It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
_Auster_: Well... There are some super rare cases where a game on Itch.io needs the launcher for multiplayer, but I don't remember seeing more than 2 games that needed it, and I often check Itch.io. But aside from those, I too don't think there's any differences between downloading directly or through the launcher.
avatar
Arcadius-8606: I'm curious. Which games?
That's not related to the games I remember having seen, but it's worth a read:

https://forum.unity.com/threads/released-itchworks-unity-itch-integration.453615/

Specially the last part of the announcement:

Don't like itch.io because of the lack of DRM? It's understandable. If you're making an online multiplayer game you need it. Therefore we've added it.

- DRM Purchase Validation
- Anti-Crack Measures

Optionally, you can force players to use the Itch App (for 100% DRM) by checking if they are using the App or not. (Shown in Example/Demo)

In-Development Features:
- DLC / In-Game Rewards
- Itch Login w/o Itch App (view documentation for info)
- Playmaker Integration
On a side note, since when do you need DRM on multiplayer? Just use LAN for multiplayer or some other self-hosting multiplayer tool and you're set.
Post edited May 23, 2021 by _Auster_
avatar
_Auster_: On a side note, since when do you need DRM on multiplayer? Just use LAN for multiplayer or some other self-hosting multiplayer tool and you're set.
Thanks for the info. For the past 20 years or so my family and some friends have been gathering for LAN gaming with stuff like Doom (1993), UT99, Quake, Xonotic and such.

I hosted since I had the biggest place and I also had a LAN/Arcade gaming basement. When the pandemic hit that ended so a great many never messed with modern gaming at all. Just had their original disc and copies of their games. So we tried a bunch of stuff GOG to Steam and others. In the end, the easiest thing to game with was stuff like Xonotic, Fightcade, Stadia and some other web based games because everyone had different types of setups.

I hardly ever game'ed online. My wife was active in the UT99 and Fightcade scene for years and a few friends used Steam. My kids are mostly on here and Stadia now.

Going through our library too many games required some other thing here or there so ppl were tapping out left and right.

The older stuff we still play but not as much as ppl are tapped out on it and many of our grandkids and younger folks are just not interested in it as much.

Now it's better we been messing a lot more with Stadia cross-platform stuff and some games on itch.io like Deadswith 3 and Invisigun Reloaded.

It just sucked to learn how many GOG titles are crippled without Galaxy.
avatar
InSaintMonoxide: Does anyone here have info on how the process of making / releasing offline installers works on gog? Is it really a manual process or is it automated?
avatar
Darvond: TL:DR: Allegedly automated, but so poorly advertised/documented as to be missed by most devs.
For the context of what the OP actually asked (ie. the lack of separate offline patches with some games, where only the main game installer is updated), I guess the relevant question is whether the creation of those separate offline patches is automated as well, and what exactly decides whether they get created or not.

I at least presume there are some extra steps (=work) into creating them, or then it depends how the developer performs the update of their game on GOG (do they e.g. replace only the changed files, or do they delete all the game files and then upload the whole updated game, and GOG does not try to figure out itself what exactly has changed, in order to create a separate patch installer on top of the updated main installer...).

Maybe some game developer that releases their games on GOG could shed light on that, but then they are under NDA or whatever.
Post edited May 23, 2021 by timppu
avatar
Ancient-Red-Dragon: What happened is: GOG is trying to go where the money is.
And where the money is, is not via selling offline installers, unfortunately.
IMO in the future, sooner or later, offline installers on newly-released games will probably be made optional on GOG. They are a dying breed which are fast going the way of the Dodo.
avatar
tfishell: You're being downvoted but in this case I tend to agree. However, I think offline installers will be around longer than some here expect, the PR would likely be pretty awful no matter how GOG spins it.
I think the offline installers are "still" here because that is one of the main things that still differentiate GOG from other (bigger) digital stores, even among users who also use Galaxy.

I mean, if GOG completely abolished offline installers, what would be the reason to buy a game on GOG, if it was available also on e.g. Steam and EGS as well, and for many people cheaper too, and with a bigger multiplayer community?

One angle that GOG seems to be trying is make Galaxy "the client to rule them all" ie. you can control (run) also your Steam, Epic etc. games through it... but as they seem to be dabbling also with the idea that people can also buy games from those other stores using Galaxy, we come back to the same question that what would be the incentive to buy the GOG version of a game then, even when using Galaxy?

