I do not plan to use Galaxy now or in the future, and am wondering if GOG downloader can still be used to download games now and in the future. In other words, has GOG had an official statement?

It'll be phased out in the end

It is not supported. It does work right now, but they are no longer developing for it, and they won't be updating it any longer. Galaxy has similar functionality, and that makes the downloader redundant.

While I admit, I am disappointed, I understand the reasoning to not want to support two different programs. I will just do the saves via the browser going forward.

Thank you for the rapid replies!!

The GOG downloader is NOT redundant if GOG stays true to their word that Galaxy being completely optional! Without using Galaxy I only have the possibility to use the GOG downloader or my browser. Latter is not really an option downloading several games at once.

No it is redundant, since it's a program that does the EXACT SAME THING as Galaxy does. All Galaxy really is, is just a downloader with optional client features and a different UI. It downloads the games/installers like the downloader does and can be completely ignored once you done that unless you want to play a online multiplayer game that uses the Galaxy.API. So again, yes the downloader is redundant.

No, it's not. That would only be the case if you are actually USING Galaxy. Since Galaxy should be completely OPTIONAL the fact that Galaxy does do the exact same thing (which ist does not because it downloads other files) does not make GOG downloader redundant. If I don't want to use Galaxy (because it's buggy as hell, costs performance and does not work the way it should) I need GOG downloader.

It's still optional like the downloader is optional. There is nothing forcing you to use either to download games.

Just because you don't like it or care to use it, doesn't mean that having two different programs that do the exact same thing isn't redundant and yes Galaxy is completly optional, it may not fit YOUR definition of what optional is just like having two programs one being one you like and one you don't that do the exact same thing and serve the same purpose isn't redundant.

Doesn't mean your right. Optional means: available to be chosen but not obligatory.
So even if the downloader is gone, you still don't have to use Galaxy to download your games you can still download via the website. Is it ideal no, but it sure as hell doesn't mean it's not optional, I mean by that logic then the downloader was never optional either. But I never heard a single person bitch about that since it wasn't label a client, if it was then I'm sure things would of been a lot different.

Just like having two programs that serve the exact same purpose is pretty redundant and pointless. But even if you still don't think it is redundant it is pointless and not cost effective since that is going to put a unnecessary extra cost on GOG, one that they really won't see in return since based on what data I can gather from thread posts, wishlist counts and such there is a very small fraction that stubbornly want to cling to the old downloader and honestly as I said the ammount of revenue you probley will see from that small group isn't going to come close to the cost of maintaining two separate programs to do the exact same thing.

As for the buggy stuff, man that is such a stupid counter point it makes my head hurt. So they should keep the old downloader around for good because the program that will replace it is currently in Beta and has some issue that probably will be worked out by time it leaves Beta? You know how silly that sounds..

No, it's not, to the best of my knowledge.

If you're talking about Galaxy's "install" feature:
The downloader downloads compressed uninstalled installers. Galaxy downloads installed games. Using Galaxy's install feature for backup will result in much more space being wasted. Furthermore, installed games cannot be simply copied to other media and be reinstallable without galaxy.

If you're talking about Galaxy's "get backup & extras" feature:
The downloader is able to identify already up to date installers and extras and avoid redownloading them. Galaxy is not able to do so (at the moment).

*Sigh*
Okay that is just being nitpicky or I really should of been more clear, so if the latter then my bad but I am not talking about in the here and now compairing a Alpha/Beta program to a finalized one. I am talking about in practice for when the downloader no longer works, the argument was that the Downloader should be kept around. My counter point was it's pointless since Galaxy does and will do the same function as the downloader i.e. downloading installers and then can be turned off and ignored till the next time you want to do that.

So in short If it can or can not check to see if there is a current up to date installer or not is for the sake of my counter point irrelevant. Since we are not talking about the here and now we are talking about the near future. So if it still doesn't by time it's out of Beta fine, but it's still a weak counter point to mine either way.

Oh yes, it really is an option to download 20 or so programs using a web browser. If THAT really IS an option, of course than it would be optional (you see, it has the "option" integrated in "optional"). Unfortunately it is not. And what I am doing here is not bitching. I am discussing - there is a difference!

I already told you that Galaxy does downlaod other files than the GOG downloader. I've tested it myself.

I have to agree to this (without the "stubborn" part because it has nothing to do with this).

No, they shouldn't even force us to use Galaxy as long as it is that buggy and they necer should have said that we will still be able to chose freely since this is not really the case. In my opinion Galaxy now simply is not usuable at all and if you read the Galaxy thread and the many, many, many complaints you'd understand why I say so.

First of all, you can download the exact same installer files with the Galaxy client as you do with either the browser or the old GOG Downloader client, the ones that don't need Galaxy at all for either installing nor running the games. That part of Galaxy does indeed make the GOG Downloader client redundant.

There is also the option in Galaxy to not to separately download the installers, but just download+install the game, Steam-like. You don't have to use this feature, you can use Galaxy as only an installer downloader.

Your argument that "Galaxy is not optional because then I don't have an option to use GOG Downloader client, and I don't want to use the browser download links either" is a bit silly because it would similarly mean that the old GOG Downloader client wasn't optional either. If you didn't want to use the browser links before, then your only option indeed was to use the GOG Downloader, I guess. So all this time, GOG required a client, even before Galaxy???

I personally don't understand in general why people, who were always fine using the GOG Downloader client to download their GOG installers, would refuse to use another client (Galaxy) for exactly the same purpose. Ok there is one drawback for me with Galaxy, it seems more finicky about the internet connection (ie. I can't download my games with it at my workplace, something that was possible with GOG Downloader; maybe using blocked ports or something).

Have you seen a GOG announcement that says that they plan to add this up-to-date check to galaxy? Can you link to it, please?

If it's not planned, then the difference is huge, potentially between downloading more one than terabyte of data versus zero (if nothing changed).