wouldn't have existed had the offline installer version not been coded to unnecessarily use Galaxy API then rely on a dll loopback failsafe in the first place. "XP games used to work but now don't" is simply one other symptom of that, not the only one nor the cause themselves.

The thing is, people have been "shopping elsewhere" for various reasons, meanwhile GOG is struggling to make a profit, not by alienating any single large group for one reason, but lots of minor ones for different ones, so you are doing GOG no real favour pushing this "If you don't like the negative effect that Galaxy has had on some offline installers, go shop elsewhere then" elitist stuff to non Galaxy users pointing out there are games on the store right now for which "optional" Galaxy is not quite as optional as claimed...

At the end of the day you asked why galaxy.dll's may need replacing, and I explained the issue that we've already seen one game (FO:NV) where the GOG version had to be cracked using the Steam version to continue working. You may not like it but "GOG broke Fallout New Vegas compatibility because of Galaxy but Steam didn't" simply is what it is.

You're answering some points with a completely different discussion. IE: Retro systems, and you're talking about people shopping elsewhere. The point is, I'm not trying to do GOG favors. I'm not attempting to hurt them, I am completely ambivalent to them overall. It is just illogical to expect them to release a version of a game they can't test, since their tech support is intent on TS support. The Galaxy support is for the community at large. The idea is that even if you install from a back-up, if you have Galaxy installed, it will recognize and import the game. If you don't have Galaxy installed, the game still works on the OSes they support. It's not hard.

Fallout New Vegas compatibility wasn't broken for most people, or even for anyone using a OS that was made in the last 15 years. That's another disingenuous argument. Approximately 12 people not being able to use a game is a them problem, not a community or GOG problem.

Adding original .exes (which I am TOTALLY in favor of, BTW) is not supporting an OS. IT's been done on a few simple games from an era where games were kb up to a few mb in size. Expecting them to provide versions of a game that work on old OSes that aren't being run through an included emulator in a much more complex situation is lunacy.

How far do you want to take that?

- "People who dislike outdated offline installers vs Galaxy builds should shop elsewhere"
- "People who dislike the completely artificial inability to download older versions of offline installers that GOG already host on their servers for Galaxy rollback should shop elsewhere"
- "People who want to use a version of Windows that doesn't have a train-wreck of an interface should shop elsewhere"
- "People who dislike lack of Galaxy achievement parity should shop elsewhere"
- "People who dislike games broken here due to Galaxy integration in offline installers like Saints Row 3 should shop elsewhere"
- "Linux users should should shop elsewhere"
- "People who want the option of running DOS games under DOSBox instead of only ScummVM should shop elsewhere"
- "People who are getting tired of researching whether every new AAA releases here has "Bonus Content" DLC unlocking issues because even the offline installer version was coded to unlock them post-install via special Galaxy method instead of simply being included in the game for everyone, should shop elsewhere"

As my old granny would say "Be careful of what you wish for, because you might just get it"...

The answer I gave is exactly what your original question was about "why would you replace the dll?". I explained why not only it might need to be done, but in fact has already been done. I don't understand why you're pretending this is "changing the subject" somehow, when it IS the subject you asked about...

GOG are supposed to be about DRM-Free. I think we can all agree on that.

Well it is not exactly DRM-Free if you add a dependence in, like that unnecessary Galaxy DLL.
Unnecessary in the sense that it is not a required file for the game to work, prior to its addition, and is only really for those who want extras like achievements etc.

That DLL should not be a default, it should be an added extra only for those who want the additional features.

A game that would work fine on various OS, should not have that changed due to an unnecessary DLL.

What if that DLL doesn't work on Windows 12, but the game without a dependence on it would have?
We would have to rely on GOG updating the DLL or providing a fix. How exactly is that DRM-Free?
And what if a game while still available in our GOG library, is no longer available at GOG, has been removed?

This is not something any of us true DRM-Free lovers should take lightly.

P.S. A store like GOG, should not be removing backwards compatibility, unless they absolutely have to, to get a game working on the latest OS.

