Apparently this game will only run/launch with/thru galaxy? In the midst of a ticket, seems the reinstall includes galaxy without prompt . . .

Imagine my surprise, having spent $150 for drm-free software, going with GOG over STEAM, and now this . . .
seems I've should have gone with the devil I know.

At least that something changed since the release. The answer is not. I didn't need of galaxy, I used Direct GOG and install the game without installing anything else.

GOG has, for some reason, surreptitiously made their "default" installers for many games also include Galaxy for some reason. If you want the non-Galaxy version, look for the "classic" installer option.

Also complain - I think there's a wishlist item to this effect too.

Seems I need to complain. To the dev. Imagine my su-prise when the disk [I paid $150 for] requires a STEAM key for install. [cackles maniaclly]

To ref another thread, somewhere out there: this is why front-ends [drm] are B A D .

And it still won't launch!

Yeah this crap with physical media requiring Steam keys (or any keys) is ridiculous. Makes physical media practically worthless, especially since there's usually always an update to download as well.

People should not jump to conclusions about Galaxy, because, as in this thread, they could well be the wrong conclusions....;)

You can use Galaxy to update your games, but you are not required to run *any* of the games through the Galaxy front end. You simply find the game on your system and send a shortcut of the game executable to your desktop (or wherever you keep your game shortcuts), and run the game from there, completely bypassing Galaxy. So, there is *no* DRM involved in Galaxy at all, just for the record. Unlike Steam, where if the game developer stipulates it his game will not run without running through the Steam front end, there is no such front-end requirement for GOG Galaxy.

Running a GOG game through the Galaxy front end is entirely elective--up to you. Most people who run the game through Galaxy do so in order that any game updates can be applied to the game before running it--all in one step. What I do is run Galaxy to update my games--only--but when I play my games I run them all directly from the game exe, which bypasses Galaxy completely. That's the way it's always worked for me. Updating your games through Galaxy will get them updated much faster than waiting on GOG to provide a manual patch, and that's because game developers can send their updates directly to the GOG Galaxy channel and their game will be updated through Galaxy without GOG having to touch it--just as it is done in the Steam front end. If you wait on a manual patch--which you can do if you want--it takes longer--usually a day or two longer--because GOG has to take the developer's patch and and make a custom game patch out of it that is compatible with the GOG manual game installer.

So, again--no DRM involved in Galaxy at all. It's just a convenience and an option, not an impediment...;) And using it is very much an elective.

While it is true that Galaxy is not technically DRM as such, if you use an installer that includes Galaxy, then Galaxy will automatically launch whenever you launch that particular game. Which is annoying. I've had this happen once, and I couldn't get the game to launch without also launching Galaxy, if I had installed it with the "standard" installer.

This doesn't happen if the initial installation is with the "classic" installer. Those can be run from the exe (without auto-launching Galaxy) as you described above, and they can be updated by Galaxy as you describe if the user chooses. That's generally the way I do it too.

Nope--you can use the Galaxy installer and still run the game from its own executable shortcut, bypassing Galaxy completely. It's only if you use the shortcut that Galaxy will make for you (but only if you tell the Galaxy installer that you want a desktop shortcut) that Galaxy will run. Using the elective Galaxy-created shortcut is a choice you make, not a requirement. I'll supply an example for you:

Install the game Obduction--this is an example that holds true for all Galaxy-installed games, btw--then check out the desktop shortcut Galaxy creates for the game (if you tell it to.) Right-click shortcut properties and take a look.

(1) Galaxy-installed Obduction shortcut properties:

Target: "C:\Program Files (x86)\GOG Galaxy\GalaxyClient.exe" /command=runGame /gameId=2003665371 /path="D:\Obduction"

Start In: "C:\Program Files (x86)\GOG Galaxy"

Of course, if you use the Galaxy made shortcut, Galaxy will run first.

(2) Galaxy-installed Obduction using the game executable's direct desktop shortcut properties:


Target: D:\Obduction\Obduction.exe

Start-in: d:\obduction

I already said this in my first post, so to rehash, when you install a game through Galaxy, you can simply go to the game's installation directory (the above Obduction game is installed in my D:\ Obduction folder), find the game's executable, right-click it and select "send to desktop (create shortcut)" and that's it. The shortcut will then run the Galaxy-installed game without running Galaxy first.

I'm not sure if it was just a matter of you not reading my first post, or whether you just didn't understand what I was saying, but I hope this will clarify things for you. You do not have to run Galaxy for any Galaxy installed game you own or buy unless you *wish* to have Galaxy run first. Exactly like happens with the manual installers, you can create a shortcut directly from the game executable, and send it to your desktop that bypasses Galaxy completely. As I said in the first post, I use Galaxy to install and update my games, but I run *all* of my Galaxy games from the game executable shortcut--exactly like I do with older manually installed games. Galaxy only runs when I chose to run it when updating games.

No problem...;) I do think that GOG could do a bit better in explaining things to its customer base, though--because a lot of people have ideas about Galaxy that were negative and at one time were true descriptions of using Galaxy--as in "Why you don't want to use GOG's galaxy!"...;) But all of that was prior to Galaxy coming out of beta, finally, as Galaxy was in beta for several years, IIRC.

I didn't even start using Galaxy until it came out of beta a few months back--mainly because it was buggy and far less flexible than the manual installation method. But imo they've fixed all of that and Galaxy today is pretty solid. Still--I agree with you--I do not like running my games through a superfluous front end--so that's why I make my own shortcuts from the executable and run them that way. But as far as installing and updating goes, it's just a fact that Galaxy receives game patches/updated installers a good deal faster than the manual files are updated--for reasons I already mentioned. I still keep copies of all my GOG manual game installers on a separate drive, though, as being able to retain my own installable copies of the games I buy is important to me--something GOG provides but Steam does not.

Basically, I just want people to know what you can actually do with Galaxy--it now provides the same installation/update speeds as Steamworks, but without the DRM aspect, and with GOG's manual files options you can go Steam one better by being allowed to keep an installable version of the game copy you just bought, etc. Using Galaxy to install and update my games, while running those games outside of Galaxy through the game executables directly, strikes me as the best of "both worlds"...;) Then later, after GOG has gotten around to updating the manual installers, I'll download the updated installers for my archive purposes. Seems ideal.

Makes sense. So far I've done a similar thing with a couple of games, for the same reasons - patches tend to come out a tad faster on Galaxy than their web interface. Like you, I always keep installers around, just in case something happens (like recently with FTL, where the new version was actually buggier than the old, apparently). I'm definitely glad GOG has that option - it would be even better if they let you download older patches, but I can understand why they wouldn't (server space and all that).