You know, that is the only thing I do with Galaxy. XD I don't even play games o n it myself, I just like to see who plays what. There are a few of you out there that need to mix it up a little. :P

I try it as a downloader, since GOG announced that they will drop GOG downloader in the future. But it's not near good as GOG Downloader and I don't want any other feature.

I'm considering the possibility to switch back to just download through the browser, if ever GOG Downloader stops functioning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq-v1TTUyhM

Lol. xD

Well then once again I've been unclear (something I guilty of OFTEN).

Because I flat out don't like Steam's client (because it's mandatory) whereas I'm just not interested in GoG's. I have posted several times how I like the way GoG did it. They did a client the way a client should be done. They provided all the "good" parts, without forcing the bad (DRM) on us. I applaud that.

But I'm just still not interested. I'm interested in the downloader because it does something for me that I'm interested in, and I have to use a "client" of some sort to download anything anyway. (What the GoG downloader does for me is it allows me to easily set up multiple downloads at once and it automatically puts all of the GoG downloads in one place, something the browser downloader doesn't). But then I'm done with it. I close my browser (and/or the GoG downloader) and I'm done with it. Then I want to play may games, with NO client.

Again, I never said I hate GoG for making a client, or they shouldn't have made one. I simply said I'm not interested in any gaming retailer's client, optional or otherwise. And to somehow compare that with the absolute necessity of having to use a downloader of some sort (either the browser's or GoG's) just seems..... well it doesn't seem like it's a fair or even rational comparison. Downloading games REQUIRES something other than the game itself. Either a stand alone downloader or a browser one. Playing a game DOES NOT require something other than the game itself. If I could download my games without either the GoG downloader "client" or the browser downloader "client" then I wouldn't be interested in either of those either. But I "get" the fact that some form of "client" is required for downloading while simultaneously "getting" the fact that NO form of "client" is required nor should be required for me to play games I own.

If that's not clear, don't worry. It's me. It is my second biggest posting flaw (not being clear).

In principle browsers are already quite comfortable in accessing web sites. Also they have the advantage that usually customers have more control over the site, like using ad blockers when necessary or custom scripts, download managers, .... So having a specialized app means on one hand you can do less, but on the other hand that you also might be able to do more. So one would need to wait and see what the client does beyond just showing a web site (for that I would probably still prefer a browser) and then it comes down to how much comfort these other perks really mean.

But just to be sure, we are not dependent on it, one should from time to time test the more direct way of accessing the games. Just economically they might be tempted to force people to use their client at some point in the future. Hopefully they will remember how bad this would be for a long, long time.
Or you just wait and buy slightly older games (for smaller price too) where you just download, install, forget and play anyway whatever you use.

I guess that Galaxy is just the frontend for a technology for easy updating. Probably instead of handling the download and application of a patch within the client one could easily write a standalone application that does the same and without any need to login. Galaxy is not really needed for this. Needing to authentificate for easy patching could be seen as a first step towards Steam's kind of DRM.

Not that I complain much about this.

Used it for the first time 2 days ago. Because I wanted to download a 9 GB installer and a couple of other things. In other words, I use it instead of the downloader, Not much interest in other features for the time being.

Fully understandable, it was never my intention to attack your personal stance on not wanting to use a client. Sorry if it seems that way, I just found the context of your post about not liking clients and using the downloader funny to me personally because I see the downloader as a game client... in my personal view. That's all honestly.

Again I apologize if I somehow made it seem like I was attacking your decision for not using Galaxy, I get that completely... and that should always be your choice. :)

I'm pretty sure it's not re-inventing the wheel, but using the API's exposed from the OS to embed the Web browser, I could be wrong, but I don't think they would re-invent the wheel and embedding the browser means they don't have to change any of their content you can get to on the Web already.

I think it's good stuff!