I don't think anyone really wants any gaming client to be a mandatory necessity to make a game run, even people that like what gaming clients have to offer. GOG Galaxy client is not required to make a game run however, whether the game was installed manually or installed inside Galaxy. Galaxy can launch games, or they can be launched from the start menu without Galaxy client running. In fact, one can install a game with Galaxy, then uninstall Galaxy and play the game. That's the "optional" nature of the client itself.

Sure, I don't think anyone wants that either. That's also not what Galaxy does however. Galaxy can connect online to your account to download games but it's no different than doing the same thing manually by hand in the web browser, it's just a different application doing it. All of the features that connect online are optional, and one can log out and just use the client can act as a launcher and never log in if they choose.

You sound like you are just strongly opposed to being forced to use software you don't want to use, and oppose having to be connected online to do gaming stuff that you think should not involve anything to do with being online. You're exactly right too, and Galaxy doesn't force anyone to use it nor to be online unless you want to use a feature that by its very nature requires being online technically such as downloading a game from your account or chatting with someone.

I think that the majority of people who do want to use Galaxy here likely feel the exact same way as you about not wanting to be forced to use anything they're not interested in and not being forced to be online etc. That's all stuff that is a core part of GOG's philosophy IMHO and Galaxy is ultimately going to be the embodiment of that philosophy/ideology - making something better and actually consumer-friendly compared to the competition's products.

I like gaming client functionality, but I just want one that puts me in control and doesn't force or manipulate me or require me to even use it if I don't want to. That's why I'm fond of the idea of not only Galaxy but what Galaxy will evolve into over time.

Did the forum break?

okay that's weird
Fixed it,

https://youtube.com/watch?v=G2eUopy9sd8

Okay are my posts in here visible? They aren't to me. If they are to you you are probably seeing what looks like a major spam invasion. :P

As always, it's just more repetitive than usual.

Whoever is replying to me from this thread I can't see it. XD

Fixed it. Thanks to those who helped and again I apologize for that. :P Granted I didn't kill anyone but that was bad, XD

And I get that others like it. I never said "I wish GOG didn't make Galaxy." I said "I'm not interested in it. Optional or otherwise."

There are all sorts of optional stuff that I'm not interested in. Screen savers are another example. I mean they're just software, right? Why on earth object to running software? Everything we run or play is software, so it's crazy to object to running one more piece, right? Does the fact that others like screen savers, and the fact they perform some sort of "valued" function for some make it "interesting" that I don't want any part of them too?

There are some great things to like about gaming clients. Number one, and foremost, IMO, is the automatic updating. I mean, seriously, that's a great feature. I completely understand why folks like that. I like that, although TBH I'd prefer games be sold in a state that didn't require constant updating it's first year out, but that's just me. But since "the market" has already spoken on that subject and consumers have made it clear they're willing to put up with unfinished products being sold, then I completely understand why automatic update is a great feature.

And there are others that many will find great that I don't. I have no interest in achievements or multi-player, but I get that many others do, and for them a client is great. I get that, and don't find it "interesting" at all. I understand it.

But for me, I don't want anything running on my computer that isn't necessary. In fact, before Windows 7, my log in experience every time I logged in was to go into the Task Manager and end all but the most essential processes, which I learned over time. I suppose some might find that "interesting" too, but it was my experience that there was a direct correlation between the amount of crap running "in the background" and the amount of CTD's and BSOD crashes I experienced. (I can't do it on Windows 7 because I was just overwhelmed with the number of processes and services running and figured it would take a full time commitment to ever figure out which ones I could end all the time)

So I'm just NOT interested in any gaming retailer's client, optional or otherwise. And when they make it a requirement, then I'll have to evaluate whether or not I'm interested in remaining a customer of such a retailer. For me personally, Steam was a NO for nearly a decade, until I had to sigh and once again accept the fact that gaming consumers are more often than not willing to accept anything just to play their games. Once I decided that horse was out of the barn, I relented and purchased a few of the Steam exclusive games that I had boycotted up until then. But I'm still not a fan of Steam, do not purchase there much at all, and may not ever buy there again, I don't know. Despite the fact that their client does do some pretty neat stuff (auto updates, cloud saves, multi-player service, etc.). If GOG ever makes their client a requirement, I'll almost definitely stop purchasing here.

