Sounds neat, but it will divert resources away from "normal gog operations". Developing, supporting (and running the servers for) a client such as this is no easy task

Other than that, no problem at all with it.

Some questions remain, though. It's a bit early since it was just revealed, but there is much I'd love to know:

Will it allow for plugins, e.g.: Will I be able to switch whatever chat solution is offered with an IRC client/Jabber/trained pidgeons? Or maybe a config file sharer? Gameshark-like memory editor for those cheating bastards among us? Obnoxious playlist-announcing scripts? The possibilities are endless...
Will it support open standards so we can rely on peer-reviewed or tried-and-tested components (<_< like OpenSSL >_>) or in a theoretical terrible gog-less future run our own servers?
What are the terms to get an SDK/API documentation? Will we ever get ahold of the server software, or will it stay inside gog data centers?
Is it being developed in-house or by a third party? Same about the actual service, will this be 100% run by gog?
Where will the servers for this be sitting geographically and jurisdictionally? How much of our activity will be logged, and how will it be stored?
Will the inclusion of achievements mean that the client will kick out debuggers and deploy anti-hack tomfoolery?
How will gog fight off the millions of patent trolls that are surely salivating at the thought of this client?
Will there be an OpenGL/DX overlay injector for Windows/OSX games so we can press some key and access the client in a game without leaving it?
Will it support a LAN only mode for LAN parties with no (or terrible) net access?
What will we be able to share? Will it have e.g. a screenshotting module with basic image editing features so we can point out stuff to each other in newbie/FAQ channels? An OBS fork so we can stream?
What features will the friendlist offer? Groups, muting, preferred friends, calendar for planning tournaments or shared gaming sessions, etc. pp.

Will it be open source? In parts? As a whole? Not at all? If yes, what license(s)? If not, what steps are being taken to ensure cross-platform availability or code quality (security audits etc)? OK, that last one is a bit over the top, but I'm kinda curious.
Speaking of which, what platforms will be supported? Officially, I mean. If it's open sauce or at least open documentation some nutter might be able to write a rudimentary DOS TSR or something equally crazy. Not talking about that.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. We know too little right now, just that this client is planned and/or might already exist in some capacity. I applaud the concept, but await more information or maybe even the actual implementation before I'll give it a definite thumbs-up or -down. This being gog, however, makes me confident I will like the eventual client.

Thank you! The one thing I had a problem with updating will now be fixed with my fav game store. You guys are the best all ways have been and hopefully always will be.

This was a question I was going to ask too, but forgot. In case you need translator help GOG, I'd be interested (Finnish language).

I'm more of a ameritrash boardgame type myself, but I concur.

I like this idea....anything to make updates easier (and maybe I'll get more into multiplayer now..)

So, how is this going to work? Is it like Steam where the servers are effed up at least twice every day and even more on free weekends? :-)

And how would you bring GOG and Steam players together? Is Valve involved in this?

Do we get some kind of timetable and/or more details on the release (and possible beta) plans for Galaxy?

Can you read? It was said multiple times that the client is completely optional. Jeez,

In fact, the first sentence already says OPTIONAL CLIENT in bold letters.

think more of a dataminer with some clever network capabilities.

what is done with the data that is mined is anyones guess but i would hazard a guess and say its gets sold, but it would be interesting to know what info it collects.

I really love what I'm hearing and don't share any of the concerns some others seem to be having. It makes GOG more attractive to both developers/publishers and gamers and the cross-play thing is that one big clever move that may take care of the toughest barrier. I for one am excited and hope that most games that are already here and are missing some of the features available in the Steam release will get the Galaxy treatment.

That may be so, I don't really know as I hardly ever play online. That said, if we don't bring it up now, then when? We're still on time to somewhat influence the direction this will take.

I get the matchmaking, metagames and whatever, but I see only one reason to not allow direct/LAN connection with another player: DRM.

I can hurl the question right back at you, since my point was not "is the client optional ?", but "will the direct service (through the website) suffer as a result of this new hoopla ?". Which, I hope you'll agree, is not one and the same.

Anyhow, I got a clear answer in blue a minute and a half after asking, so you're a bit late to the party.

If the game already supports LAN play, the GOG Galaxy client won't be needed. If the game doesn't support LAN play, the GOG Galaxy may or may not change that. If it doesn't change it, you didn't have LAN play before, you still don't. If it does change it, you didn't have LAN play before, you do have LAN play now.

At least that's how I see the implementation being.

Ok, let me quote it for you:
"But, here's the great thing: it is totally optional, so it's all up to you! If you do not want to play online, or use our optional client to access these features, then no worries, you will always be able to play the single-player mode 100% DRM-free, and download manually the latest updated version of your favorite title from our website".

You seriously think the announcement wasn't clear enough?