If the ability to buy other store's games with Galaxy becomes a full feature, then frankly I feel GOG is shooting themselves in the foot, at least when it comes to GOG remaining as a viable store. Maybe in the future they'd drop the ability to buy GOG games with Galaxy altogether, and Galaxy would merely be a common client to buy games from various stores (and "GOG" hopes to either get a small cut through those sales, or at least get some advertisements money through the client).
avatar
StingingVelvet: My recommendation is to use Galaxy for new release games getting patches, then download the offline installer as as archive version once the game is finished. That's what I do.
That is also I'd advise for people like the OP, if the lack of separate offline installer patches is really an issue for them. At that point it is probably far easier and less headache just to use a client which updates the game for you, even automatically if you want. Especially important with in-dev and online multiplayer games that can receive updates frequently, and with multiplayer games it can be important that all players are using the same version anyway.

However:

avatar
StingingVelvet: Even if you hate having Galaxy running you don't need to, you can just run it to patch the game and otherwise launch without it.
Don't GOG games generally launch Galaxy, if Galaxy is installed and you try to start the game with e.g. the desktop or Start menu shortcut to the game? Even those games that you have installed using the offline installers, not Galaxy?

So to avoid that, you need to create separate shortcuts manually to all your installed GOG games, and it is not always only about "just find the exe and create a shorcut to it", as many games also require various extra options and switches in the shortcut to run properly (like, I think, all DOSBox games need to be told which dosbox config files to use, and at least in the past Thief Gold needed a switch to tell the game that it is running in "Windows XP" (was the option something like "-ntlg" or somesuch) as otherwise it would fail to launch the game).

avatar
StingingVelvet: I know some hate the idea of even installing Galaxy though, for whatever reason.
I would probably have it installed (and I already tried once in the past, but back then Galaxy installation would not work for me), but nowadays I don't because:

- what I just described above, ie. to my understanding my GOG games would try to launch Galaxy every time I just want to play the game. To avoid that, there'd be the inconvenience of having to create extra shortcuts manually.

- I also have a couple of GOG games installed on my work laptop, and I prefer not installing any online (gaming) clients on it, be it for security reasons or whatever. I presume an offline installed single-player game doesn't offer similar attack vectors (as installed online gaming clients do) to cyber criminals.

https://blog.checkpoint.com/2020/12/10/game-over-vulnerabilities-on-valves-steam-put-hundreds-of-thousands-gamers-at-risk/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2019/08/09/critical-steam-security-warning-issued-for-72-million-windows-10-gamers/?sh=1fabb91835e1

https://www.positronsecurity.com/blog/2020-08-13-gog-galaxy_client-local-privilege-escalation_deuce/

- I prefer installing and running my GOG games with the offline installers, because then I also get to test that the offline installers actually work. After all, we've had cases where the offline installer has e.g. missed some feature or had not enabled some DLC it was supposed to enable, and those would not have been caught unless some people actually use those offline installers, instead of merely downloading and archiving them.

I recall one of the newer Deus Ex games was like that (and GOG later fixed it when they were made aware of it), and I think I also noticed something possibly with Battlefleet Gothic: Armada 1 or 2. At least it was unclear to me how to access some DLC or something, when I ran the game which was installed using the offline installer; I think I asked about that here in the forums, I need to look into that more...

- In general I just see the extra client running as an extra nuisance, when just trying to install and play a single-player game that hasn't received updates for years.

In Steam this is causing me "problems" (or at least inconvenience) already because I generally let my son use my (main) Steam account to play Team Fortress 2 (a free-to-play online FPS game) as it has more inventory space and more items (weapons etc.) and he likes to try them all out.

So I use the secondary Steam account I originally created for him, and play TF2 on it with less items and less inventory space. That's fine I guess.

But now, if I wanted to install and play some single-player game from my own Steam library (I have several hundreds of games on Steam as well), I can't download and install them with this account while my son is using my Steam account.

I guess one option would be that I logged out of this secondary account and install the game with that main account, but I haven't tested if that is possible while he is playing another game with that same account. Maybe it is. Or then at least some Steam games apparently offer some kind of "family share" option so that family members can download and install games from your Steam library, but then you have to take extra steps to tell Steam which users are those family members eligible for using your games.

Either way, those are still extra hoops to jump through and extra inconvenience, compared to me just logging into the web page, download an offline installer, and install it, regardless of what my son is doing on another PC with my (GOG or Steam) account.