But the nearly page of comments basically suggesting that it was absurd to object to clients because everything is client was just... obtuse. Again, it would be like suggesting it's absurd to object to ANYTHING running on there. Which leaves us with every retailer/advertiser/business in the world running any and everything they want on my machine. if someone can't distinguish between objecting some types of software (client) versus any type of software (client) then IMO they're intentionally trying to be a troll or aren't very bright, and that's what several comments in this thread looked like.

I hope each and every one of those making them have every available cookies/browser add-in, retail client, and all sorts of other apps running on their machines because you know, if they don't, then they're being hypocrites for ridiculing others for objecting specific clients.

For Game Management, I'd suggest "Launchbox". It has more powerful library settings and you can put there your GOG, Retail, Steam, Origin, MAME, DOS, SCUMM, WHATEVER games.

Thanks to that app, I only have a folder wih game shortcuts for historical reasons.

Has anyone else been wondering why tinyE hasn't said anything in this thread at all so far? Just curious.

That was fun wasn't it. xD

AGAIN, I understand Galaxy isn't necessary. I didn't say "Gog shouldn't make Galaxy" I said I wasn't interested. I'm also not interested in screensavers, data base management apps, financial management software, kids games, and about a million others.

So I suppose that's "funny" too?

I find it funny that one could be so obtuse and claim to not be trying to be disrespectful.

I'll repeat, if you can't distinguish between not being interested in specific software (clients) versus any and all software (clients) then you most definitely have got something going on. Because by your "logic" it's "funny" if anyone objects to anything running on their computers.

I'm not going to argue over it, there is nothing wrong with you not wanting to use it... I don't want to use Steam, I fully get where you coming from. Your however missing my point... whether or not you use it was never my point at all. It was your view on the downloader vs Galaxy, not if you use it. I couldn't care either way if your are or aren't interested honestly.

Based on what you posted, you clearly are basing this view on Steam not what Galaxy actually is... in which case further discussion is pointless.

Apparently you're interested in an Operating System and some way to get online. You might write off all the other stuff, but you're posting a message on a channel which is known to sell games, so I assume (maybe incorrectly) that you've purchased or won a gift at GOG.com.

When's the last time your every day app grabbed your attention?

I've used screensavers in the past from time to time, might even do so in the future but largely I disable them as being rather useless. There was a time when they served a purpose but being realistic - screensavers are just a form of art/fun now and do not "save screens" by any remote longshot. ;o) And in the case of Linux at least, they have a long history of triggering bugs in the 3D drivers and 2D acceleration codepaths which are poked in ways that other software seems to rarely touch so I avoided them there too. I do use DPMI though.

Central multi-player services can be useful, but they don't technically need to be tied to a gaming client either even though they most often are. I don't fully understand the architecture of Galaxy yet but if I'm not mistaken the Galaxy multiplayer service is a separate thing from Galaxy client itself at least (unless I'm mistaken somehow) and I believe one can play games that use Galaxy multiplayer without having the client installed. I'd have to either get that confirmed or experiment to be certain however. Mind you, if one has no interest at all in multiplayer or at least multiplayer online then that's all moot too. :)

Yup, I do the same also in varying degrees. In Linux I take it to the extreme by extremely reducing the default OS install to the absolute bare minimum and then remove some stuff that still gets forced on the system, then I add what I want on top of that. Very bare bones and nice and clean with no crap. :) It is possible to reduce Windows down too but it's a lot more involved IMHO (slipstreaming).

They're very unlikely to do that from the backlash that it would cause that would be of epic proportions really. If it ever happened it wouldn't affect me much though as I'm pretty much voluntarily planning on using it to one degree or another anyway. I wouldn't boycott the store personally though. It really would not make any logical sense for GOG to make it mandatory anyway despite people's irrational (IMHO) fears of that.

I think I understand where you're coming from. For most of the last 10 years or so even though certain Linux distributions use LVM (logical volume management) on the hard disks by default I disabled that feature because I did not need or want it. Merely mentioning that around other people was met with shock and amazement, people defending LVM, demanding me give one good reason why - as if they were the creator of LVM or something and I just insulted them or something even though they were just another user, etc. Nobody could accept the answer "I don't need it." - that wasn't good enough. But the truth is that that _IS_ a good enough answer for not wanting anything - because you don't want it. It doesn't have to make sense to anyone else, and ultimately we don't have to rationalize or explain ourselves to someone else. We might choose to do so in civil discussion but we don't need to justify ourselves and seek someone else's approval. ;)