Posted November 30, 2021
will I have to download backup installers to all the games that I bought in GOG because they are going to disappear?
koko200
New User
Registered: Feb 2011
From Israel
Timboli
Sharpest Tool On Shelf
Registered: May 2017
From Australia
Posted November 30, 2021
If they can't afford to pay for more staff, then yes that is very troubling.
If on the other hand they are having difficulty getting staff, then that's not so troubling.
That said, it seems to me that Support has been inundated since about this time last year. There appears to be much more demand being made on Support. They probably got behind with the fiasco involving Cyberpunk 2077 issues, then there seems to be many more taking advantage of the Refund system now. Various other factors in the last year appear to have made GOG busier, and by all accounts they are understaffed in relation to current needs.
The ongoing free games at Epic would not be helping, nor would anything Steam does to counter that.
Many other factors don't help. Galaxy and the new packaging of Offline Installers wouldn't have helped any. Added layers of complexity that are time consuming, especially when things go wrong.
Is the writing on the wall? I'm not so sure.
Personally I think GOG need to diversify and not have their eggs mostly in one basket. Possibly they see that as eventually needing to add more DRM elements into the store, but hopefully not.
The addition of movies didn't really work apparently. And while I think DRM-Free Ebooks would, it would be unlikely to make much money for them. It would however, be a great service to gamers, which movies kind of was, and that is really the only area they could maybe diversify into - services for gamers ... things to improve our gaming experience.
GOG have a tough task, competing against DRM stores. That involves some tricky doings.
And while some think GOG has grown too big, it is that bigness that can attract game providers, otherwise GOG is likely to become stagnant and dwindle. I don't envy them and their place in the world, though I have always admired their DRM-Free stance.
swaying_palm
New User
Registered: Nov 2020
From United States
Posted November 30, 2021
low rated
As far as I can tell, Cyberpunk and it's negative reception really did a number on the company. This is why I generally don't like publicly traded corporations. Now there is going to be a big transfer of resources from GOG to making sure whatever projects CDPR is working on get finished quickly.
GOG will have to further suffer from a cascade of consequences from poor management. Hopefully there is a thorough and honest internal analysis of why they aren't turning a profit. Everything will have to be itemized and a counter strategy formed and implemented to fend off negative perceptions about the financial potential of GOG's future.
Obviously their own internal leadership and employees need to take the lead on figuring things out, but input and community feedback shouldn't be discounted outright.
I think the stated refocus on a curated content is a smart move. Too often I come on GOG and see just page after page of indie pixel trash lining the coming soon page. Resurrecting more older games that are hard to acquire is the smartest move, followed by much older AAA games from 5 plus years ago. A few high profile and promising independent titles with some actual interest should be the priority in that sphere. A breakout indie hit will never happen on GOG.
I think GOG also needs to honestly abandon any search for broad mainstream appeal. GOG is an enthusiast platform, so it should cater to enthusiast needs. The people on these forums, the people who login to the Galaxy client everyday, the people who read the newsletters... those folk matter. If the free to play market is anything to go by, you don't need a large volume of people to make good money. GOG could extract more money from existing users and onboarding far fewer, but more loyal new blood.
The biggest mistake I think GOG is making is admitting they will move developers off of GOG. The Galaxy client needs work. If you go into the forums, users are already frustrated with broken or lacking features. At a time when the financial prospects of the enterprise seem shaky, the last thing you want to do is reduce resources maintaining the core of your service. Not updating Galaxy contributes to the perception that GOG is a ghost town, which will have the domino effect of making existing users reluctant to invest more into the service and new users to put in anything at all.
PLEASE KEEP SUPPORTING THE GALAXY CLIENT!
My only other suggestion is that GOG staff itself please communicate with the community about the changes, so we can be kept abreast of things. I really hope an admin or someone of importance steps into this topic and communicates with us. I know even if folk around here are ornery, they love this service. We want it to succeed. We should be a part of the communal process of figuring that out and achieving it.
GOG will have to further suffer from a cascade of consequences from poor management. Hopefully there is a thorough and honest internal analysis of why they aren't turning a profit. Everything will have to be itemized and a counter strategy formed and implemented to fend off negative perceptions about the financial potential of GOG's future.
