Hello.

It appears that GoG is pushing updates to the GoG Galaxy client, that aren't pushed to the web interface (or at least with a significant delay). I can't see any technical reason for that, and it serves (intentionally or not) as a DRM (since you need the client to get the updates properly).
With GoG's policies fluctuating a lot (not for the best) lately, this is starting to add up to quite the amount of nuisances.

It would be nice to get this fixed or, at least, to have a (strong) explanation for that, as the lack of DRMs is (was?) the core of GoG's value.

Thanks in advance.

got any examples?

Well the problem became visible (or rather, obvious, since I had issues like that in the past, that I sort of ignored) to me with Everspace 2, where people using the client obtained a recent update almost a week ago, and no updates are available on the website at all. The devs themselves (and that's the "alarming" point) told GoG about it, and it apparently had no effects at all.
If they didn't managed to push the update, it could be about delays or so, but if they push the update for GoG Galaxy and not for the website, it is a bigger problem.

It sort of reminds the force updates to the v2 of Galaxy, which was a really crappy move to force users to use it (even though at the time it was still a bug-filled beta), and it is why it's even more worrying.

The delayed offline installer of the 1.12 patch for Cyberpunk could serve as such an example, but I would rather assign that one to sloppiness and not to any "pushing galaxy" agenda.

with the money they raked in with CP2077, i'm sure they can hire a skeleton crew to package offline installers for their users.

I really get frustrated with how people assume that DRM describes everything they don't like about a company/dev. DRM is just that: digital rights management. Online components and optional launchers are not DRM.

Online "components" which are the entire game or the primary focus of it, and which are inaccessible without some verification of purchase (through a launcher or otherwise) are locked behind DRM by doing so. And an "optional" launcher which is required to have access to the current stable version of a game can no longer be legitimately claimed to be optional. If that launcher requires a login to an account with a verified purchase on record before the game can be updated, that's also DRM.

I've seen both of those as the arguments you're denying. I haven't been directly affected by either, and haven't dug into them deep enough to verify the claims confidently. That said, assuming the claims are true (which you haven't claimed otherwise about so far), the position being held about these elements being DRM is sound.

Neither of those are DRM. They're simply online aspects of a specific game. By your logic here, all games with any sort of online component or multiplayer gameplay should be considered to be DRM-laden by default, which simply is not true. DRM is stuff like Steam, where you absolutely HAVE to use their client to play the game, you HAVE to run the latest patch unless you're running Steam in offline mode, where absolutely none of the rights of ownership of the game go to the consumer. As long as we still own the games we buy here and as long as the client remains optional (as it does; this particular patch was a one-off incident AFAIK), then it continues to be DRM-free.

All games with features that are locked behind a proprietary system can be considered to have DRMs. Access to the updates, in the case of EA games (and arguably, in all cases) is also part of those features.
A game allowing multiplayer through steam only is a game with DRM, but if it allows multiplayer through steam *and* private servers, it isn't.

The problem with DRMs is that they remove ownership on the games. If the company in control of the DRM decides it, they can just lock part of the game at will, and that's the problem with DRMs. And that's what GoG was supposedly fighting against. But by restricting updates (even if only temporarily) by locking them behind a launcher (which is not only more intrusive than a website, but also not compatible with, for example, linux computers) is effectively a form of DRM. Quite litterally, GoG told me through those restrictions, "you don't use our internet-dependant OS-specific launcher, so you don't get to have the update everyone else gets". That's a DRM, and if it doesn't bother you it doesn't mean that it isn't.

The most you could say, is that the old, already released versions of the game are DRM-free, as they can be downloaded freely and such; very well, but then the game itself isn't DRM-free, only part of it (in this case, the not-updated part).

That's not DRM, though. It may not be something good, it may not be ideal, but that doesn't make it DRM just because it's something a company does that we don't like. All I'm saying is that people are misunderstanding what DRM actually is and applying it to everything a studio or publisher does that they don't like, which is frustrating.

First thing: Plenty of games allow online play without account verification. That isn't an absolute and inviolable requirement for online play to exist. It is possible to have an entirely multiplayer-centric game with no such verification, or with verification being optional, not required. You can interact with the online portion of some games without needing a verified purchase of the game before you can get online. If you are unable to sign in to Steam and confirm your identity and that you have access to a game, you can't update it - BUT some games on Steam can be launched without the client so if such a game is behind on updates, you might still be able to launch it.

Second thing: If a game is locked behind an update - server-side checking being a way to do so - then not being able to get the latest update can lock you out of access to the game. In such a game, even by your own definition, not having access to the latest update would be functionally a form of DRM, because it blocks you from playing the game. Similarly, if a game launches in a broken state where it either is unplayable or becomes so rapidly, and the patch doesn't launch immediately outside of the launcher version, that makes the launcher DRM by your definition as well. Both of these are side-effects of normal non-DRM practices in games being interacted with by the things I'm saying are DRM, and becoming DRM even by your skewed definition.

A game company representative speaking out in support of something you don't like isn't DRM, but might be cause for you to boycott them. A game company being shown to rely on "crunch" is something many people dislike about CD Projekt themselves, along with a number of others. Nobody's claiming these issues, which aren't DRM, to be DRM. The only things that are being called DRM are the things which are acting as DRM.

