I've used galaxy since the initial alpha and while I hated it at first I think it has improved a lot. The biggest flaw for me right now is just the lack of delta updates. Also having recently suffered an issue with steam client for which clean install was the only solution which worked (lost about 361GB of installed games), I can understand what you all are saying.

Current beta release should make you happy then. See the sticky for more info.

Depends on what you expect from a store. When you mostly want a nice selection, they have definitely improved since then. I also joined in 2012 and if I remember correctly, they had something between 350 and 400 games in the catalogue back then. Now they have more than 2000.

But when you mostly want a store that is honest with it's customers and stands true to it's principles, there was indeed no improvement.

But I guess more customers want the former than the latter.

You know, even without getting into the lofty issues of principles and the like, which I have basically screamed my head off about by now, I was thinking about much more baisic things: broken notifications, the new library being much uglier and not nearly as pleasant as the old one, not to mention losing manual sorting, the whole mess of going from the old PMs to the new chat, the absolutely abysmal communication with customers as evidenced multiple times, and probably more "good news" stuff I'm not even remembering now.

I know and I feel the same. But that's mostly forum stuff (except for the manual library sorting) and most customers won't care about it. When it comes to a store, they just want to buy games for a good price. And in that regard there was really an improvement over the years (more games, higher discounts and for many people even regional pricing is a good thing).

I don't agree and I hate most of the changes they made and I really don't want to defend them, but for many customers it might really look like GOG only improved over the years.

It's PC Gamer. Seriously, what did you expect?

Like how they mention that with gog you can grab older versions of games.

Completely ignoring the fact that you can also do this on steam.

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/guide_how_to_download_older_versions_of_a_game_on_steam

Nothing really, I never visit the site.

But with Steam, you need to jump through hoops, with Galaxy it's a feature. It isn't really the same thing, as with GOG it's customer service and with Steam something hidden in the basement.

Ugh, horrible article.

Hear we go, the slow selling of a another client and now from GOG. I suspect we will see more of this.

This is NOT what GOG was supposed to represent, and GOG knows it. I don`t care if it`s a "light client". This is how it always goes, little by little, creep by creep, push by push until they brainwash people into it JUST like they did with Steam all those years ago. I hate when companies do this about-face crap and throw everything they were in the bin.

Eventually our little voices of the concerned consumer are not worth it to them. We get ignored, they moderate us out and only allow the "fanboys" shills to praise it... Just as happened in the early Steam days and Origin, etc. I got banned from Steam for arguing against this kind of thing. And I didn`t swear or anything, I just persisted and they didn`t like it... Is GOG now going to be like them?

I think GOG are sitting there in the bushes just biding their time until they say, "We don`t care what you think any more. YOU MUST have the Client!" Happened with Steam and others.

Well, I`ll do what I did with Steam- I`ll drop them like a bag of heavy coal. They likely don`t care, just like Steam didn`t, but still, at least they won`t get my cash.

I`m watching.

And in what way does this feature rely on an online client?
This can be done on the site with normal downloads just as well.

but wait.. let me quote GOG themselve: Break what already worked on the site.. don't impement new features in the site.. do everything with Galaxy even if it in no way requires an online client.
GOG Galaxy. The optional client..

Just as a reminder.. steam started as a comfortable client for keeping mods up to date...
http://www.pcgamer.com/steam-versions/

I'm happy with Gog. Like you say, the newer games are nice, and since I mostly have all the older games I want, it's mostly the newer stuff that I add. It's important that Gog stay viable, and this is a big plus.

Gog Connect is also nice for games already purchased on Steam.

I like the convenience of the client for managing the downloads now that it works. When I first joined Gog, download errors were actually a problem. I think this also supports Gog's need to appeal to a wider audience to remain viable going forward. Increasing ease of use for new users is important.

The 1st thing that slapped me about the article, was that it read like the person had been paid to write it. Other than that it wasn't too bad.

I actually like Galaxy for chat, so I can see who is about, and for checking the store. After it failing to run Witcher 2 or 3 though, I wont be reinstalling it until I have finished W3. Not needing to open Gog in a web browser, for me, sometimes has its advantages.

Keep it optional, perfect :) That way Gog should be able to please most peeps, those of us who may use bits of it (still not decided if i will install games with it) and those who want nothing to do with it.

The article at the very least gets Gog's name out there, which in my opinion is a good thing.

They're getting paid for the article, although indirectly.

The link to GOG Galaxy provided in that article is an affiliate program link. It contains that ?pp= http get parameter, so users coming to GOG from that link and making a purchase (I'm not sure for how long) have a percentage of money go to PC Gamer.

Don't click that link, if you don't want to support such practices.

PS: There's only one client needed and it's called web browser!

Nicely spotted. I'd say it's another mark to add to GOG's list of shady acts, but then again the practice is probably so common arguing against it would be screaming at a brick wall.