For him to say that, its the official line. Anything opposed to this by action will bring an almighty shitstorm...

I don't think that doing a bad thing for money makes it a good thing.

Perhaps I needed a [sarcasm] tag... :/

One would think so, but given how it makes little sense for Rebellion to excise things like private games from the GOG built, and how GOG were responsible for pushing out updates and dealing with feedback during the beta, I got the impression the entire process was in GOG's hands. Then again, I also believed that this was a very rough, almost proof-of-concept, test of the AvP Galaxy build, right up until they decided to go ahead and release it.

Whatever they're doing behind the scenes, it's not inspiring any degree of confidence out here :/

If I may be so bold, what do you need the list for?

Not sure that's quite the right quote for this situation. That quote's intended as opposed to the situation of only being able to download the game through GOG Galaxy. Basically what you are using *is* the standalone installer option. It simply comes with Galaxy integrated, but I assume use of it is optional. (Opt-out perhaps)

They did say that one of the reasons for the delay of GOG Galaxy was that they were still converting the store's installers to Galaxy ready installers. I imagine they'll all include it to some extent.

Yes this is confirmed. The hability to download standalone installers will always be there.

But I would like a clarification on your witched adventure problem. What happens when you try to play when offline?

I think they said the games were being reworked to be able to be installed with galaxy while keeping the standalone installer. Supposedly this means the same game can be installed with galaxy in a process similar to steam OR with the standalone installer, with galaxy not being involved in anyway.

Someone who knows where to find the original quote could help here. I read it but don't remember where...

Some new inglo on galaxy would be nice though. Originally we were supposed to have new info this year but even that promise was removed from the site. And build 0.2 sounds like it is really early in development still. Not even a screenshot.

I think it depends on how Galaxy works. I imagined that the actual client did all of the work and that there is no need to make any changes to the standalone installers.

I interpreted their talk of converting the store's installers to Galaxy ready as separate installers that would allow Galaxy to install games directly to your PC like Steam does and didn't believe that this had any effect on the standalone installers. Of course, I could certainly be wrong...

Standalone installer means one that you can download without using Galaxy (i.e. using the browser) it doesn't mean one without Galaxy functionality on it.

See my post above. I still think this is accurate and there will be standalone installers independent of Galaxy.

There was a bug in the first version where it refused to work offline; it's corrected in the current version which can be installed/played on a offline computer.
That's not how I understand it. I understand it as "you will be able to download games and patch without having to use Galaxy" not as "There will be two installer version one with Galaxy functionality and one without.

I suspect it will work similar to the few Steam games that are technically DRM-free(i.e. you can play them without Steam on an offline computer on which Steam was never installed) but still use Steamwork; it will probably means a bunch of extra Galaxy DLLs in the installer, if you start the game and Galaxy is running then the game with communicate with it, if Galaxy is not running then the game will simply start in "offline mode".

IMHO the current "Galaxy using" games are not really representative of what it will be as they are not really using Galaxy itself but embedding some of its features.

I really don't get that. I think the only real mistake they are making is - as so often with GOG - the lack of explanations and public statements. Maybe they could have released the current Galaxy client differently, they certainly should have made it more clear how temporary things are so far but they surely chose the method that is least problematic (aside from the client being automatically installed in a pre-defined directory, of course). Distributing a tiny launcher along with the games that support Galaxy multiplayer is probably the cleanest and most elegant solution at this point. Sadly most people only choose to see what the client isn't.

And that AvP Classic 2000 is a re-release without LAN play of a game that used to have it originally is just bad luck (or a bad choice for a Galaxy test run, depending on how you look at it).

Anyway, I *bet* that if GOG had chosen to distribute this temporary client individually and that client had some trivial GUI additions (like a list of games with Galaxy support installed and the ability to launch them from this launcher) people would be already going "OMG, it's almost finished! Galaxy is aaaawwweeesoooome!!!111". Really, that's how it works.

+1 to OP; see no reason for down-voting. Peace.

I have a theory but that one involves gambling, drugs and hookers so it's probably wrong.

There are 36 issues on the mantis tracker for AvP, and Gog has assigned, resolved, addressed, or even acknowledged a grand total of... 5. The last sign of any GOG activity on there dates from November 10. There is an outstanding issue with the copyright for the game's source code, which they, to my knowledge, have not even acknowledged; it was brought to their attention before the game even went on sale.

So no, their responsiveness really isn't inspiring any confidence, and if anything, they seem to be rushing some of their releases. I can only assume there's major crunch going behind the scenes, because otherwise I've got nothing...