Well, for me its obvious that GOG wont bring 1.2 back. Who want to supoort two clients?

How do I revert to Galaxy 1.2?

For now, this is working:

Download 1.2 here:
https://content-system.gog.com/open_link/download?path=/open/galaxy/client/setup_galaxy_1.2.67.58.exe

Install, but do not allow it to run on system startup and do not allow it to run now. Add /runWithoutUpdating to Galaxy's shortcut. It will look something like this:
"C:\Program Files (x86)\GOG Galaxy\GalaxyClient.exe" /runWithoutUpdating

This will prevent 1.2 from auto updating, but you will sometimes receive popups asking if you want to update to 2.0 now or later. Deleting or renaming C:\ProgramData\GOG.com\Galaxy\redists\GalaxyUpdater.exe will remove these popups.

Mind thinking twice before posting that nonsense ? As long as gog.com does not force you to install any client to install games from your gog library its still drm-free.
Otherwise, using your definition, gog.com would have introduced "a form of DRM" with the first version that came out after Galaxy 1s first release.

Altough, I don not understand the problem some people have with version 2, it looks like to be of common interest, so I added it > thanks !

You might want to rethink THAT nonsense.

IF GALAXY 2.0 BECOMES A REQUIREMENT TO PLAY OUR GAMES, then you will have implemented a form of DRM.

The response to that is not "As long as GOG doesn't do the thing you're saying will be DRM if they do it, your library is still DRM-free" then calling the comment nonsense. The response is "if they were to do that, they would be violating the conditions of every sale they've made on the platform so far and liable for refunding many users' entire game libraries" which makes it pretty obvious they won't do that. But that doesn't negate the fact that what was said was entirely legitimate as far as it went.

Seriously? Awesome that it's added, but what's not to get?

Some people are not comfortable with a "dark mode" view on their apps. Some people are less comfortable with light mode. If you move from an app that supported both to one that doesn't, you are going to have people who can't use it properly. There is no "high contrast" option and the current design is VERY low contrast, which can be extremely difficult to use for many people with atypical vision (colourblindness and other things). Galaxy 2.0 is missing a number of features and has a layout that is explicitly a downgrade compared with the prior design without a very janky workaround as the best solution to the absence of such a view option.

I can totally respect the position that you LIKE 2.0 yourself - I like a lot about it. But if you read ANYTHING about ANY of the feedback, it's pretty hard to miss why people might not feel the same.

Might have read that wrong. But what sense does it make to state that you (and others) decided not use Galaxy anymore and in the sentence right afterwards, you bring up that stupid "gog will make G2 a requirement" apprehension ? Especially now, in the context of the release of Galaxy 2, with gog constantly stating that the client is and will not be manadatory to play the games you bought on gog ?

And just to be sure (and as said at least a thousand times before):

gog wont introduce some form of DRM, not now, and not in the near future as that would mean they would loose their unique selling point - the ONLY thing to differentiate them from the rest of the market - which have a lot more features (steam) or newer/exclusive titles to offer.
Or why do you buy from gog ? Because they have the newest titles ? Offer the best online experience ? Are the cheapest, and you can even push that price down by buying keys from shady sellers ? Have the most features ? The best interaktion with users on the forum ?

There may be a time far in the future when the market shifted to Free2Play and subscription based models to a degree where its simply not profitable anymore to sell the few titles with an "old school" business model when gog needs to decide either to accept drm and stay alive or close shop, but thats certainly not bound to a new version of their optional client.

Yes, thats a legimitat reason (and was already brought up during the beta phase by a few people), but how many of those that are currently complaining are having this specific issue ?
Don't get me wrong, I do think that G2 was released too early - too many small bugs (which I do not encounter, but a lot here do) and its not feature equal with its predecessor.
But why not, instead of complaining, try to take action ? Accept whats there, give feedback and regulary slip in the things you miss.

I explained someone else's position because you seemed to have misread it. I was pretty clear with how I worded the better counter-argument that I provided instead. And I did that because there is a solid counter-argument that GOG isn't going to do what he was saying "if they do this" about. If nothing else, they'd HAVE to avoid doing so for solid legal self-protection reasons.

I provided two separate and specific examples as well as a third general description which covers multiple other problems. There's a lot of reasons why people should complain. I'm not saying I'm not ok with using it myself. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to try and claim you "don't get" why someone would have concerns.

And no, "accept what's there" is NOT an answer in cases where the bugs are severe enough to crash the client or your games or produce recurring error messages during normal use. No, "accept what's there" is NOT an option when the only provided viewing option is literally not possible to use because of how it affects your vision. No, "accept what's there" is NOT a solution when what's there doesn't provide the service you want from a game downloader and launcher app. All of those are problems that exist for a number of users. Any ONE of them existing would be a good enough reason ALONE for Galaxy 2.0 to not belong in its current position as the active primary version of the client.

If it doesn't do the job correctly, which for many people, it doesn't, for a number of key reasons, then "accept what's there" is not going to be a valid response until it DOES do the job correctly.

There is an ENORMOUS amount to be done before it's a super polished and brilliant new interface. There's still a LOT to be done - though much less - before it's in a position where it's actually ready for public release. It's already been pushed onto everyone though, and it isn't ready for that. And no amount of "deal with it" is going to make people who CAN'T use it in its current state magically be able to do so.

There are baseline expectations which NEED to be met before it's ready for public release, which are WELL short of needing it to be perfectly polished and flawless. But 2.0 isn't even meeting those basic standards in its current state.

Are you fine with using it? Clearly, yes. Am I? Yes. Does that mean it's ok for everyone else to be forced to deal with it? NOPE. There is NO competent argument to be made in favour of Galaxy 2.0 being pushed onto all users in its current state. And there is no good reason to act like you don't understand how someone would have issues if you've been paying attention.