Obviously their own internal leadership and employees need to take the lead on figuring things out, but input and community feedback shouldn't be discounted outright.
I think the stated refocus on a curated content is a smart move. Too often I come on GOG and see just page after page of indie pixel trash lining the coming soon page. Resurrecting more older games that are hard to acquire is the smartest move, followed by much older AAA games from 5 plus years ago. A few high profile and promising independent titles with some actual interest should be the priority in that sphere. A breakout indie hit will never happen on GOG.
I think GOG also needs to honestly abandon any search for broad mainstream appeal. GOG is an enthusiast platform, so it should cater to enthusiast needs. The people on these forums, the people who login to the Galaxy client everyday, the people who read the newsletters... those folk matter. If the free to play market is anything to go by, you don't need a large volume of people to make good money. GOG could extract more money from existing users and onboarding far fewer, but more loyal new blood.
The biggest mistake I think GOG is making is admitting they will move developers off of GOG. The Galaxy client needs work. If you go into the forums, users are already frustrated with broken or lacking features. At a time when the financial prospects of the enterprise seem shaky, the last thing you want to do is reduce resources maintaining the core of your service. Not updating Galaxy contributes to the perception that GOG is a ghost town, which will have the domino effect of making existing users reluctant to invest more into the service and new users to put in anything at all.
PLEASE KEEP SUPPORTING THE GALAXY CLIENT!
My only other suggestion is that GOG staff itself please communicate with the community about the changes, so we can be kept abreast of things. I really hope an admin or someone of importance steps into this topic and communicates with us. I know even if folk around here are ornery, they love this service. We want it to succeed. We should be a part of the communal process of figuring that out and achieving it.
Orkhepaj
SuperStraight Win10 Groomer Smasher
Registered: Apr 2012
From Hungary
amalek.92
New User
Registered: Jul 2014
From United States
Posted November 30, 2021
low rated
Galaxy 2.0 is one of the best things to happen to PC gaming in recent years. The ability to combine all my library is a necessity for me from then on. Then again, it's still got rooms for improvement. I could barely come to grips if the GOG store would have to be closed, but Galaxy 2.0 should live on as an all-in-one solution for PC games library. In a perfect world, though, both the store and the launcher are thriving.
Ancient-Red-Dragon
"Many messages from gamers" = Fake News!
Registered: May 2017
From United States
Posted November 30, 2021
low rated
Rather, the massive amounts of wasted money started because GOG decided to go all-in on their horrible "Galaxy 2.0" idea, and started dumping all their spare money (or so it seems, at least) into overly marketing & developing for the "all your games in one place" concept, which no one cares about.
That is, unless that "one place" is Steam, which is something people do care about having all of their games in that particular one place.
But contrary to GOG's very misguided beliefs, they can never be 'converted' to start wanting that one place to become Galaxy instead.
So, my point being: GOG having a Galaxy client in a basic form (i.e. like Galaxy 1.2 was/is) which offers good features like Achievements, Cloud Saves, playtime tracking, easy installation/uninstallation and launching of games, etc...with that kind of basic implementation, Galaxy isn't a problem in and of itself, and Galaxy helps GOG, not hurts GOG.
On the other hand, when they take things too far with Galaxy (i.e. like Galaxy 2.0 does), then that's when Galaxy suddenly starts to become a big problem for GOG.
But a lot of posts in this thread are asserting that Galaxy is inherently bad no matter what, regardless of any way that it could possibly be implemented. But that isn't so.
With no Galaxy client at all, then GOG would be probably be driving off many potential customers because GOG would have no ability to offer Cloud Saves, which is a vital feature in our modern day.
As for Axiom Verge, that didn't come to GOG because the dev wanted to be lazy and not give GOG customers an equal version of the game if he were to release it here. Him at least being ethical enough not to give GOG customers a gimped version is something he deserves credit for, and us being 'deprived' of having a gimped version here is a win for us, not a loss.
Leaving Achievements out of GOG games will please a certain segment of GOG's customers who hate Achievements, but on the other hand, it will also simultaneously alienate another segment of GOG's customers (like me) who resent being treated like second class citizens and receiving gimped, feature-removed versions of games, and who won't buy games that do that.
