Why isn't there an option to set the 'classic' installers as default instead of those bloated with Galaxy?

Choose:
Ignorance
Incompetence
Malicious Intent

Multiplayer implementation is up to developers though (not GOG, Steam, etc.), and most of them don't want to bother with LAN anymore because Steam multiplayer is way easier to implement (apparently). In that case, GOG is just trying to provide the same service that Steam does (multiplayer services through Galaxy). Multiplayer will die when both Steam and GOG die.

Is there something I'm missing that GOG could be doing differently; could GOG have implemented client-free or Galaxy-lite or something multiplayer instead? GOG doesn't have the "power" to force devs to implement any specific kinds of multiplayer.

I agree, this is drastically needed. One theory of mine is that (if GOG is implementing this because they're wasting Support resources on newbie questions about Galaxy or similar to that) GOG would be worried the less tech-savvy users/newbies might select the option for Galaxy-free without knowing what that meant, then download the G-free installers and still email and complain to Support about where Galaxy is, etc.

I'd say, maybe stick the option where a new user is unlikely to select it. It's desperately needed though.

That could be one which would be acceptable and normal with a tech demo. Companies don't want these early previews to be floating around because they can impact what people think the final product will be. They could also want a easy to use way to update said tech demo which Galaxy provides. They may also want statics like usage or could be using the Galaxy API for any number of things as we don't know the full scope of what it can do. It's possible they could only get certain data by using Galaxy.

The point of a tech demo is not to provide fun for users. It's to test. To find bugs. To measure consumer interest. To try new ways of developing the game and gaining feedback.

This is a very narrow minded view. There is simply features you can do with a client that you can never do with a website because the client directly integrates with the games. GOG never said the the client and site would have parity. They said the client would be optional and in the strict sense of the world it is.

It's however unrealsitc for one to expect them to provide the same experience. You don't pay for Galaxy. It is a service just like the webite. You can choose to you that service or not, and if you choose not to use it then you forgo any benifits it may provide.

According to some GOG already has DRM... so we all have a different way of viewing something. That notion is based on the belief the that rules can't be changed, but sadley they always can be as we know to well.

The turth of the matter is in today's market GOG has to have exceptions to the rule in order to increase growth, and some of it's userbase fails to realize that. Companies with no growth typically shrink.

This doesn't mean you can't keep within the spirit of the rule, but you got to look at things on a base by base basis. Some things you just have to make exceptions for or you end up being left behind, especially in the realm of technology and media like gaming because it moves so fast.

Yes, we have. Exactly what I proposed above. And we've also seen how the community reacted to that.
If I had bought stock in pitchfork and torches back then, I'd be rich.

No, he's on his own mission. From what I know of budejovice, he's an extreme left-winger who's pissed at the moderation here because they didn't ban people he considers "Nazis" fast enough or at all, so he's trying to "prove" on various threads that he can say anything he wants and GOG won't ban him. He's already straight-up asked Fables to ban him and said that if she doesn't, he'll pull crap like this. Seems he's following through.

You are out of your mind.

1. I "connect online" for multiple reasons, not only to access gog.com.
2. I didn't say that GOG isn't DRM-free, nice strawman though.
3. Having to use a menu to explicitly display downloads for classic installers every time is a mandatory opt-out from the Galaxy installer. In fact, it's worse than a standard opt-out because the setting is not persistent.
No, it really isn't. That it's the popular thing to do is an excuse. This could have been avoided by adding a single user setting, but GOG didn't implement that and I don't think it was simply because they forgot to.

Maintenance and security are the user's responsibility. Software companies should never be allowed to take control away from the user, even when updates are available and certainly not to install bundled crapware. Personally, I am quite concerned with stability and security issues introduced by the constant stream of untested and unauthorised duct-tape updates which seem to be all the rage these days.

(catching up with the news)

It's terrible and you get little to no feedback as to which installers you are about to download, I had to double check and see that the one of the game parts was smaller to assume it was the classic.

Yes, please. If you're going to implement something your community has very vocal concerns about, at least allow us to keep out of it in a way that is not ludicrous.

Agreed.

Someone said the installers you get from Galaxy are always the classic ones? Will be checking on that...

Thank you for this post. Funny that Galaxy continues to be one of the best ways to download standalone "classic" installers but at least there's that. Still think that on browser the options should e much improved; maybe color coding to differentiate installers and definitely permanent settings to settle for default classic installers.

As a few people said, the biggest problem is how GOG has been making important decisions these days... Me and other users have made in this very thread many very sensible alternative ways to promote Galaxy without disrupting users' experience and we seen to have been largely ignored.

