I looked at the list of open bugs, and what some of them can do to your system, and decided to hold off on installing Galaxy for the near future.

I fail to see how they force us to since both the Downloader and Galaxy are optional.

Another thing is that what is beta and what isn't is an artificial border. One company's gold version is another company's beta. I just presume that if Galaxy were in the same state but had hit version 1.0 already you wouldn't be complaining about being forced to rely on beta software.

How do you download your GOG games? Only with the web links (not even the GOG Downloader)?

At this point, I use Galaxy only for downloading GOG installers, ie.for exactly the same purpose as I used the old GOG Downloader client. So different client, same shit, as Confusius would say, For my use, I don't see the point of running a client in order to play a single-player game.

If I ever get excited of any multiplayer GOG game, I'd use Galaxy for it. But I am not that big into online gaming, I've never really played anything online except TeamFortress games.

One thing I've been meaning to check: are all the GOG games installed with the Galaxy client fully portable? Ie. when you have obtained the non-installer Galaxy version of any GOG game, you can simply compress and archive it, and transfer/play it on another PC without any re-installation? With all games?

If that would work 100% (including dependencies?) and those portable versions will not leave any registry entries etc. hanging on the other PC (no uninstaller, see?), I might choose to archive my GOG games manually without downloading GOG installers. A fully portable version might be even better than an installer.

After all, with GOG installers one thing that has always irritated me is how I can't easily check the integrity of my whole local GOG library (have to do it separately for each installer, and the procedure is somewhat complicated and depends on how big the installer is).

If I e.g. had all my GOG games in neat compressed .7z packets, I could tell 7-zip to simply verify the integrity of all of them. Much less work for me. At that point, I probably wouldn't even care about GOG installers anymore. I'm fearing though sometimes the installers are needed, e.g. installing some dependencies, or adding registry entries.

I have it installed but am not using it. I don't like the fact that it is so difficult to download the installer separately. I prefer the old method with gog downloader anyway.

If it remains optional, which I'm sceptical about, I will not use it. But I imagine, there will probably come a time where patches could only be downloaded through it for some games. I hope I'm wrong though.

I am actually expecting that GOG will less and less offer separate patches for installers anymore. And probably some patches will be skipped.

Instead, they'll probably update the whole installer from time to time to the latest patch level. I would mostly be fine with that, as long as all the installers eventually do receive the latest (and last) patches. What I'd hate to see is that the installers would remain on some very old patch level, and to play the up-to-date version, you would be obliged to use the Galaxy version.

(Well, unless the Galaxy versions are fully portable and don't need the client to play, in which case I wouldn't even care for the installers anymore.)

I've used it but uninstalled it for now since I experienced a major issue (which hopefully will be fixed): A client update caused all installed games, including all save games, to be wiped from my hard drive :(

Not using it. I already have enough gaming clients on my PC, don't need another one.

Despite the large response of people here who seem not interested in the client this would probably be GOG's response to that (with slight change): http://www.gog.com/forum/general/movie_release_us_and_the_game_industry/post34

"Already have a client on Steam so i'll pass, LOLZ"

That's one thing I think the Galaxy client is a good thing. Earlier many people complained they prefer Steam because it has a client while GOG doesn't (auto-update, achievements, friends etc.), and that is also why they'd refuse to buy any newer/indie games on GOG.

Now that GOG does too, they don't have that excuse anymore. Now the goal post is moved: "Oh GOG has a client too now? Well, I don't want many clients on my PC, I want to use only one client, Steam. One client to rule them all."

No, currently I don't see any point in using it, maybe after it gets out of beta.

It might work for some games, but GOG has stated that they will be including an install script for this purpose in the future for games that need it, so I imagine not all games will work this way (likely because the registry, ect). But this should be very doable at some point in the future when they include the install script.


PS: I use Galaxy and I like it a lot, it has it's issues but's it's more convenient for sure.

As many others, just tried it once and then removed it. I'll give it second try when going gold:)

Don't let these threads fool you, the forum is the small minority. Galaxy has a lot of interest. GOG already stated that the client had nearly 10x more activity in the client than on the site. Not mention that a few hundred thousand has access to the client when they rolled out the beta.

EDIT: Sorry fixed something that I said wrong, it was the client that had 10x more activity, not the Witcher 3 pre-load.

Installed , tested , uninstalled it .

I have it installed, but I have no plans to use it much. Not because I have any issues with Galaxy, but because I don't really need a client. I'm perfectly content with manual installers most of the time.

Having said that, I do intend to keep it around for any multiplayer games I might play or for any particularly large games that are cumbersome to download via a browser.