Whereas, giving all customers on all platforms equal treatment makes everyone happy, because even people who don't like Achievements won't be upset if a game includes them (especially since anyone who doesn't want them always has the choice never to use them), and they also won't refuse to buy any game due to them being included.
Orkhepaj
SuperStraight Win10 Groomer Smasher
Registered: Apr 2012
From Hungary
Posted November 30, 2021
low rated
Rather, the massive amounts of wasted money started because GOG decided to go all-in on their horrible "Galaxy 2.0" idea, and started dumping all their spare money (or so it seems, at least) into overly marketing & developing for the "all your games in one place" concept, which no one cares about.
That is, unless that "one place" is Steam, which is something people do care about having all of their games in that particular one place.
But contrary to GOG's very misguided beliefs, they can never be 'converted' to start wanting that one place to become Galaxy instead.
So, my point being: GOG having a Galaxy client in a basic form (i.e. like Galaxy 1.2 was/is) which offers good features like Achievements, Cloud Saves, playtime tracking, easy installation/uninstallation and launching of games, etc...with that kind of basic implementation, Galaxy isn't a problem in and of itself, and Galaxy helps GOG, not hurts GOG.
On the other hand, when they take things too far with Galaxy (i.e. like Galaxy 2.0 does), then that's when Galaxy suddenly starts to become a big problem for GOG.
But a lot of posts in this thread are asserting that Galaxy is inherently bad no matter what, regardless of any way that it could possibly be implemented. But that isn't so.
With no Galaxy client at all, then GOG would be probably be driving off many potential customers because GOG would have no ability to offer Cloud Saves, which is a vital feature in our modern day.
As for Axiom Verge, that didn't come to GOG because the dev wanted to be lazy and not give GOG customers an equal version of the game if he were to release it here. Him at least being ethical enough not to give GOG customers a gimped version is something he deserves credit for, and us being 'deprived' of having a gimped version here is a win for us, not a loss.
Leaving Achievements out of GOG games will please a certain segment of GOG's customers who hate Achievements, but on the other hand, it will also simultaneously alienate another segment of GOG's customers (like me) who resent being treated like second class citizens and receiving gimped, feature-removed versions of games, and who won't buy games that do that.
Whereas, giving all customers on all platforms equal treatment makes everyone happy, because even people who don't like Achievements won't be upset if a game includes them (especially since anyone who doesn't want them always has the choice never to use them), and they also won't refuse to buy any game due to them being included.
koko200
New User
Registered: Feb 2011
From Israel
Posted November 30, 2021
The problem is that I have over 1000 games in my library and it will take me ages to download it all (And I'm not sure that I have enough room on my computer)
is it possible to download your entire library using a script of something?
is it possible to download your entire library using a script of something?
Post edited November 30, 2021 by koko200
BanditKeith2
New User
Registered: Jun 2018
From United States
Posted November 30, 2021
Edited in as replies popped after mine despite me and Ancient-Red-Dragon disagreeing on matters I agree on early basic Galaxy set up being perfectly good and helpful all around not wasteful like the 2.0 ''games all in one place '' set up
Yes people have made such scripts I haven't used em but they are mentioned in varies threads
Post edited November 30, 2021 by BanditKeith2
Breja
You're in my spot
Registered: Apr 2012
From Poland
Posted November 30, 2021
high rated
I already have an "all-in-one solution for PC games". It's a folder called "games".
Just as you only care about yours. Your precious client is financed by all users, including the ones who don't want it, who get treated as second class citizens because of it, who had to stave off multiple attempts to force it onto them, who could have seen that money go to better support than a chatbot, a better forum etc.
You want to use Galaxy? Go ahead. But save me your sanctimonious, hypocritical outrage.
Just as you only care about yours. Your precious client is financed by all users, including the ones who don't want it, who get treated as second class citizens because of it, who had to stave off multiple attempts to force it onto them, who could have seen that money go to better support than a chatbot, a better forum etc.
You want to use Galaxy? Go ahead. But save me your sanctimonious, hypocritical outrage.