I guess I need to educate myself what restrictions, if any, there are to using the same Steam account on several PCs, at the same time. I think at least running the same game on two or more different PCs using the same Steam account is blocked by default, but maybe it is possible to install and run different games... Either way, educating myself about those possible restrictions (and remembering them) is an extra inconvenience that I don't have with e.g. GOG offline installers.

avatar
StingingVelvet: In that case you'll just have to deal with the patch delays, as no one else is offering anything close to the same offline installer option.
I know this discussion has already gone beyond the scope that the OP intended, but just to remind that he was not complaining about lack of or delays in offline updates, but the lack of separate offline patches on many GOG games, meaning you have to redownload and reinstall the whole game with offline installers.

But as you suggested, maybe the best solution for that is using Galaxy with its autoupdate and delta-update features.
Post edited May 25, 2021 by timppu
high rated
avatar
timppu: I know this discussion has already gone beyond the scope that the OP intended, but just to remind that he was not complaining about lack of or delays in offline updates, but the lack of separate offline patches on many GOG games, meaning you have to redownload and reinstall the whole game with offline installers.

But as you suggested, maybe the best solution for that is using Galaxy with its autoupdate and delta-update features.
The bottom line for me is that as a non-Galaxy user, I pay the same price for a game that a Galaxy user pays, so I would expect the same level of support that a Galaxy user receives. If this is not going to be the case, then I would like to see some transparency from GOG with a statement detailing the differences in offline installer vs. Galaxy support.
avatar
timppu: Don't GOG games generally launch Galaxy, if Galaxy is installed and you try to start the game with e.g. the desktop or Start menu shortcut to the game? Even those games that you have installed using the offline installers, not Galaxy?
The shortcut they put on your desktop launches Galaxy, yeah. You can just make a new shortcut though. No Galaxy game (other than the perennial exception of Gwent) forces you to use the client to run it, as far as I know.


avatar
mikebert: The bottom line for me is that as a non-Galaxy user, I pay the same price for a game that a Galaxy user pays, so I would expect the same level of support that a Galaxy user receives. If this is not going to be the case, then I would like to see some transparency from GOG with a statement detailing the differences in offline installer vs. Galaxy support.
They've been pretty up front about offline patches taking longer, I'm pretty sure. It also makes logical sense considering they take more work. I also doubt they divide their user base in the way you suggest, and understand different use cases have their own quirks. McDonalds taking longer to get you your food inside than if you used the drive-thru isn't considered an insult to indoor customers, it's just a fact of life aspect of the business.

I would also guess the "I refuse to install Galaxy no matter what" portion of the GOG user base is a lot smaller than this forum would have you believe.
avatar
StingingVelvet: I would also guess the "I refuse to install Galaxy no matter what" portion of the GOG user base is a lot smaller than this forum would have you believe.
This bluetext post might interest you, if you haven't already seen it.
avatar
mikebert: The bottom line for me is that as a non-Galaxy user, I pay the same price for a game that a Galaxy user pays, so I would expect the same level of support that a Galaxy user receives. If this is not going to be the case, then I would like to see some transparency from GOG with a statement detailing the differences in offline installer vs. Galaxy support.
+1. This is the point.
The fact that I don't need to install a client is one of the reasons I'm using GOG over larger stores like Steam. If GOG removes offline installers, I would either have to look for alternative stores that don't require clients....or cave in and start using larger stores with a larger selection of games and more timely updates.
Post edited May 24, 2021 by SpaceMadness
avatar
timppu: I mean, if GOG completely abolished offline installers, what would be the reason to buy a game on GOG
From GOG's point of view, the reasons would be:

a) "a curated selection of games" and
b) all of your DRM-infested games in one place.

Granted, those are actually terrible reasons that won't ever convince anyone to buy games on GOG.

But nevertheless, GOG still thinks they are great selling points, and GOG is acting in accordance with that mindset, as highly incorrect as those beliefs are.

Hence the lurch in recent years towards more DRM on GOG, and the ever-increasing pushing of Galaxy which just gets worse & worse as time goes on, and the neglect of offline installers, etc.

GOG seems to be thinking that once they gain enough customers who are attracted by those two new selling points, the new customers will supplant their original customer base, and hence DRM-free on GOG won't matter much any more.
with all the sales from cyberpunk2077, they could afford to hire a skeleton crew that is solely responsible for updating the offline installers.
avatar
StingingVelvet: They've been pretty up front about offline patches taking longer, I'm pretty sure. It also makes logical sense considering they take more work. I also doubt they divide their user base in the way you suggest, and understand different use cases have their own quirks. McDonalds taking longer to get you your food inside than if you used the drive-thru isn't considered an insult to indoor customers, it's just a fact of life aspect of the business.