None of this is wrong, but what does it matter ?
The client is there (for whatever reason) and it won't go away. In my opinion the community has two options now:

a) bitch and whine as a big part of this "community" does a lot, and drive away gog from its own forums even more then it already is

or

b) swallow the bitter pill and try to work with whats already there in an effort to convince gog that this is still a community worth listening to. This does not mean to forget about all the bugs and proplems G2 still suffers from, but to communicate in away gogs employees actually care to read. Because I am pretty sure they will immediatly stop reading threads as soon as the "usual" keywords: gog sucks, won't buy again, refuse to use, etc pop up.

c) Do what has been getting done pretty consistently and provide CONSTRUCTIVE criticism with ADVICE ON HOW TO DO BETTER than what we have now. Alongside helping each other to solve the problems to the best of our abilities - community-provided workarounds for reverting and preventing the client from updating.

What I was saying that you're so vehemently defending your statement about is simply that it was willfully ignorant at best and looks more and more like it was deliberately insulting to say you don't understand why others have a problem with the 2.0 update at this point in the conversation.

And here's a list of the times I've seen those "usual" things you're saying everyone is throwing around, collected from more than 30 different discussions on the topic, most of which are on page 2 or 3 and several of which have made it through more pages than that of continuing constructive feedback:

-

Yeah that was all of them. Not looking very "usual" to me...

Ah... well, let's look at that then, shall we?

"gog sucks" maybe? No, it says the BETA for 2.0 sucks.
"won't buy again"? No, it says they're worried about the possibility of losing access to things they already bought.
"refuse to use"? When anything like this DOES show up it's "refuse to use UNTIL IT'S FIXED" usually with constructive feedback on WHY, not just a standalone without being helpful about it. And this example you provided isn't an example of even that kind of "refuse to use" comment anyway.

And no, you can't pass this off as "etc" because that's not a specific example and you listed a number of specific examples which if you're serious, you should be able to quote actual evidence for.

Here are some examples that its not that white and shiny here.

Really, is that what this discussion is about to get ? A petty squabble about semantics (did I ever mention, or gave the impression that I used exact qoutes ?).
But If you insist on that, how about

"On the basis I ended up with it yes. They blew it up! Ah, damn them! God damn them all to hell!"

I did not need to search for that very long, and its even in a thread with a well mannered first post that just states a users opinion to a change.
But what does it matter in the end ? Are you really suggesting, that you would not loose interest in reading in a forum where you constantly read stuff like the quoted one about the work you are doing ?

One that says "the new beta sucks" (which, to be fair, as a forced only option, it DOES, because it's an extremely obviously still in beta client version that shouldn't be forcibly superceding the fully-functional alternative). Yes it's rude. No, I didn't say nobody is being rude about it. No, that doesn't match any of the claimed "regular" things that are supposed to be showing up all the time in the forums.

And the other that says "if the new client gets turned into DRM I won't use it" which is fine because if that were to happen, there would be waves of people legally eligible for complete refunds of their entire GOG game libraries on the ground that the company has made all their existing sales under false pretenses once such a change is made. Also an entirely reasonable and if anything excessively polite response to the concerns people are having about the way the new client is being handled.
If I'm working on something, and I'm constantly getting MOSTLY-POLITE negative feedback with some intermittent positives being mentioned but even the people saying positive things providing constructive criticism alongside it...

...and I had a previous version of the work I'd done which was much more well received, which is the case here...

...I'd do the not entirely idiotic thing and give people back the version of the work I'd done that actually works.

Simple, no?

No, its not, and I am dead tired of people not willing to accept that this is simply not possible (as you so obvisouly stated yourself), as this would mean, closing shop for them. Think otherwise ? Then tell me your idea what gog would do after taking that step, otherwise I suggest to stop repeating that nonsense
And I do think those are completely different things: making a decision that changes your business model completely, and cutting of support for an older version of software (that is only part of your business model) to reduce costs.

No, because the one that works on the new thing isn't responsible for the decision to remove the old thing

Are people WRONG for having those concerns? Yes.
Does that make those concerns UNREASONABLE? No.

It is entirely possible to be misinformed, or to not understand the nature of why a position you take is foolish or misguided, and to still be a reasonable person. The proper response is to help them to understand why their concerns are UNFOUNDED, not to tell them that they are being unreasonable or insulting them for having such concerns.

Thinking of which, adding a question to the FAQ which addresses that point might not be a bad idea. Something like "will Galaxy 2.0 ever become a requirement to play GOG games?" with a clear "no" and an explanation that doing so would be a form of DRM and being a DRM-free storefront precludes that as a possibility.

Just to be clear... your reply is functionally nonsense when you look at anything more than just the part you quoted from me. Or if you consider the context in any way at all. You should probably avoid cutting your quotes down so far when you're going to forget that the rest of the conversation happened by deleting it like that.

MOST of the feedback people are giving about Galaxy 2.0 is MOSTLY polite. Some of it is critical, but constructive, and some is positive but with caveats. It is consistent, polite or otherwise, about saying that the new version of the client isn't ready to be live as the only supported version though. GOG as a platform have a properly working and fully functional client which they have provided previously and could (and SHOULD) bring back as the primary platform while rolling the beta back into being a proper beta with opt in instead of forcing it on users without even an opt out choice.

Your statement here is not even remotely close to being a counter-argument to this, let alone a valid one. Your analogy set me up to be saying this, and provided you with no room to argue against it. You walked yourself into a trap of your own making by trying to play a false dichotomy card without being able to block me from choosing another option.