One could argue that video games are unnecessary and computers are unnecessary, that we have no need for them. And they'd be correct too, mankind has lived for thousands of years without these pleasantries.

That's what it's really all about though isn't it - pleasantries, things that available to us that can simplify our lives. Like the Logitech G600 20 button mouse I bought. Is that a necessity? Not by a long shot. Was I forced to buy it? Of course not. I chose to buy it because it was an option that was available to me and which I perceived would give me a set of conveniences that I found personally desirable which would save me time and effort and improve the end user experience I get from my computer, video games and other software. My perception was correct in that it did just that for me. Now would everyone desire this functionality? Probably not and the cool thing is that they don't have to spend money and buy it because it isn't necessary and they do not perceive it would provide them with value for the money it cost, while I on the otherhand did. They're not forced to buy it, and so they can have what they desire (regardless of any necessity) and I can have the experience which I desire. They don't need to even know that the device exists, and they could even balk at the idea of why anyone else would even want to own such a thing. They don't need to understand the device, nor the customer the device was designed for however for it to be useful to someone else.

It's much the same for things like an optional game client. It's about whether such software can provide a valuable service and convience to someone and whether anyone out there perceives it to be of value to them and desires it. Not because they absolutely have to have it, but because like all humans - we desire conveniences that make our experiences better, and some people see pieces of software like this to be just that - something that would make their personal experience better. Being an optional thing, it would be something that would be used by people who do in fact perceive value in it and it would be ignored and not used by people who do not see value in it. Both groups of people can have it the way they would like to have it and the community of people who are enjoying their personal experience at an increased rate grows. Everyone rejoices and smiles at each other, happy that they are able to have the experience they'd each like to have and the freedom to choose what that is individually without one's own preferred way of doing things infringing upon someone else's.

It's about individual choice not about necessity, and recognizing that different people have different preferences and that it is possible for everyone to have what they would like to have without there being consequences for those who like it the way it is.

Clients are good things. I would bet the issues you have with Steam and Origin are not inherent to clients, just choices those clients made.

I do. Clients make it much easier to manage my very large collection of games. If i had to manage each one of my 900+ games on Steam manually i would be fucked.

And do you know what OPTIONAL means? No one here is asking for a mandatory client, people are just suggesting that GOG should give the option of using a client to those who want it. That's all.

I'd be wary of a client because it could lead to developers or GOG being lazy and no longer providing standalone patches, requiring an Internet connection to a gaming machine in order to update.

At present, I consider the current problems with patching newer games to be growing pains. Obviously, it would have been nice to have it right from the start, and criticism is needed to prompt GOG to better their service (I, too, was annoyed to have to download the entire game again to update SW, and I complained), but at this point I trust that there will be improvement going forward. We've already seen some improvements from the initial process: patch notes posted in the game forums and game version number listed in addition to the GOG patch number on the download page.

One thing I want is for the base installers to always be updated to the latest version (preferably for all games but at least for games not being frequently patched). I don't perceive any sense in having to download the base installer AND a patch installer to get the latest version.

I dont like it either, it's hard to tell when the patch is up and having to download the whole game is bad for us the users and for the gog site too (bandwidth use) so an stand alone patch will be great I hope we can see it implemented in the near future.

You're saying that like they already are not.

Nonsense.

Kind of funny considering the many errors, bugs, crap and shit that gets put into packages. Got to love uninstalling a GOG game breaking up things left and right in the Registry.