I have a question for anyone out there who hates GOG Galaxy ... Why do you hate the Galaxy client?

I'm assuming that most of the Galaxy haters don't like the client because they fear losing the ability to download the installers individually, but I'm not really sure why you still need this function. As far as I understand it GOG has said that they don't plan to ditch the direct downloads anytime soon, and you can always back up your installed games to an external hard-drive. Should your computer ever crash [rather than downloading and installing all of the files all over again], you can simply click the 'Scan Folders For GOG Games' in order to add all of your games back to your collection. Another bonus is the fact that you never have to worry about keeping your games up to date, or re-download any new updates. Should there ever come a time when an update breaks a game, all you have to do is uninstall and reinstall the game and turn off the automatic updates until the problem is solved.

If you would rather have a single backup file for each of your individual games, then all you would have to do is make a simple zip file for each game, which would take far less time than downloading and installing them all over again. You don't even need the Galaxy client to play your games. I'm really not trying to sound rude or confrontational with this topic, because I'm genuinely trying to understand your position. I simply don't understand why some people are so resistant to the Galaxy Client. If it helps you to better organize your games and keep them up to date, then what's the problem? As long as you keep a backup of your game folder, then you will always be able to play your games without an issue. Can someone please clarify the issue for me?

I don't hate it, I don't think anybody does. I don't need it. I don't use it.

You can actually just roll back to a previous version.

You're right, it's even simpler. As far as I'm concerned, GOG Galaxy 2.0 is the best piece of software on my computer.

We, don't hate it at all but object to being spied on. Certainly hope that's clear and don't come back with idiotic ''fan boy'' BS.

I hate being spied on as much as the next guy, but what do you mean by that statement? How is GOG spying on us?

I don't "hate" it (and I have tried it). To me though, the goal is long-term game preservation and experience has taught that the fewer unnecessary "middleman layers" between buying and playing a game, the fewer issues a game will have over time. Likewise "all my games are in one place" regardless of where I bought them - GOG, Humble, CD-ROM even a zip backup of old floppy discs, etc, since 1995. It's called the Windows Start Menu and is naturally vendor neutral (as launchers should have been all along before Valve popularized the wrong idea...) I have zero interest in cloud save & achievements too. Hopefully GOG will be around for a long time, but if the worst happens and it isn't then you'll basically be using backup installers anyway. In that respect when I say "game preservation" I mean there's really no substitute for keeping files / installers locally, and am looking 10, 20, 30 years down the line rather than just tomorrow or next year. Why "all over again"? I normally back them up at the same time as downloading. If I decide I don't like the game then I'll delete them. Makes more sense than downloading then deleting then re-downloading. Likewise, if anything happened to GOG, Galaxy could end up incompatible with future versions of Windows 5-10 years down the line in the same way Galaxy doesn't run on XP today even for installing XP compatible / DOS games. And whilst I mostly run all games in Windows, I also dual-boot Linux Mint. Where's the Galaxy client for that?... That's no "advantage" though over simply keeping the desired older offline installer (something I've done for a few games such as This War of Mine where I have no interest in the newest DLC's for which the newest installers are sometimes less desirable just for the "base game" when they add more bugs). What you're describing though is how to do something differently via reinstalling, not better or simpler (that avoids reinstalling in the first place). Many older games install registry keys or come with other dependencies (VCRedist, etc). Offline installers pre-include this stuff scripted, simple zip files don't. (Real life example - Commandos Behind Enemy Lines installs registry keys to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Pyro that includes the important line "DirCd"= that helps the formerly disc-based game to understand where its "CD-ROM" data files are. Without this, several games start throwing up error messages if you move it to a new computer without registry data and perhaps the game is hardcoded to assume it's on a D: drive (that may not exist)). It doesn't "better organize" anything for me though. Right now I have over 300 games installed on a 2TB SSD, and they're all neatly arranged in the Start menu into subfolders (FPS, RPG, Adventure, etc). It's actually far more organized than what Galaxy or Steam offer of just one really long list. Doubly so if you also own a load of non GOG games (eg, Age of Empires, Diablo 2, Dune, Freelancer, NOLF 1-2 on disc, perhaps Gunpoint from Humble, etc). You have to manually add all these non-GOG games to Galaxy anyway which requires more effort than simply using their pre-installed Start Menu links.

Same goes for ScummVM games, where in Galaxy is Blade Runner or The Neverhood? I have to add them to ScummVM anyway. You want me to add that to Galaxy = I have to add a game to a launcher (ScummVM) then add that launcher to another launcher (Galaxy). That's absurdly convoluted vs creating a direct-start Start Menu shortcut once then backing that up along with the games. Or zipping up Doom + Doom 2 + Final Doom + Heretic + Hexen + Strife + direct start GZDoom shortcuts all in one file once, then enjoy unzipping all 6 games in one go in future vs having to manually add each game one at a time to show up in Galaxy. DRM-Free should be about reducing launcher hassle not adding more layers of unnecessary complexity, especially when owning a lot of games that aren't on the store.

