Not sure if this has been mentioned so far in this thread, but there have been credible reports of developers refusing to release their games on GOG (e.g. Axiom Verge), citing the coding burden of having to support the Galaxy client (which GOG insists on).

It seems that GOG is not making Galaxy optional for developers. In these cases, it has contributed to some games not being released DRM-free at all, which is counteractive to the DRM-free movement. I'm looking forward to seeing those actions, if/when they happen.

Oh, really! Have you ever asked a Windows XP user about that? Because I believe we have some on this forum who have reported that games which previously worked in the past got updated to include Galaxy.dlls at which point they stopped working on their OS. I know, I know, it's an ancient OS, whatever; the point is, if the inclusion of Galaxy.dll is literally the only variable changed, the game not working anymore sn't an OS problem, it's very clearly a Galaxy problem. And the concern is that this issue will continue on; e.g. many users are on "outdated" Windows 7 and could face the same issue in the future if MS removes compatibility for Galaxy. And on Windows 10 and so on.

Why is it so necessary to have the Galaxy.dll and incorporate all this Galaxy functionality if it is breaking people's games? For that matter, I see your avatar at the time I'm posting this is of Cyberpunk. Can you name a single good reason why singleplayer cosmetic content for that game is locked behind a Galaxy requirement? It is very obviously an example of more Galaxy favoritism and imo trying to "game the numbers" such that more people use Galaxy than otherwise would. Another example of such phenomenon has already been pointed out in showing how the Galaxy installation is presented as the "default" so to speak and offline installers are hidden in a lower menu.

This looks awfully familiar. Are you and krogan the same person? Real quick: are your two most frequently used words that begin with "f" fake and faux? Are your two most frequently used words that begin with "h" hypocrite and hysteria?

Thank you for this. Proof of what us critics are talking about. Naturally, the "shut up la-la-la-la-la everything is great about GOG" crowd will not click any of these forum topic links you provided so thoroughly.

The dll does exactly nothing.If you have the offline installer and install it without galaxy it works the client is not needed which is a fact and sure we are all the same person.Like i said the paranoia from some people here is pretty funny making things up without facts.These guys said this and this guy said that lol but no evidence at all.Games are drm free like they always were and no the cyberpunk thing is bs i would never defend things like this

Yeah like epic.But epic forces people to buy there and they will do fine as well.A lot of people like to buy on gog and its getting more and more poular and if they keep their promise to focus on drm free games it will grow way further

The client being needed to play isn't what's discussed with this particular claim about Windows XP. The claim is that games whose old versions (pre-Galaxy) worked on Windows XP, but when updated to be compatible with Galaxy no longer work on Windows XP due to some issue with the Galaxy.dll not being accepted by the OS. If I am wording this incorrectly I apologize. I don't have that OS so I defer to any users who could hopefully clarify or even better yet debunk this. I am assuming you don't have Windows XP given the Cyberpunk avatar, so you are just another person "saying stuff" too rather than an ironclad source. Speaking of Cyberpunk, I notice you haven't answered my question about what possible (non-Galaxy-supremacy) reason there is for content to be locked behind a client requirement, i.e. effectively DRMed?

So then you should agree with us wacky critics, since we are the ones who care about DRM-free, unlike those pushing the "optional" client that has an ever-growing list of exceptions where it is in fact not optional to access various content, modes, etc.

rjbuffchix: I see rise of users using the "conspiracy theorist" smear after Sarafan used it while moderating people (me included/or at least). All of these are known pro-GOG "flamers", often accused of colluding with biased GOG moderators, that are never moderated itself (users), no matter their behaviour. Also they often don't have consistent reasoning, but they adopt certain buzz-words as needed and sometimes seem coordinated (to me personally - I don't know - but "chat" groups of people with some same agenda are not unusual "today"). I think they are just trying hard to use that to make a case for their seemingly allied moderation (even if not directly at all) to have "seemingly more reasons front of public" to have (for them) the option to shut down ideas of people opposing to something and to get less backlash because some "better" and less direct (vague) justification was presented.

To call something "a conspiracy theory" is credible as declaring "review bombing".
These two terms were made up with a purpose. Not for identification of something we don't have words for. We do.

There are no "conspiracist" or "conspiracy theories" as portraited. If - we have the old good word -> lie. Theories are 'the' building block for science (and asking of questions), but not unless they are about "conspiracies" (in this light). "They" already put a stigma on it so it's recieved as a lie without looking into it and keep asking questions about something.

Same like "review bombing" is -> a lot of negative reviews (that are not treated equally as positive ones).

The "beauty" about these terms is that they bring assumption of purposed wrong-doing or/and category of people associated with it that is already pre-defined. It's a package used instead of existing terms that can't be used on their own, because they would be a lie. It's actually funny, because "conspiracy theories" are only "conspiracy theories" itself projected on another (subject). Also it proves how easy it is to use that at the same time.

But these things/terms are just invented smears for corporate and/or political interests that society adopted. Not actual terms. It's something to bring a stigma on some opposition, instead of saying they lie (which they can't prove). It's based on a "need" for dealing with these specific situations. It's a "situational term".

Especially history of how "conspiracy theories" as a term itself started to pop-up in history is quite interesting. Same if you look up cases of how "review bombing" was used. It's not a coincidence that these both terms are very "recent"... It's just to publicly restrict freedom of people with different ideas that one side is not able to disprove but really wants/needs to for their own purposes. But these terms itself have no actual specific value -> Like "lie" or "lot of negative reviews".

