rjbuffchix: Haven't users in the other topic(s) already linked to a post from back then saying something like "GOG Downloader won't ever be intentionally removed"?

Gersen: They never said that (if you are talking about this post : https://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_gog_downloader_still_supported_by_gog_or_are_they_scrapping_it/post3 ), they said that, as they update the infrastructure for Galaxy support, the downloader might be impacted, as in no longer working, and if that were to happen it wouldn't be intentional.

They never said, as least I am not aware of, that they would "never ever" disable it.

Gersen: They never said that (if you are talking about this post : https://www.gog.com/forum/general/is_gog_downloader_still_supported_by_gog_or_are_they_scrapping_it/post3 )...

Telika: The answer to the why is : general assholery.

GOG.com wants to be Galaxy.com (expect the name change in a while). They want to be a client. They want galaxy to be mandatory, without looking like they're making it mandatory (oldest trick, make an alternative as impractical as possible, but still existing, so that you can still claim it's mathematically existing, merely discouraged and discouraging).

Because GOG has nothing to do with that sort of young cool fun company that old users have been familiar with. It's a very different company, with different people, different goals, different values. Also the userbase is not the same at all. It's as if an old reference newspaper had progressively realised that there's more money to be made through clickbaits and sensationnalist fake news as the public for these is much wider. Some idiots stay faithful to the name, the brand and the image of it that they forged long ago (it's called emotional investment, desinvestment gets harder after a while). Some people keep naively whining about news quality not staying the same. But the company doesn't give a damn about such values, as the thick of their clients consists now in people who don't give a damn either.

"GOG" (as the entity of, say, 8 years ago) doesn't exist. It's like a company that had gone bankrupt and got re-bought by another. it's another identity, with a slowly peeling mask, adressing other people. A different kind of customers. The steam/client/achievements crowd, basically. This client-based gaming universe which allows a company much more control over the "sold/rented" products, their usage, the social networking aspect of brand loyalty, etc. Products on a leash.

It's the opposite of the spirit of old GOG. It's what the first wave of GOG customers were identifying against. Asking "why" GOG suppressed progressively any convenient alternatives to Galaxy is exactly like asking Steam why they insist so much on their client. It's how this sort of companies do. It's only baffling to people who've been in denial too long, about the disappearance of "GOG".

It's time to readjust expectations. If you like GOG, you like Steam. If you don't like Steam, you don't like GOG. If you make a distinction between them, you're just fooled by an outdated logo.

Telika:

rjbuffchix: "We won't disable the GOG downloader on launch day, but we will no longer actively support it. The downloader may be affected as we continue updating our infrastructure, but we don't plan to disable it intentionally."
[emphasis mine]

Gersen: It was dependent of the context they were mentioning, as in, as they were updating their infrastructure for Galaxy the didn't plan to disable it. They never said that they would "never ever" disable it later.

Orkhepaj: they cant , why wouldnt you have a case? they made a promise they didn't fulfill , the promise could be taken into your decision to purchase their product or not , clearly suable

Fender_178: Because you can't sue for broken promises for something they offer free of charge. Plus they are allowed to change their minds about the future of an application they offer.

Telika: The answer to the why is : general assholery.

GOG.com wants to be Galaxy.com (expect the name change in a while). They want to be a client. They want galaxy to be mandatory, without looking like they're making it mandatory (oldest trick, make an alternative as impractical as possible, but still existing, so that you can still claim it's mathematically existing, merely discouraged and discouraging).

Because GOG has nothing to do with that sort of young cool fun company that old users have been familiar with. It's a very different company, with different people, different goals, different values. Also the userbase is not the same at all. It's as if an old reference newspaper had progressively realised that there's more money to be made through clickbaits and sensationnalist fake news as the public for these is much wider. Some idiots stay faithful to the name, the brand and the image of it that they forged long ago (it's called emotional investment, desinvestment gets harder after a while). Some people keep naively whining about news quality not staying the same. But the company doesn't give a damn about such values, as the thick of their clients consists now in people who don't give a damn either.

"GOG" (as the entity of, say, 8 years ago) doesn't exist. It's like a company that had gone bankrupt and got re-bought by another. it's another identity, with a slowly peeling mask, adressing other people. A different kind of customers. The steam/client/achievements crowd, basically. This client-based gaming universe which allows a company much more control over the "sold/rented" products, their usage, the social networking aspect of brand loyalty, etc. Products on a leash.

It's the opposite of the spirit of old GOG. It's what the first wave of GOG customers were identifying against. Asking "why" GOG suppressed progressively any convenient alternatives to Galaxy is exactly like asking Steam why they insist so much on their client. It's how this sort of companies do. It's only baffling to people who've been in denial too long, about the disappearance of "GOG".

It's time to readjust expectations. If you like GOG, you like Steam. If you don't like Steam, you don't like GOG. If you make a distinction between them, you're just fooled by an outdated logo.

Telika: The answer to the why is : general assholery.

GOG.com wants to be Galaxy.com (expect the name change in a while). They want to be a client. They want galaxy to be mandatory, without looking like they're making it mandatory (oldest trick, make an alternative as impractical as possible, but still existing, so that you can still claim it's mathematically existing, merely discouraged and discouraging).

Because GOG has nothing to do with that sort of young cool fun company

Korphx: I just want a good justification. Why cut an awesome feature withou replace it with a similar/better alternative?

timppu: Now read carefully. The reason they killed GOG Downloader is because it is a totally obsolete piece of software that doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever anymore. Using ANY resources on an obsolete application is a total waste. This is the way software companies work, they do not support and keep old obsolete software products on life support forever, no matter if there are still a few people who'd like to continue using it.

Telika: Today's GOG is yesterday's GOG's "baddies".

The purpose is precisely to funnel people into a client. It's not a matter of GOG refusing to go out of their way to keep some lighter alternalive functionnal, it's GOG going out of their way to prevent a lighter alternative to stay finctionnal. Your desire is directly opposed to GOG's desire. Today's GOG is like Microsoft trying to discourage the use of any other browser than Explorer/Edge.

rjbuffchix: Why aren't more people seeing this.