I would just point out that they have specifically spent quite a lot of resource going back into every game and retrofitting these things, even if it’s minor like cloud saves. Mostly all you will see in the change log (if there even is one) is internal change. However in doing so, they did remove some content and break compatability for some users - wizardry was one. So it doesn’t have anything to do with them making anything more compatible. It is a strict policy to push galaxy at every turn at any cost.

Yeah, this one did kind of get away from me. Sorry about that. You know things go too far when you find yourself arguing points you don't even believe in. My post history shows I don't like the Galaxy dlls in the game files. I don't like them breaking compatibility if it can be avoided. I'm not even sure why I was arguing for that except it was tangentially related to my point that GOG can't be expected to support every dead OS just because the games they have were originally released on them. Sorry for wasting both your and my time.

No worries. Happy New Year :-)

The thing is that, whenever you like it or not, the majority of peoples who purchase on Gog, would like DRM-free while at the same time having the same convenience and feature than other stores using clients. It might not be to "enhancing OS compatibility" but it is definetly for "enhancing" for the majority of their customers.

Having the Galaxy DLL is a compromise to make like easier for devs, most of them develop for Steam where the Steam API is always present so they don't give a damn about dynamically loading it instead of statically linking it and they are definitely not going to change their code just for Gog.

You can complain all you want about this DLL, but more than 99% of the time it works perfectly fine, yes there was the Deus Ex example and the Saint Row cases that gets brought back ad nauseam, but a handful of problematic case out of 3000+ games it is a pretty good track record. The huge majority of cases it allows the game to work with Galaxy for those who want to use it and allows the game to works offline for those who don't.


And what about peoples who want to run the games on older OSes ? Well you could say that it is a "self-inflicted problem that has nothing whatsoever to do with" Gog, there is nothing "control freakism" or anything, but if you purchase a game on a store that mention that this game is no longer supported on OS XYZ, but you want to run it on OS XYZ anyway, then it's on you to make it work, it's not the store responsibility to make sure to maintain compatibility with dead OSes even if the game originally run on them.

Ain't a DRM yet, though by its nature it easily can be turned into that with some later update were the developers ever so inclined.

I agree that Galaxy dependency is redundant, and outright harmful if it cuts off game features like multiplayer and challenge stages. More so because Galaxy only supports the latest Windows, but even if it worked with other systems, it still ain't a good thing.

DRM-free games should be completely client-free. If there's an optional client that's well and fine, but game's aspects and features shouldn't be locked behind it. I hate it when original game had both LAN and direct IP mode, yet GOG version only lets you play through the Galaxy, and only with other Galaxy users.

And yet here we are with the observable reality of what developers actually feel about that in practise...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pDO6WTHLHyrrtidQ1MAxW6u8j3BxUaGcFaJsVyWj2QY/edit#gid=0

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zjwUN1mtJdCkgtTDRB2IoFp7PP41fraY-oFNY00fEkI/edit?usp=sharing

Sounds like you have that completely back to front. Old dependencies, eg, VCRedist 2005, 2008, etc, do work on newer Windows. The issue we were discussing here is more the opposite - the more Windows turns to sh*t (ugly UI, crippled taskbar & context menu's, potentially even an unwanted subscription services a few years down the line), the more a lot of people don't want to "upgrade" but also don't want their games unnecessarily broken by 3rd parties placing unwanted client code tied to newer dependencies (that may be 'exclusive' to a highly undesirable version of Windows) into client-less offline installers. Now if Windows 12 / 13 / whatever suddenly starts blocking old runtimes, eg, VCRedist 2005-2012 from running, then half your GOG games would stop working only on the *newest* (not the oldest) version of Windows, that would actually give people even more of a reason to not "upgrade"...

Sorry, can't agree.

When something unnecessary (and extra) has been imposed on a game that prevents me from playing it, then that is my digital rights being managed.

And if you had read what I wrote fully, you would have read where I specified .... unless it is required for a game to work on latest Windows.

Still, I would be debating whether it truly was necessary to modify a game that much, that it no longer worked on earlier Windows. It's possible I guess, but surely not mandatory if it is just an extra file or two, as there should be a way to make that optional.

Of course, for many games at GOG, if they provided access to older versions, then there would be far less to be upset and worry over. They really should give us access to their archives.