Post edited November 30, 2021 by Breja
BrianSim
DRM Refugee
Registered: Dec 2019
From United Kingdom
Posted November 30, 2021
high rated
Example 1 - Latest Divinity Original Sin offline installer is still bugged even after the devs posted to the GOG forum 2 years ago. GOG's solution to support tickets "just use Galaxy" is no solution at all. There's absolutely nothing at all to stop GOG from making a new offline installer version from the last known bug-free version because they obviously have those same files to make available via rollback. Instead after 2 continuous years, there is literally no bug-free offline installer available to download and offline installer users are obviously deliberately treated to a 2nd class experience.
Example 2 - Saints Row 3 Remastered doesn't save settings in offline installers, directly as a result of coding it especially for the Galaxy API. The bug was reported 6 months ago, and yet nothing has been done. The game settings are still broken. The only reason this bug exists is because Galaxy API increasingly gets shoved into offline installers where it isn't wanted or needed.
Example 3 - The list of outdated offline installers maintained by WinterSnowfall, some of which are a year old.
See above. Many of us would be happy with the option of Galaxy if it didn't keep breaking sh*t, "enhancing" GOG like a bull in a china shop. Someone wake me up when the above stuff is finally fixed and only then can we all sit down and have a grown-up conversation on the subject of "Galaxy is completely optional and doesn't negatively affect those who don't use it" because that simply isn't objectively true at all for some games at the moment and is exactly what's behind a lot of anti-Galaxy sentiment, whether you choose to acknowledge that or simply continue to call people "toxic haters" (for the 'crime' of wanting non broken games / equality of updates)...
Post edited November 30, 2021 by BrianSim
coffeecup
GOG is dead.
Registered: Mar 2010
From Vatican City
Posted November 30, 2021
That is, unless that "one place" is Steam, which is something people do care about having all of their games in that particular one place.
This community plugin also is badly engineered and has a continued history of crash causes / not synching due to bad programming and (in the beginning) not really counting in the throttling of the Steam API (which is clearly advertised in Valves responses) and not really that much complicated to take into account during sync.
Why the Steam plugin has been relegated to a community plugin.. well ask some GOG folks, but their burning passion in religiously badly copycatting the Steam API / data structures in their own messed up system and also avoiding Steam at all costs, even into outsourcing their Steam integration support, has backfired badly. Going into the bed with Microsoft and Epic has not yet paid off, I wonder why.
If Galaxy 2.0 had a better Steam integration and they would not lock their offline installers away in the dark corners, it would really fare better.
Best exit scenario would be ditching the GOG Galaxy client altogether and distributing PlayNite instead, alongside custom theme and a custom GOG plugin which also supports the whole cloud, achievements and downloads shebang (not only Galaxy Downloads, but also offline installers).
Yes, there is already a GOG Galaxy theme for available and with it, GOG Galaxy pales in comparison.
Post edited November 30, 2021 by coffeecup
JakobFel
Knight of Serenity
Registered: Apr 2017
From United States
Posted November 30, 2021
low rated
On some games, yes, but not most modern games unless the developer adds it (and that's no small task if the game is designed to have online-only multiplayer).
GroguSkywalker: Galaxy is not a problem, it is what made most users gog.
Galaxy is only a problem for the small community of toxic users on this forum.
What they would have to do is ban those problematic users, who are the mimes who have boycotted them and the main culprits that a non-drm store is failing.
The majority of gog users hardly write here because of those users of whom there are thousands of complaints on social networks. Well, I don't know if it's what made most people come to GOG but I do agree that it's only an issue among toxic people here, which is frustrating. I call this phenomenon the "Boycott Squad"; I suspect they still buy games in secret despite their constant complaints.
koko200: will I have to download backup installers to all the games that I bought in GOG because they are going to disappear? If you have the storage space, it wouldn't hurt to do so but I wouldn't worry about it. The only thing that concerns me is the possibility of them canning Galaxy, which would be a MAJOR problem since I enjoy both DRM-free gaming and a good, optional client that I can use when I want to (but I'm also not forced to use).
BrianSim: There wouldn't be half the negative backlash against Galaxy if there weren't a persistent stream of incidents where offline installers ended up a 2nd class experience from being abandoned with either unfixed bugs or outdated builds precisely due to an over-focus on Galaxy.
Example 1 - Latest Divinity Original Sin offline installer is still bugged even after the devs posted to the GOG forum 2 years ago. GOG's solution to support tickets "just use Galaxy" is no solution at all. There's absolutely nothing at all to stop GOG from making a new offline installer version from the last known bug-free version because they obviously have those same files to make available via rollback. Instead after 2 continuous years, there is literally no bug-free offline installer available to download and offline installer users are obviously deliberately treated to a 2nd class experience.
