hmmmm...

1 * 3 TB internal
512 GB SSD
2 * 2 TB (USB)
2* 3 TB (USB)
aaand my old 1 TB internal (But all with me ;) )

OK, you have beaten me fair and square ;)

And same for me ;) (the last part)

Which is kind of expected as a lot of platforms have been closed by the original devs so GOG had to get a replacement and if they are already doing it, why not for all MP-games?

But to my experience (not using MP) single player games are not affected.

Not really. Galaxy operates in a similar fashion to the consoles really.

PSN, Xbox Live and Nintendo Network all support matchmaking, statistics, leaderboards, community features and voice chat. PSN and Xbox Live both support achievements. But you don't have to have an account with PSN, Live or NN to run any of those games. The games for these platforms can use these features, but don't have to. In fact, certification in the majority of cases is contingent on the game being able to run offline (exceptions being inherently online games like Elder Scrolls Online).

There are publishers out there that use Steam for little more than as a glorified DRM system, that much is true, and GOG will continue to struggle to get those publishers on board.

But the fact remains that many other games are developed to make use of the kinds of standardisation features that Steam, UPlay, Origin, PSN, Live and NN offer. The DRM is a secondary concern and often an unfortunate side-effect of being forced to use Steam (especially with retail versions). GOG had to pass on many of these games because it didn't offer any of these social features.

Regardless of what you think of such features, it's a certainty that gamers - and publishers - want these features.

Cr-cro-cross play?! well fuck! I need the list!

The client thing didn't bother me. I have quite a few physical (uplay, origin, steam) games that just sit and gather dust because I just don't want to be a part of it anymore.

As for options, even if I didn't have a choice and _insert client here_ was the only option, I won't take it. Self control and all that noise :3

Why the f*ck did you ever bothered????

The maximum I did accept was Steam ( Oh lord ,) ).....But anything else, I feel like screw myself...
Hence, even ´free´ games not anymore!!!!

I am so fed up with a gazillion whatsoever being installed just for game XYZ.....

Wow, OP got down-repped?

These boards are really starting to slide downhill.

Okay sure... thanks for the input. I'm not saying I bought the games and did nothing with them (DERP).

True, but there are very easy ways of making games from other stores offline-friendly too. Granted, it's not as simple as GOG's single download, but even they're already making it harder to do by hiding the regular downloads under 'More', heavily pushing Galaxy's Steam-like features. Many new users aren't even aware of the ability to download offline backups!

Actually, a lot of car places do have that option and many people do pick up their car some period of time later. Obviously not months, but days-weeks? Yes.
And anyway, you also have to remember that many people now using GOG have come from Steam, which was effectively 'download as you play', so a lot of users continue to do that.
Also, when sales come along, people will often buy large numbers of games at a time and it's impractical to go and download all of them at once. Then there's the issue that GOG has had in the past with 'removed games' temporarily disappearing from libraries just minutes-hours after purchase (though I'm guessing with the new library system, that probably won't be a problem anymore).
Plus that's not to mention the inherent risk (albeit very small) with hard drive failure.

Call it naiveté, but a lot of users don't really even consider the possibility of GOG disappearing and so put a lot of faith in the idea that their games will always be here waiting for them.
Personally, I download all of my games immediately upon purchase, but I don't think it'd be fair to put sole blame on the consumer for not downloading everything straight away.

Of course these are all natural risks one takes when buying download-only games, from an online store, and GOG is significantly better than any other, but it's still worth noting. :p

I understood you ;) It is just that I don´t even let them collect dust anymore ;)

Even the dust is too good for them ;)

BURN THEM! :P

Common sense and logic speaking here. This is exactly the point.
It`s like in the early days when companies would say your Broadband was `Unlimited` when it actually wasn`t. Unlimited means without a limit! Similary, OPTIONAL should mean you do not have to use GOG Galaxy to play ANY GAME IF YOU DON`T WISH TO.

I`m getting tired of companies telling half truths and expecting us to be stupid enough not to question it. QUESTION we should, otherwise they`ll keep doing it.

This is why I get worried when I see GOG playing with the truth like this. It`s an early, but not good sign, so we need to start watching them.

I hate saying this cos I like to see the GOG guys as like us, the PLAYER, yet I thought this with Valve a long time ago and look what happened there. The $$ can blind many and make them forget their roots.

I would also advise anyone to start saving their games to disc, before GOG further alters things - just as a precaution, you understand.

Currently, it does mean exactly that. There is not a single GOG game that requires you to run Galaxy. Will it change in the future? Who knows? Maybe GOG will even shut down in the future before it comes to this.

Good. If they have the principles they originally started with, then I would expect them to shut down first, however I truly hope it doesn`t come to that. I actually want GOG to be more successful than all the big names togther on their `no drm` principle. Imagine what a huge message that would send those competitors? It would certainly be a kick in the teeth for Steam, which chooses to ignore many who want an option of not using Steam.

Unlikely, but I`d love to see it happen.

Did you order Code Red?!

I keep wanting to participate in some way, but I'm not entirely sure what it is being said or being wanted. Is the goal that every game should work without the client, or that every game should operate the same without the client even features that are inherently (or inherent by practicality) to a client, or that the better more typically desired experience shouldn't be given foreground advantage because then people would be less aware of their options?