Well you still can have all that here... Simply don't use Galaxy and disable you profile (which should be default - agreed!). You're free ignore Twitch and Co... it's actually very rarely present here, and if, only in a friendly "you might want to watch this" way, that you can safely ignore.

PS: And the Rollback feature of Galaxy is pretty awesome.

Ok, I just took a simple sentence from your post, that‘s not fair, but it fits perfect to my notion of „Galaxy is not optional“. Why can‘t I have the rollback feature without Galaxy. There is no technical issue why this is not possible.

I agree that it would be cool if GOG provided downloads for all the previous versions of installers. I guess it's just too much work for too little gain for them.

Yet it's not too much work to keep re-uploading installers that have installer-only updates (different, more current ads), though. Lol.

That's not what they're doing though, they're making the format of the offline installers so that they are eaiser to update so patches uploaded to Galaxy get translated more quickly.
Or you know, making things better for people who don't use Galaxy.
I'd find and link the relevant post, but I'm on my phone.

Edit:
And as for rollback without Galaxy, it would definitely be possible and I assume the reason is for ease and not to confuse people. But they could easily stick them on another page like the downloader links so you'd have to go out of your way to get them if you wanted them.

Okay let me put it this way... there is nothing about a client that requires DRM. You can pick apart whatever example I use or define the word client however you like, but there is nothing stopping a client from being DRM free. In fact there already is a DRM free client: GOG Galaxy! Would you look at that! Now obviously if they did away with the backup files and went Galaxy only they might need to tweak the install process a bit, but the essence is the same: a DRM free client experience, which is what most of their fans want. People like and prefer the client experience, it's a big reason Steam took off like it did.

Explain a bit more... how is it DRM free without the backup installation files? Do you mean this: Galaxy itself would (offline) contain everything to turn an installation folder into an installed game? (registry, old directx, make savegame/config folders, etc...)

So instead of just getting your installation files, you'd have to install every game you buy to *have* it (like Steam DRM free games, but without the client having to go online to complete the installation).

Sounds awful!

If you're required to use a client, that requires an active internet connection AND, more importantly, requires you to authenticate yourself with your account credentials to re-install any of your games, without the possibility to use an installer, that doesn't require said authentication, then that's a great example for DRM.

Same way some Steam games are DRM-free. When you have acquired the game files, you don't need the client any more.

A proprietary client being required to acquire the game is on a similar level as a certain website being required to acquire the game. If the server's shut down, it's shut down regardless of whether the client is a website run though a common web browser or a proprietary communication protocol run through a proprietary application.

The difference is that a proprietary client may not be compatible with different operating systems (HTTP -being an open protocol- has clients for pretty much all existing operating systems, and most of those clients are compatible with one of our most common content markup languages, HTML [ie. they are a web browser], as well as enhancement languages like CSS and Javascript). That isn't DRM, but a compatibility issue.

Because there are no difference between Galaxy downloaded files and standalone installer downloaded files. DRM is placed within the game files directly (typically), clients are not inherently DRM, and in the case of Steam for example checked against a server. No games on GOG has DRM directly within their game files. There is nothing that says, GOG must check that you own the game before you can play it offline or in single player regardless if you use Galaxy or not.

You can take the vast majority of games downloaded with Galaxy, move them to another computer, install any dependencies, and the games would work fine by running the exe in their folder. Any issues would be technical, likley having to do with the registry. Which makes standalone installers more convenient for re-installation, but no more nor no less DRM Free than Galaxy downloaded files.

The solution to that is to offer some feature in Galaxy that allows archiving games to make re-installation as convenient as standalone installers (even with Galaxy not being needed for the re-install).

I've added more to my post.
Sure, what you say might be technically possible - but who here would prefer that? Buy a game, install it, let Galaxy archive it, ... Why? Why would we have to go through all those install processes just to have our backup files?

You just invented the standalone installer, which is basically doing that.

Afaik, gog galaxy requires you to log in after installing it, there you've got the DRM.

If gog galaxy had a feature to archive a game to some file format, let's call it .gog and then allowed you to install it with gog galaxy (without logging in first!) then yes you'd have a DRM-free version of doing things using galaxy. But then again I wouldn't consider galaxy a "client" anymore but an installer and it's just a more complicated way of doing stuff than with the standalone installer.

Well we were talking in confines of what is and isn't DRM Free. Galaxy is DRM Free.

Now you could argue that this would be less convenient for some people, and you would be arguably correct depending on individual circumstances, but that is what you should be arguing. Not about what is and isn't DRM Free.

But for others, they may find this more convenient. For example, standalone installers are hard to keep track off as far as updates. On Galaxy keeping track of updates is simple. With standalone installers, patches often cause an entire re-download. With Galaxy and delta patching, I only have to download what has changed. If I can create an archive from my installed updated files I could far better track my backups than by using standalone installers. Some of that is due to bad site design and some of that is due to the site having no integration with the games like Galaxy does.

For GOG though, this means less overhead. This would mean putting some of the work onto the user rather than GOG themselves. This means more features that developers could make use of without having to worry about non Galaxy users, because everyone would be running Galaxy.

There are advantages and disadvantages to everything, but for GOG I bet is has more advantages this disadvantages..

Sure but that does not change what is possible with a Galaxy downloaded game.

The website requires you to log in to download or install your games too? Your point? This has nothing to do with DRM. The games are not depended on Galaxy to function offline at all after you get the files. Same as the games are not depened on the GOG.com website after you login and download the installer to function offline.

You are trying to create a false narative that doesn't exist.

You have a DRM Free version regardless. If I can move my game files to another PC, never having installed Galaxy, and play them then there is no DRM in the game files.

Again, you are like teceem are arguing for convience not DRM or DRM Free.

Drm free, yep steam and gog both do that. Get files without client steam and gog both do that. Provide optional ceg component and mod workshop only steam does that. Limited catalog, and higher prices only gog does that. It's about time equality came into play why don't the gog team and steam get totgether and create a new super website, maybe call it GOSteam.

Oh l, one to add. Steam has steam fanboys who will stop at nothing to change any difference to steam clone. Gog also has the same steam fanboys...

Don't let me stop you from arguing... but I was just asking a question / interested in how you see an alternative implementation of DRM free. ;-)


I never claimed otherwise.