Example 2 - Saints Row 3 Remastered doesn't save settings in offline installers, directly as a result of coding it especially for the Galaxy API. The bug was reported 6 months ago, and yet nothing has been done. The game settings are still broken. The only reason this bug exists is because Galaxy API increasingly gets shoved into offline installers where it isn't wanted or needed.
Example 3 - The list of outdated offline installers maintained by WinterSnowfall, some of which are a year old.
No, most criticism I've seen comes from ordinary people who are getting tired of "optional" Galaxy's increasing un-optionality. Whether some people call it "DRM" or not is irrelevant when the reason most people want offline installers is just as much they don't want to be forced to use a client (especially for single player games) as they don't want DRM checks just to get the game to work properly and access the same content they paid the same money for in OFFLINE installers. Personally I don't want Galaxy cancelled ***IF*** it can be made to work reliably with no negative effect on offline installer users, but that clearly isn't matching up with the sales pitch. In some cases, that's on the devs, not GOG and it's not the fault of Galaxy either. Devs favor clients because, to my knowledge, it makes it a lot easier to publish games, deploy updates and engage with the community. Even so, I agree that offline installers need to be treated equally, I'm just saying that it's not Galaxy's fault and no, that is not why people hate Galaxy. Not even in the least. People here hate Galaxy because they have a poor definition of DRM and want everyone to have the experience that they prefer. It's so childish. Galaxy IS still optional, whether the haters want to admit it or not. It has never been forced for ANYTHING other than Gwent and that's just because that's an online-only game by design.
As I said, I agree that offline installers need to be kept up to date but sadly, most haters and critics of Galaxy are nowhere near as reasonable about it as you are. If more people were only critical about it in the ways you are, I could actually stand alongside you guys even though I'm a huge fan of Galaxy, because I want everyone to have a great experience with my favorite games site. But like I said, unfortunately, the Boycott Squad literally wants them to cancel Galaxy because it's "DRM" according to them and because they despise the fact that not everyone outright HATES clients... myself included.
Personally, I've never hated the idea of games clients, I just hate that they're required. Before I discovered GOG, my biggest issue with Steam was that they required me to play my games while running the client. When I discovered GOG, I loved the fact that I didn't have to use any client, I could just download my games and play like I used to. When I found out that GOG had an OPTIONAL client, I was ecstatic because I love the concept of an optional client to organize and manage my games, I just don't like being forced to use it; I like having the option to play 100% offline if I want.
Galaxy is only a problem for the small community of toxic users on this forum.
What they would have to do is ban those problematic users, who are the mimes who have boycotted them and the main culprits that a non-drm store is failing.
The majority of gog users hardly write here because of those users of whom there are thousands of complaints on social networks.
Example 1 - Latest Divinity Original Sin offline installer is still bugged even after the devs posted to the GOG forum 2 years ago. GOG's solution to support tickets "just use Galaxy" is no solution at all. There's absolutely nothing at all to stop GOG from making a new offline installer version from the last known bug-free version because they obviously have those same files to make available via rollback. Instead after 2 continuous years, there is literally no bug-free offline installer available to download and offline installer users are obviously deliberately treated to a 2nd class experience.
Example 2 - Saints Row 3 Remastered doesn't save settings in offline installers, directly as a result of coding it especially for the Galaxy API. The bug was reported 6 months ago, and yet nothing has been done. The game settings are still broken. The only reason this bug exists is because Galaxy API increasingly gets shoved into offline installers where it isn't wanted or needed.
Example 3 - The list of outdated offline installers maintained by WinterSnowfall, some of which are a year old.
No, most criticism I've seen comes from ordinary people who are getting tired of "optional" Galaxy's increasing un-optionality. Whether some people call it "DRM" or not is irrelevant when the reason most people want offline installers is just as much they don't want to be forced to use a client (especially for single player games) as they don't want DRM checks just to get the game to work properly and access the same content they paid the same money for in OFFLINE installers. Personally I don't want Galaxy cancelled ***IF*** it can be made to work reliably with no negative effect on offline installer users, but that clearly isn't matching up with the sales pitch.
