The DLC is incompatible with the single-player version and a 100% DRMed product, as if the DRM part of the base game wouldn't be bad enough.

I strongly disagree.
Hotseat and TCP/IP (as well as splitscreen although unrelated to this kind of game) work offline and should be standard in a digital board game, see Homm3.

Even online play can be DRM-free as soon as players can directly connect via IP or make their own servers and don't need a client or some authenticity check from a central server which was the standard once.

If you must know it is an idiom and here is a good explanation...

It will never cease to amaze me how fucking stupid the entirety of GOG's staff is.

So is the plan to still have Galaxy installation checked by default? As in, still have to uncheck if you don't want Galaxy? I really hope this isn't the plan. Please tell me this isn't the plan.

But that's only temporary. They plan to go ahead with their initial plan, as soon as they figure out how to make the full GOG Galaxy installer smaller. How much smaller can they make it? Small enough to still only add a couple of MB to each game installer?

Someone in this thread said that since GOG uses InnoSetup for the installers, it's fairly easy to unpack them, edit the contents, and repack them (it was mentioned in relation to piracy, but still). I know how to do this, but the issue is - why should I need to do it in the first place for every single one of my games just because I want my back-up installers to be just that - clean standalone, offline game installers?


The tactic is shady, no matter the colour of the galsses.

Some people said that it doesn't equate to the known, and mostly loathed, adware tactic since GOG Galaxy isn't a third party piece of S/W, but this very tactic is often used to install in-house S/W that one didn't ask for, and this is exactly the case here - forcing a piece of S/W on people that use the standalone, offline installers by choice, and don't want to use GOG Galaxy. It's doubly bad as we are not even talking about freeware S/W that comes with this price

One will watch to uncheck the box, but it takes only one time to miss it for whatever reason. One will go through the hassle of uninstalling it instead of spending that time playing the game they've just installed, but it only takes one time too many to say "screw it" and leave it installed. And after that, all possibilities are open, especially if the default for GOG Galaxy is still to run at boot up. And this is what opt-out is mostly about in the case of those that up till now choose to not install and use it.

As I said, I'll wait and see, but the insistence of going ahead with their initial plan with a couple of revisions, for now, feels more like they're buying time than actually listening and taking in our feedback.

Even installers are third party software. It depends on how we see it.

Galaxy is not third party software from GOG's perspective. It's their software.
It is third party from the game's perspective, since it's an additional component, which comes from a source other than the game's developers.

I take the same wait and see -neutral- stance. It's the best I can do, since this announcement has lowered my trust to GOG.

If I'm not mistaken, Destro was only talking about "new" installers. However, there will also be "classic" installers for every game, and these will come with no Galaxy whatsover. As per point 1 of Destro's original post:

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/offline_installers_with_an_option_to_install_gog_galaxy/post929
"Going forward we will offer the option to download “classic” installers whenever a game is offered via a “new” installer."

That's great for you. For me, I want them up to date in case GOG dies tomorrow. I want it to be updated when I go to install it, and if GOG got shut down right this second, any games I don't have updated are then possibly broken. Not taking that chance.

Yep, saw that. Putting aside the fact that it's entirely possible they'll stop hosting two installer versions down the road*, I still want to know how GOG's going to present this: customer friendly 'opt-in' or the more malware-oriented 'opt-out'.

*which I personally consider a distinct possibly, verging on 100% probability, as it's a lot of extra work and it's senseless to do it this way in the first place...

A new voice in this conversation, since I wasn't actually checking web sites like this daily for the few days it took between announcement of the plan and the blowback forcing reconsideration --

Beyond the simply insulting framing, I am a lot more suspicious of GOG than I was before, and not just because of the implications here presented by others, which I think need to be considered. Better to jump at nothing than to fail to jump at a tiger. However, what makes me truly suspicious of GOG is the name of one of the games on the list -- Divinity: Original Sin Enhanced Edition. The reason I'm suspicious is because Larian has always been one of the most consumer-oriented devs I have had the pleasure of dealing with. They respond to criticism and requests for help in quite the opposite manner as GOG, which is to say, they are prompt, detailed, helpful and open. Further, the game in question does not have a separate publisher that could demand anything. Plus, all of Larian's games run DRM-free once installed via Steam as well. This makes me question whether GOG is even considering the desire of indie devs on this matter. It seems to be a unilateral "let us tell you what's good for you" even to them. I also have my doubts that Swen would even consider rolling out such a program without asking for feedback first, by the way.

