I will say it like this GOG galaxy 2 is not even ready for beta take it down work on it more and let us use the old client until your finished.


I mean every damn game I own on gog I have to manually install because GoG galaxy 2.0 can never finish the damn installation and I mean all 45 games I own on gog needed to be installed manually because they all keep failing to finalize the installation.

What´s the point with GoG galaxy if you still need to go to the website download the games and install them becuse the manger can´t bloody do it.

Same with updates GoG galaxy has been trying to update Heretic Kingdoms for over a damn week but all it says scanning installed files and that´s it stuck at 0% even if I abort it and restart it.


As of now GoG galaxy 2.0 feels like it´s still in alpha and not a damn beta.

- Create a support ticket (if you haven't already)
- revert back to Galaxy 1.2, if you are unwilling to endure Galaxy 2

From my personal point of view: Galaxy 2 is easily in a Beta stage, its still lacking features (which why I find opening the beta to everyone at this stage was a bad decision) but works stable for several months now, and this seems to be the case for several hundred other people too, as if it were otherwise this forum would be flooded with posts like yours.

Edit to make it more clear: This does not mean its your fault and/or that the faulty behaviour of G2 on your system should not be looked upon, just that I think your assessment of Galaxy 2s state is, imho, wrong.

100% agree with you , i can't even download extra goodies using GOG galaxy 2.0 and on top of that download speed is pathetic in GOG galaxy launcher , forced to download games through the brownser on which u can't even resume the download upon the reboot .

i concur. especially the lack of communication is insane.

meanwhile i've downloaded my entire library, archived it and can access everything per playnite online and offline.

this helps with putting an end to this unhealthy relationship :)

it's gog community forums 90% of it will always be complaints even if gog does something right people will complain, it's been that way for 10 years on gog forums


the integration creators are also trying to do there best to fix problems, they even look into the other people's integration codes to help the others if one fails and gives errors and they need help to solve it.

it's like a small community helping each other while some of the gog staff are also there helping

I was forcibly """upgraded""" to an obviously bug infested beta that doesn't work as well as the client it replaced, despite specifically opting out of betas. There has been no communication on the issues plaguing the client either. If you really believe my complaints are not valid, then I would ask you to seek mental counseling.

Even if the gog community is usually 90% complaints, that does not mean those complaints are unwarranted or invalid. Even if 89% of them are invalid, that doesn't mean that the 1% that are valid, shouldn't be there, or be addressed.

sigh, her we go again.. 50 Pages of negative feedback, comments, questions little discussions and wishes which is more than a year old, probably including a lot of posts for bugs that are already fixed, features that were added since then. What metric do you use for your assessment that it is "heavily upvoted" ? Is there some counter I just don't know about (honest question I have no clue) ?

But speaking of threads with a high post count: what about your OpenLetter-thread, existing since May accumulating roughly 80 posts (including not only the original post from you), which does not seem a lot to me ? What exactly should that prove ? I know those four threads exist. I created one back then when the beta started to help people out - and the posts have gone through several revision as gog started to fix up things/ include features Again, some prove would be nice. Unfortunately there isn't any number of active gog users around. For fun, lets just take the sales figures from 2015 (so long before it was pushed through hundreds if not thousands of sales) for the PC-Version of Witcher 3: ~690 000. Of course there are probably a lot of people in that number that only bought Witcher 3 and are not recurring customers, but there will also be a lot of then gog customers that did not buy it and with gog a least going ok financially the number of recurring/active users must have grown since then.
So just to be safe we assume that gog has 690 000 active users. There will probably be people that don't use Galaxy at all (download only, Linux users, etc) and there is reason to believe that not everybody has the new version yet. Again numbers aren't there at at all - we could guesstimate that according to different wishlist entries there are at least 50000 Linux users who can't use the client, but thats all. So to be save, we just cut the number of users in half.
That still leaves us with roughly 300 000 users (and thats probably way lower than the actual number) - do you really believe that if Galaxy 2.0 is the colossal failure you want it to appear as, that this forum reflects that ?

But hey, as I am fanboy (at least according to you) this is probably all just nonsense..

yeah, all 12 closed mantis tickets for whatnot. that must be all you needed to consider the situation as different now, one year later.

OK, sorry... 54 pages of negative feedback, comments, questions little discussions and wishes, with so much of that being negative feedback that it makes up at least 50 of those pages.

Sorry for not being clear. The topic and a number of agreeing comments early in the topic are flagged as "high rated". Similar to how your reply to me which I'm quoting right now is flagged as "low rated". When I say the comment is "heavily upvoted" I mean exactly what I said. Actually, we were speaking about threads with a high UPVOTE count, not a high POST count. So on that topic, while my thread has received less comments than the one we're talking about, it has maintained a reasonable amount of activity, as well as getting the same "high rated" flag, AND having the first 3 posts on the first page agreeing with my comment and also "high rated". So I'd say it's been pretty well agreed with. Thanks for giving me another example to use. I don't know. When responding to "if there were problems the forum would be full of complaints", what does "here's the forum full of complaints" prove? I have a feeling you know the answer to this question. Care to hazard a guess? On a less relevant topic, but since I'm pretty sure English isn't your first language, that sould be "proof".

Back to the point though (and yes, I cut the rest of your text out here for brevity), what exactly did you think I was trying to prove? Because I literally quoted you saying that there would be complaints all over the forum if there were problems, and pointed to a forum that's full of complaints. And no. You're pre-empting an incredibly stupid argument which I've actively avoided using in the past. We've already discussed similar matters, and I've found you for the most part to be quite intelligent and well-reasoned. I don't think being a "fanboy" negates someone's ability to present valid points, but I do see your perspective as being biased in favour of GOG, while my own has been shifted toward the negative side of neutral by the current Galaxy 2.0 situation.

There are actually 17 closed tickets.

The last issue resolved (five days ago) is adding of macOS Catalina to the OS selector on the bug report page. The most critical issue ever reported. :D

my bad. it was rude on my end to underestimate gog's efforts :)

At this point I'm really just curious why the same features are working on some peoples machines and just don't on some other peoples machines. Am I lucky for having not encountered a single bug in Galaxy 2.0? I had absolutely no download or installation issues, also no speed issues so far.

This of course leads to fundamentally different opinions about Galaxy 2.0 and makes discussions more heated. So maybe try to cool down everyone and understand the other side's situation.

The "things are working for some people and don't for others" situation means usually that the testing/quality assurance didn't cover enough cases of possible systems, that customers might have. This is not really a mystery, just poor engineering.

I'm absolutely aware that the entire Galaxy 2.0 product is pretty complex and it is hard to do right the way it was designed, but this also was obvious at the time the development team designed it, and they chose to do it this way anyways.

The "release-process" (meaning forcing an unready beta product on the unaware customer) was a pretty dumb decision, and most of the people here seem to agree on that. The reason for doing it this way? Unknown - only silence from GOG on this topic.

The whole situation is pretty annoying for people whose system does no longer work, whose tags are gone (another brilliant design-decision) and so on.

So asking these annoyed people who have problems with their installation to understand the situation of people who don't have problems at all seems a little much, don't you think? How about some solidarity from the "everything works fine for me" people with the others?

Quite a lot of people are having no issues. But even for those people, many have preferences which were provided for in the old client and are absent in 2.0 in spite of GOG staff directly promising that all functionality from the older client is present. Even without experiencing any of the bugs, some of which are severe enough to entirely break the platform in terms of its intended purpose, there's ground to say they've directly lied about the state of Galaxy 2.0 at this point.