I would also guess the "I refuse to install Galaxy no matter what" portion of the GOG user base is a lot smaller than this forum would have you believe.
My issue is that offline installer patch files often aren't released at all. I am not sure why you keep talking about patches being delayed. GOG is not "up front" at all about the process for updating offline installers. My understanding is that GOG generates the patch files when updates are received from the developer. The same patch should be applied to both the offline installer and the Galaxy version.
avatar
InSaintMonoxide: I was asking because a lot of people here seem to be claiming that offline installers are basically done by hand on gog, and are therefore an annoyance to the staff. But from the way i understand the GOG.com Team member Thiev's statement in this thread

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/game_updates_only_available_with_galaxy_now_is_this_going_to_be_a_regular_thing

this doesn't seem to be the case. So i'm really confused about what info i have missed that makes people think everything is a tedious, manual process.
To be fair, I don't think the limited statement rules out some manual aspect, that they have gotten behind with.

That said, I don't see that GOG are responsible for the content of an update, just how it is packaged maybe. So whether a patch is small or big would logically be down to what the DEV/PUB provide.

So how much pressure GOG can bring to bear on them to provide more reasonably sized patches, I just don't know ... probably very little if any.

Where GOG really do fail in my opinion, is limiting how long offline patch versions are available ... and as has been noted many times before, this is probably due to their Galaxy push.

I don't think GOG will get rid of Offline Updates (and Installers) any time soon, but what they may be working towards, is only making them available through Galaxy and their SDK. This means browser links may eventually go the way of the Dodo, perhaps sooner rather than later.
Post edited May 24, 2021 by Timboli
avatar
Seb3.7: The truth is we are building a system for the system, just to keep it in a gear, while the system is for people we are forgetting about it. I haven`t registered any aliens, monsters, hostile A.I., or secret plans to destroy everything. This is We. We are building the system and we are getting tired of keeping it up, so we sacrificing ourselves just to keep it going.
I'm glad i'm not the only one who noticed, but this is worth another topic.
Wrong.
We are the system. We are building it for ourselves and for the future of this place and people. The first and priority issue is human, not one but all. And humans differ, some want automatic installers, some want manual, everyone wants to be updated in an unobtrusive way and safe.
We are aiming for the pro-human system whatever that means, it is for us and has to make us feel good.
Nobody said it would be easy ^ detect-->heal-->detect-->heal...
Nah, i don't believe that for a minute. I believe the big picture is removing as much human as possible. The more automation and "simpliciy," the more the individual suffers. Keeping the system alive means catering to the group, which is often an inhuman approximation to an individual, also often divorced from reality. We're doing things for abstractions to make acquisition of more resources easier. The client setup is intentional for trying to limit support requests, while also providing a methodology for more control over products and rights (DRM). It's less about customers, workers, etc, and all about managment.
avatar
timppu: Don't GOG games generally launch Galaxy, if Galaxy is installed and you try to start the game with e.g. the desktop or Start menu shortcut to the game? Even those games that you have installed using the offline installers, not Galaxy?
avatar
StingingVelvet: The shortcut they put on your desktop launches Galaxy, yeah. You can just make a new shortcut though. No Galaxy game (other than the perennial exception of Gwent) forces you to use the client to run it, as far as I know.
Although installation of the client is optional, iirc Crypt of the Necrodancer will run against it, which caused a major issue for it at one point where if you tried galaxy and uninstalled it, it would break the game.

They've been pretty up front about offline patches taking longer, I'm pretty sure. It also makes logical sense considering they take more work. I also doubt they divide their user base in the way you suggest, and understand different use cases have their own quirks. McDonalds taking longer to get you your food inside than if you used the drive-thru isn't considered an insult to indoor customers, it's just a fact of life aspect of the business.
No, you see, we're told the process is automated, so it shouldn't take longer, right? Oh, for some reason this fully automated process gog claims to have isn't automated? Or is there intentional delay?

Frankly, i've caught GOG using double logic (see attatchment) so i'm just going to lean towards gog lying to us.
I would also guess the "I refuse to install Galaxy no matter what" portion of the GOG user base is a lot smaller than this forum would have you believe.
Confirmation bias goes both ways, i see. ;)
Attachments:
Post edited May 24, 2021 by kohlrak