I use Galaxy to back up my installers so I'm personally not much affected by this change in this moment - although I wonder if this will break the update notifications even more (have to rely on the browser with Barefoot Essentials + Adalia for that). BUT people who do not wish to use Galaxy should not be forced to hoops and hoops to download their game.

A brief reminiscing on my history here:
I was first sold on Galaxy on the promise of it being optional. I was am am willing to try it's new functionalities and there are things (like achievements) that I've grown to like. Still, there is a reason I still maintain an up-to-date backup of all my 555 GOG games. Being DRM-Free was, from the very first moment I've heard about Good Old Games way back, one of the main reasons for me to buy here. Heck, I've rebought games once they became available here and I wanted to send a message that DRM-Free should be valued.

Ever since the GOG Downloader stopped being officially supported, GOG has made it increasingly harder to download my installers. We shouldn't have to rely on community tools to do this - if GOG values DRM-Free, it should make it so everyone can easily downloaded the latest (smallest possible, not bloated) versions of their legally acquired games. NOT as it stands right now, digging in hidden menus and doing many clicks for each single game. GOG is still the best place if one cares to own DRM-Free files of their games, but only because the competition is limited in what they offer regarding this (apparently Humble Bundle games are not kept up to date, for example). If making DRM-Free files easily available becomes so low on the list of GOG's priorities - and it's becoming increasingly evident to be the case - then me prioritizing GOG as storefront will also be low on my list. Simple as that.

I had impulse-bought many things on this store, just because it was on GOG. I have bought games I had on pysical media, because it was on GOG (and thus would work better). I have bought games only previously available on Origin or steam, because it was now on GOG. I have saved money for the sales here and there were times I wouldn't even care to check other storefronts. I have bought games here for the simple pleasure of having them on my GOG's digital shelf. I have promoted this place to everyone because it was the best and it deserved more attention - I don't do that as enthusiastically anymore.

If this sounds like a goodbye, is because I feel like saying goodbye. I will stay around, not only because I think we deserve to have updated, unbloated executables of all our games, but because I still have some hope left. But GOG has reached to me a low point that I could never dream many years ago. It's increasingly harder to justify a purchase here and I'll probably just do it from now on after much deliberation.

To some extend you are right but not entirely.

To start a multiplayer games one have some kind of matchmaking facility build in. This can relatively easy be done automatically in LAN. But in WAN matchmaking needs some kind of service. This I assume GOG provides via Galaxy.

Now the functionality for matchmaking over LAN without need for internet nor log on to GOG cold have been made within galaxy.
I guess I likely cold have made that If i worked for GOG.
I have never seen the source for galaxy nor its interface. So I honestly don't know how hard it wold be.
Heck I have not even had galaxy installed since a long time ago.

Gog have a policy in place stating that games may not have copy protection / DRM in order to be sold by them.
However this do not apply for the multiplayer par of the game's at all.

The copy protection of the multiplayer part of some games is likely something blue have to accept for some of the games here. without it they wold not have been here i guess.
Thus if automatic matchmaking over LAN (without logon) was implementer inside galaxy. some of the games wold not have been here. But I am quite certain it wold have been possible.

Hello everyone! Gog team here hoping you're all well. We're just here with our hourly update to tell you that we have gog Galaxy! Our completely optional client! that's all folks. Check back with us in an hour when we announce the name of our optional client, which is as we've always said, is totally optional. Don't forget to subscribe to our mailing list where we give you a download link to our optional client, gog Galaxy!

We're always listening to your feedback. That is why our optional client (gog Galaxy) is even more optional than before!

Signed
Gog Galaxy (optional client)

The promise does GOG Galaxy is optional is only followed by the letter.
The promise is broken by spirit as GOG is actively hiding the possibility to use GOG without Galaxy and makes no effort at all to openly inform the customer.

A promise that is actively undermined by the one who gave it is not really worth much and the peer who gave the promise is simple not trustworthy.


https://www.gog.com/galaxy I interpret that as a threat, meaning:
We implement much needed features only in Galaxy so you have no choice beside using Galaxy.

Still no response as to why we can't decide which installers to display as default. Still no response as to why information about the classic installers can't be displayed on the download page, even though doing so would cost GOG nothing. It's literally adding one sentence there. But no. No action, no response, nothing. This isn't about doing us a favor. It's GOG's damn obligation to keep all the customers well informed, not just the ones who visit this thread. And the days go by...

Seriously, how can this be interpreted by anyone as anything else than GOG intentionally wanting to hide the classic installers in order to push Galaxy?

It is Sunday. We probably have to wait for them to go on work first.
So lets hope for a nice respond in the morrow :D

Breja the Polish Cheddar Monk doesn't want them to enjoy their weekend :(