As I said, I agree that offline installers need to be kept up to date but sadly, most haters and critics of Galaxy are nowhere near as reasonable about it as you are. If more people were only critical about it in the ways you are, I could actually stand alongside you guys even though I'm a huge fan of Galaxy, because I want everyone to have a great experience with my favorite games site. But like I said, unfortunately, the Boycott Squad literally wants them to cancel Galaxy because it's "DRM" according to them and because they despise the fact that not everyone outright HATES clients... myself included.
Personally, I've never hated the idea of games clients, I just hate that they're required. Before I discovered GOG, my biggest issue with Steam was that they required me to play my games while running the client. When I discovered GOG, I loved the fact that I didn't have to use any client, I could just download my games and play like I used to. When I found out that GOG had an OPTIONAL client, I was ecstatic because I love the concept of an optional client to organize and manage my games, I just don't like being forced to use it; I like having the option to play 100% offline if I want.
Alexim
Dark Lord of the Sith
Registered: Mar 2015
From Italy
Posted November 30, 2021
low rated
I imagine most of GOG's active users have arrived here because of the DRM free philosophy or because of the old games. This was not my case. I arrived here because of the Galaxy announcement, still in its first version.
Despite being primarily a console gamer, I've always had moderate activity as a PC gamer. Like almost everyone else, I only bought and played stuff on Steam, because until that moment (2015) I didn't even know of the existence of other stores of the genre (understand that the vast majority of PC gamers never even heard of GOG). Turns out, while I liked Steam's social features, I was increasingly hating the smog the store was becoming, with hundreds of dubious releases every day and an increasingly grim interface.
When a friend shared a news about the Galaxy launch on a WhatsApp group, I was surprised not only to be unaware of the existence of GOG, but also to see an opportunity there to "relocate" myself as a PC player from a community leaner and that seemed to be blooming very well. Then later I started reading about DRM (I didn't even know what it meant!) and I REALLY enjoyed the curation service for stopping the store from polluting.
That's how it started. It was thanks to Galaxy that I became a DRM free advocate and active consumer of this store, and I have never, EVER bought ANYTHING on Steam again.
Galaxy continues to be a vital resource for me on this platform, mainly due to its clean interface, no pollution, and without giving up, of course, the DRM Free philosophy, which I came to know, respect, adhere to and share.
Whether GOG is making mistakes with managing the Galaxy 2.0, like consuming resources to create an Epicstore game purchase tool (which I think is complete nonsense) or an exaggerated focus on building connection to all other platforms (the big marketing behind galaxy 2.0), this doesn't negate the importance of the Galaxy.
Wrong, then yes, is the strategy of focusing on an audience that does not care for the philosophy of DRM free or quality of service, giving up organic users, who request resources such as updating the forum, store and and better servers, for example, years ago!
We can discuss if the 2.0 version is really worth the investments made, but in this case only GOG has all the data to be able to make a decision, and in case it hasn't paid off they will surely cut something, but Galaxy is here to stay.
Chromanin
New User
Registered: Apr 2009
From Belgium
Posted November 30, 2021
So what ultimately separates Bioshock on GOG vs Bioshock on Steam (which is as old today as Windows 95, Descent, Command & Conquer, Full Throttle, etc, were when GOG launched in 2008)? It's ultimately just DRM-Free, not the age or classic-ness of the game, as age is a moving target and every new game will become old over time...
But they can carve out their niche by providing a higher quality for the titles that they do offer, and then specifically old games that are more difficult to run on current day machines. Do a mini remastering where widescreen support is enabled, or various mods with agreement and/or payout of the original author. And then ask for a reasonable fee, 20, 30 or even 50$ for all of the additional effort that’s required. Don’t do preservation efforts like this for penny change. DRM shouldn’t be the main selling point but just one attribute for what is considered a quality release.
And they can do all this effort focusing on their back catalogue. Proper communication and transparency will help people to understand why it costs to preserve good old games. Not just to make them run as they did before, but at their best with all the bells and whistles.
I think a really big win in this space would be legitimizing emulators to run old console titles. That would be a big win. Starting from small players of old systems to test out the waters.
Post edited November 30, 2021 by Chromanin