DRM means Digital Rights Management.
This means it is technology which is built into an app (in our cases, games) which ensures that only paying customers are given access to the products they're paying for. It is in effect an anti-piracy measure. There are plenty of arguments on both sides about how viable/effective/worthwhile such measures are.

Games being "always online" and requiring an account to either be the account the game was purchased on, or to be linked to an account with a verified purchase from another platform, have DRM built into the way the game works. You can't access the game without it verifying that you paid for it, which is an entirely legitimate definition of DRM functionality. There are a number of features in many such games which are provided as a direct result of this mechanism, which makes this form of DRM somewhat justified, and reduces the arguments against it, but it is still BY DEFINITION a form of DRM. There is no valid ground on which to claim otherwise - and yet, people don't villify it even when acknowledging it to be DRM, because DRM isn't automatically evil in every form. Many gamers would even argue that GOG's "DRM-free" policy should exempt games for which the DRM is a required element in order to provide the functionality on which the game is built.

If I can't update an online game to the latest version because I don't use GOG Galaxy, and the game servers check for the latest version and refuse to let me play because I don't have it, I'm being locked out of that game by GOG Galaxy acting as DRM. The only way to update the game is to log into Galaxy with an account which has a valid purchase record for the game, because the truly DRM-free download of the game isn't the latest version and doesn't have access. This is DRM, and if a game does this, it is entirely accurate to state that it's DRM, and to state that it violates GOG's promise of DRM-free gaming. What makes this different from any other "you can play an out-of-date version of the game but not the current version" in relevant terms? Literally nothing. That is also still DRM. It locks content from the game away from paying customers until they provide verification of their payment to unlock that access. And it wholly blocks non-paying customers from any such access by tying the update to the account-protected version of the game.

This post has started an interesting conversation about what DRM is or what it is not. And I really mean that it's interesting.

However, I would also be very interested in knowing the answer to that original question - what is the reason for the non-Galaxy delays?

I know that only someone from GOG internals could answer it. In addition, if there would be some shady business going on, then that answer might possibly not describe the truth, but might be just carefully designed to calm down the overly curious.

There is "Hanlon's razor" ("never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by [some-other-bad-thing]"), so maybe it's just the result of some organisational issues, poor quality software (however, I'd rather suspect the Galaxy 2 - eternal beta - to be on the bad side), lack of tools or manpower, maybe?

So, why is it happening? Will it be fixed in the nearest future?

I made an answer that wasn't posted for some reason.

Short version: CDProjekt is "the largest video game industry company in Europe ahead of Ubisoft" (wikipedia). They can't afford to make "mistakes" like those, andeven though I'm not blaming GoG's team (which is probably doing what they can), this is CDP's responsibility and shouldn't be taken lightly. There have been many issues that appeared relatively recently that keep on piling up without ever being solved, and it is worrying; that's why they should be the main concern and be fixed quickly, before it's too late.

This is a problem and I suspect it is intentional on GOG's part to coerce people into using the Galaxy client. GOG's documentation says the process of updating the installers is "automated and will only take a few hours".

The game 'X3 warpack' just released an expansion which was instantly added to the installer. I bought a copy but it had several game-breaking bugs and developers confirmed that an update was added to GOG about half a week ago. The update was instantly available through Galaxy, but still isn't in the offline installer.

For those who don't know, the offline installers are simply packaged copies of the same data blocks the Galaxy client uses. As the simple packing process is automated, I can't think of any decent reason for such a long delay happening on a regular basis.

I encountered a game breaking bug in X3 about 2 days into gameplay. I had to wait about a week for the developers to release a fix, and now, since I don't use Galaxy, there's no telling how much longer I have to wait to actually be able to play the game.

It's been about a week since the developer loaded the update to GOG and the updated offline-installer for X3 War Pack is still not available. At very least, these consistent delays show a significant shift in GOGs business model. But, as I said earlier, I believe it is an intentional method to coerce users into adopting Galaxy. A motive is easily seen by reading GOG's privacy policy:

"When you use GOG services we may also collect the following information...
Details of your use of GOG services including, but not limited to: metrics information about when and how you use GOG services (such as what game(s) you are playing, your current status, your interactions with others); order status; order ID; traffic data; your geographical location; your purchase history; game library; emails received; and links accessed; your preferences and choices such as subscriptions, preferred language and currency; your friend lists on GOG; your communication via chat, game reviews, published posts on forum and other GOG services;"

"We may share your data only with the following categories of third parties...Advertising and advertising measurement partners to facilitate targeting, delivery and measurement of online advertising on third-party services"

"When we provide your information to these Trusted Partners, their use and disclosure of it is subject to limitations in our agreements with them"

Galaxy is a light form of DRM as threads here have made it clear that it checks if the game is in your GOG library and refuses to launch it if it is not. But I don't mind reasonable DRM, because piracy is generally destructive. This is about the changing internal mindset evidenced in GOG's activities.

They earned my loyalty because they treated gamers with respect. They sold games for people to play, simple, no BS. This abandonment of offline installers to force metrics on paying customers severely damages my respect and trust.