Posted April 28, 2014
Potzato: I agree but not on the 'hurting'. Having a client may help gog reach new customers (and make some existing ones happier), not having one don't make gog lose customers as far as I know (edit : I mean that it's hard to quantify).
Whenever I debate GOG vs other services with people I know, 2 main criticisms have been brought up: 1) Steam is more convenient
2) Steam has more newer games
Potzato: Making a lightweight, cool featured, client requires time and resources. This is something they would have to do (or 'are currently making ?') very carefully. Right now the will for a client is really not clear, people saying 'why not' is not a good incentive.
I think a single programmer with the right skillset could do it within a month. It's not nothing, but it's not gargantuan either. Potzato: I often wonder : do all people that want a client use steam, or any client based platform, regularly ? (I suppose the answer is yes)
I don't use Steam, but I have over 600 games on GOG and they roll the updates fairly consistently. Updating them manually can be a chore (even when using the downloader, I need to delete the old file and initiate each download manually, plus I need to juggle the tool between 2 external hard drives).
Also, whenever I do a reformat of my hard drive, tracking down the the location of all my save games for different games can be mildly annoying as by the time I reformat, I'll have gone through at least 30 games. This is a pre-GOG issue that has been annoying me for years and then it hit me I could actually do something about it for myself.
Potzato: Then : Are they used to have 2 clients ? do they already use 2 at a time ? Did they keep them running simultaneously or do they quit and launch on every whim ? In the end, what will more likely make them keep using the client than thinking "three clients run like shit together, in fact I prefer the folder full o' shortcuts" ? Business wise : if you spend energy doing something, you'd prefer people to use AND like it (that may need years of tweaking .....and still have lots of issues)
There is a big differences between what people want and what they really need. Then you have to be sure of what you can deliver.
My message to OP is not 'clients are useless, don't discuss of that here', but more 'this is a complex discussion that can't be started anew every week. Many people poured their thoughts into it, you should start reading the older posts and really take it *a step further*'
Use 1 client with more optional features. There is a big differences between what people want and what they really need. Then you have to be sure of what you can deliver.
My message to OP is not 'clients are useless, don't discuss of that here', but more 'this is a complex discussion that can't be started anew every week. Many people poured their thoughts into it, you should start reading the older posts and really take it *a step further*'
I honestly think you're overplaying the complexity of client-side development.
I'm not saying it's trivial, but it's a lot simpler then designing a rock-solid server-side.
Post edited April 28, 2014 by Magnitus