- it’s unnecessary to play a game, ergo why have it at all
- it could be used to extract data from you
- if your not careful you lose control, ie. being updated all the time may not be good
- it has social features, social media is bad
- it could be used as third party control over your software

Therefore the cons far and away outweigh the positives. If you want to use a client and don’t mind being linked to the web, then why bother shopping here. Steam and epic and such like have far bigger and better catalogs, and most likely better clients. R

It's a client, installed on any pc and that's that.

I also do not hate it just see no reason for using it unless there would be some beta channel I would like to be in but then I could install Galaxy when that time comes.

Cloud saves? They work only sometimes so cannot be trusted hence I use my own backup (everyone has some kind of backup system in place for their computers, of course).

Achievements? I find them stressful so no thank you.

Gwent? No card games nor PtW for me, thank you.

Automatic updates? No no no! But a flag telling you there is an update with a link to a changelog and one click way to apply the update sounds good.

Social? I am social enough as is and all Facebook and whatnot would add stress I do not need.

Multi-player over Galaxy? I do not play MP, otherwise it would be a good reason to have the client.

Anything else not covered by some other scripts or program?

You answered your question yourself (with a lie): Galaxy should not be needed! I don't need it!

Except when it is needed because they made it mandatory for multiplayer... sigh, Galaxy is not needed yet it is needed.

So is it not needed? GOG keeps trying to shove it down our throats like dick. And then people who don't suck it are punished for it.

I don't want to suck it, and I don't want its DRM. I just want to play my games. Pls stop shoving it.

And I don't want games' releases to be delayed by stupid Galaxy features (that aren't needed??) that I won't use anyway. Yet it's happening

And I don't want games' Linux releases to be entirely held because they depend on Galaxy shit that .. isn't needed?? Yet it's happening. So much for not needed. Needed so badly that they can't release games without it.

Meanwhile GOG has stopped interacting with their community, and we never know what they are up to. Well, except one thing: Galaxy. Galaxy galaxy galaxy always fucking galaxy. Sorry, I did not join GOG in order to download yet another stupid game client. But based on what I see, that's all they are about now.

Because it's a client. It's an additional piece of software that would be installed and also running on my system, and even worse, ties to other programs and possibly how those launch, or being launched by them. I just want to have exactly the actual programs I actually want and use, directly, and fully under my control, nothing else, no "middlemen", nothing that can make changes without me saying so, definitely nothing that may update without me specifically wanting it to or restricting anything if not updated, etc.

I use it, but it is turned off most of the time.

Mainly when I look at a game's installation files and see that it has 7 parts and a million patches, I just say "eff it" and install through Galaxy. Also use it for updates (automatic ones are disabled of course).

And I started launching select games through it to test Galaxy 2.0.

But I vastly prefer a shortcut directly to the .exe to launch the game and not through the client. So I wouldn't call myself a hater but aside from the 2 things I mentioned above, not really needed.

First I dont "hate" Galaxy but I dont use it and I see issues with it. Most of those issues were already pointed out. I especially dislike the Linux thing. I want more Linux support and not less. Although currently I use Windows for gaming this may change in the future. And its a principles thing too. Windows (if "legal") has DRM, many Linux not so much. So if GOG is against DRM then why support Windows in such a manner that it excludes and disadvantages Linux?

Apart from other things already mentioned however I dont agree with this: GOG already has given up on various GOG principles and is in the process of giving up on this one too. Apart from GOG being bought by some other company I dont expect it to be an on-off switch but rather a slow process. As mentioned here Galaxy updates are generally earlier available than standalone updates. Its sometimes necessary to manually trigger support people just to get an update for an "offline installer". Many features incl multiplayer are available only per Galaxy. GOG is spying on Galaxy users. It may be possible to partially turn it off. I dont know. But normally it transmits time-played etc data to the GOG server. Otherwise it wouldnt be possible to see it in the account. So if you spend your day playing "The Sexy Brutale"(*) GOG will know.
But if you dont have Galaxy then GOG cannot associate your account to your gaming (**). So even if they spy on you its missing the connection. They would need to use some more sophisticated spying system then to connect the gaming with you or your account which is probably illegal under GDPR.

(*) I dont know the game. I just searched for sth in store whose name appeared "potentially offensive".

(**) Edit: I am assuming they dont watermark installers but I dont actually know this. It would probably cause a nasty image damage if they would so I dont think they do.

I don't hate Galaxy.

As a Linux user, I hate that I can't even try it.