I am (especially) amazed how our modern society in times of "big tech and the internet" started to invent new vague words and terms to describe "newly" observed phenomena, while in all our own history we tried to dissect phenomena to give them specific values and words ("stable concepts"), like those already mentioned. If something, these "terms" like "conspiracy theorist" and "review bombing" are a slang for something some people don't like, not actual credible terms.

Companies shouldn't use that at all.

At least that is my opinion based on what I saw and experienced.

I am amazed at how you keep proving me right in my assessment of you in everyone of your posts. That's a skill.
The only ones that are crying about GoG Galaxy are the ones that are engaging in a fake boycott of GoG (they're still buying games while claiming they are boycotting). Their actions embody the definition of "Hypocrisy".

No you don't. You engage in hypocrisy (buying games from GoG while still "boycotting" GoG), fearmongering, and conspiracy theories. In fact, the last one seems to be a recent common behavior among your fake boycotters.

Krogan32: Well and you insult people everywhere and never get moderated while other people get moderated for just bashing opinions of other people or for no reason at all. Just for stating something negative to GOG or about some certain "actions" or "stuff". There is a difference between not liking some art and it's fanbase or directly insulting some specific person. You are the "one" doing the second 'only'.

I saw people opposing people like you here being moderated for much less than calling someone's opinion "drivel" with every post or calling them "mentally ill" all the time (and those are not even your worst direct insults). While moderator is saying to "others" that they have no right to insult other people's opinions or what they like, just because they don't like something themselves (even if they are just negative about something - not insulting specific people). You directly and personally insult people nonstop and GOG is protecting those like you fighting for "their interests". While some other people don't like some certain art or something here -> they are edited without a warning just for that, even if they didn't "attack" anyone directly. I have been edited while moderator lied about content (reason) of my post (I just stated a fact of what I did) and he went into silence and ignore after I said I have a screenshot to prove it. And he did it for a different purpose than to actually moderate. This moderator likes to state his own opinions around, while moderating "the opposition" in those very same posts. It's bizzare, at least...

Funny is that you want people to prove stuff with evidence if you don't like something, while you are calling people mentally ill and very specific names all the time (without any proof)... And making it "sure" that you are serious and not joking. If you actually would have that evidence, it would be even more serious insult from you (for example: if person would be actually mentally ill). You go for that all the time.

Did you ever think about that?

Bold to assume thought capabilities. I'm starting to think GOG took a cue from the approach towards support, and introduced a chatbot to the forums which just repeats the same unhelpful phrases and contributes less than nothing to user concerns.

Claiming I'm attacking people while you attacked me. Even more hypocrisy and projection from you. Also, thanks for proving that you have no convictions as you keep on saying "this is the last time I'm going to reply to you" yet you keep on replying to me. Again, you keep proving me right about my assessment of you with every single one of your posts.
<Plays X-Files theme> Even more conspiracy theories. Again, you prove me right about my assessment of you with every single one of your posts. If you despise GoG so much, then why are you even here? I'm not allowed to say my guess, because I'd be banned for that.

Weren't Mulder and Scully typically proven right on that show, i.e. the "conspiracy theories" were indeed correct within the context of the show? :)

I don't "despise GOG;" rather, I demand better of GOG. You have been asked to stop putting words in people's mouths and making up straw arguments. This comment is to ask again.

Feel free to PM me your "guess" of why I'm here. Though honestly with your numerous outbursts around here, and other users being modded apparently while you are not, I doubt you would get banned.

Krogan32: Well and I asked you to not bother me and not follow me around (as you do to many people) and you said "that is not how forum works" (funny how you use arguments that often contradicts you in different posts, because you want to use them "for yourself"). I assumed you could stop bothering me if I asked you (not once), but you refused.

You do this on purpose, because you know it's a public forum, obviously. I am commenting that pointing at your post so others can see some clarification from my side. I wouldn't send you a personal message, because I don't care what you think at this point.

You are the one who said "that is not how forum works". While (the) "other" people are moderated for "harassing" others, especially if they don't want to be (at some point). Hm...

You are one of those "gotcha" trollers, it's very low effort, actually.

And you don't see the fact that you are actually a parody of your own actions. Maybe you do and build the flame on that.
But I am not going to give you that credit...

You just want people to go off topic and on defense instead to go even more off topic and that is all you do when you don't like some topics/posts. That is why people are not exactly sure about why you (and those like you) are not the one(s) who is (are) being moderated.. at all...

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/a_while_ago_i_wrote_to_dan_adelman_axiom_verge_and_asked_why_he_didnt_release_it_gog/page1

A link to a thread on the GOG forum where Dan Adelman (the publisher for Axiom Verge) is talking openly about them not releasing the game on GOG, because they didn't think the extra work involved in supporting Galaxy was worth it.

So yes, clearly a conspiracy theory (if you define 'conspiracy' as something that isn't convenient for you).

They have evidence, and much of the time they were still wrong. You have zero evidence at all.

Then why do you constantly attack GoG without being constructive at all? Oh... you can't hide from that fact.

<whispers> They're coming for you Steve... <whispers> <eyeroll>
Projection 101. The rest was drivel as usual.