This feels to me like they're simply putting the desires of corporate giants over and above the needs of customers and those with smaller market shares. This is exactly the thing that made me wary of Steam. Not simply DRM, but prioritizing corporate desires over human needs. It is an utterly toxic attitude and quickly kills my desire to throw money at a company.

What's the most sad is that prior to this, I was hoping Galaxy would come to support Linux, presuming that this utter stupidity would be avoided. Now, I'm glad there's no Linux support because it means they can't actually shove it in my face like that. Galaxy seemed to be a decent alternative because of the customizable options. I fully intended to use its features solely as a gamer social network, and turn off achievements, auto-updates, cloud saves and absolutely everything else. I was okay with them being there because they were as optional as the client itself. If the client becomes less optional, I'm less inclined to give such "features" the benefit of the doubt as to their optionality.

Further, I left Windows precisely because of predatory practices of this sort by Microsoft. Opt-out is the most moronic thing they could have come up with. What's worse, now that it's been suggested and they've clearly stated that they desire this, I cannot even trust them to stick with opt-in if they indeed move that direction, at least initially. I have to be suspicious of every installer I download. This is also the reason I avoid updating Adobe products more often than strictly necessary. Because I always have to be extra careful, and sometimes I just don't want to be arsed. It hardly even matters anymore because they seemingly have no interest in doing the hard work of regaining our trust. Suspicion is now necessary.

In the end, it is simply another instance of something that has played out time and again in our society -- a company grows, and in come the greedy shareholders. They care nothing for the longevity of the company they are supposedly investing in, only for extracting the maximum amount of profit they can from it before it dies and they move on to the next victim. Wallet vampires that prey on naive companies just getting into the big leagues. Sad, really. However, as always, if the market that GOG fills becomes vacant because they were drained of their advantages and therefore their funds by fools demanding unreasonable and unrealistic growth, another will rise to replace them. The cycle will repeat, with the true loss being suffered primarily by those who had more direct interests in the longevity of a particular business that at one time filled that market space.

Having 2 installers both infested with Galaxy-ware is stupid. I guess it solves the 150mb reduction per installer a lot of people have expressed concerns with, but this isn't the solution. gog has shown blatant disregard for its existing customers and I will not standby any longer and support gog. In terms of the word "optional", why doesn't gog grey out the galaxy install checkbox. Galaxy is still optional because the user can choose to uninstall the client. That's how blurred the word optional has become.

Edit - 1 Galaxy-ware and one non-Galaxy-ware. Having to maintain 2 installers. Still stupid

I came back here. Just want to say this again. I'd rather the installers be updated with a Galaxy stub that is opt-in. I'd also rather to have a more elaborate way to present Galaxy on the account page than "try it" than to mess with the installers.

The wariness brought forth by this move is not exactly great. But this is no problem. We have the "what just updated thread" to inform us if the new installers were at one point updated but not the classic installers and that should be a sign of potential trouble coming down to strike us all in the head. Really, I doubt anyone needs this 'new and classic' installer deal.

Or you could do like others suggested: Download with Galaxy. Galaxy detected? Galaxy downloads it. Not detected? Galaxy is downloaded. you install it, log into it, and Galaxy immediately downloads the game. THINK OF IT. You could even use this implementation to allow users to download games while away from home. Like at work, or on the road. Just go on the GOG site, and install with Galaxy. You could also have "download with Galaxy" with the same idea. Really.

This is far better, and more benefitting to all of us, than 'installers with Galaxy'.

Give it a rest people,you can't stop it from happening.

Yes, a install/download with Galaxy that trigger the client from a link in your browser's Library page would indeed be useful and a much better approach.

This actually brings up an interesting idea: Rather than having Galaxy files included in installers, why not have the installers (with the ability to disable this) simply open up the Galaxy download page in a browser? No extra size, no need to manage two installers for those who don't want it, and even if the page opens without someone's consent, it won't download anything automatically. This would also allow GOG to make a more detailed pitch about Galaxy's features to new users.