Though why would it be an advantage, to have it working totally offline? I mean, all the most useful Galaxy's features works online (updates, cloud sync, friends), so if I don't want the installer to connect to the server, I probably don't want Galaxy neither.
I'm sure that, at the end of the day, you'll just go for the best, seamless solution. You always do. But it would be so nice if, for once, you could rapidly look into the problem and avoid this shitstorm to grow. I'm not saying that you need to fix all of it right now, I'm sure that most people here just want an official announcement that you will see into our concerns.
All the best.

But the question was, why not ask the users if they want Galaxy when they download the installer? If you would ask before starting the download, you know the user is on-line and can serve them the latest installer for Galaxy. If you let them download a game installer with a pre-bundled Galaxy (probably outdated already) and ask them during installation, that's just not logical. Making the the whole Galaxy installation available offline is not important, because sooner or later the user has to go online to actually use Galaxy. I just don't get the reasoning behind any of this...

They "just download" it from a website, an internet page with a button to click which triggers the download (and checks if there's a client to use). They do not download it from a separate space, or from a different interface.

So my question is : why isn't the easy Galaxy check, proposition, and install process located on this interface. Which the "users who just download the game" necessarily went through.

I'm asking : why this mean instead of that mean. You answered with a purpose which is achieved by both.

Hi Johny

Thank you for responding to an issue, you showed us that you do care, and that counts for something in my book. From your first post, it wasn't quite clear what you were trying to say (at least for me), but your second post cleared things up. I only hope our concerns will not only be acknowledged, but addressed as well.

I will edit my post to include link to your response, so other people that come this way can easily find your answer. As for other concerns, I will bump this topic to keep it active until they are addressed by someone who has authority to do so.

So, rather than making this choice for everyone by forcing it into installers and wasting lots of bandwidth, disk space and lots of time re-building and re-testing installers as a result, why not do this instead:

*User starts downloading offline/"backup" installer through Galaxy* --> Galaxy: "Would you like to download a backup of the latest Galaxy client installer too? [ Yes / No ]"

And for downloading through the website, present a pop-up message about the Galaxy client that needs to be dismissed before any download links are offered (and only do this once- the first time any game is selected on the library page).

People who don't want Galaxy won't have it forced on them, and those that do have plenty of options for noticing & downloading it and making backups of the Galaxy installer.

The most infuriating thing about the whole situation for me is the way GOG reacts to the whole thing. There are only 2 blues who commented yet, Fables who only writes marketing BS and makes everything worse and Johny who openly and honestly writes, that he thinks this whole thing is not optimal, but admits he is "not the perfect person to ask" (but still thank you very much for chiming in. I see you really care about Galaxy).

There just isn't an official response from somebody at GOG who is responsible for this mess and that is something I expect from companies like Steam or EA, but wouldn't have thought possible from GOG until very recently. Very disappointing!

It used to be that GOG listened to the userbase, and faced with a backlash this big would've at least suspended their plans & tried to sort out something more acceptable, if not scrapped the plans altogether. This situation is more "this is what we're going to be doing, screw you all if you don't like it"

This. As the old saying goes, ya gotta dance with who brung ya.

exactly

what is the point of installing offline an "OPTIONAL" client whose key "selling" features are online multiplayer, cloud savegames and autoupdates ?

i'm very confident that someone soon will enlighten me with some awe-striking answers to that, as the retarded idiot i seem to be :)

First, thanks for your answers, that's really appreciated :)

I do agree with a lot of other posts in this thread.
And amongst all the other things, I want to insist on one particular point : yeah, wasted space (and bandwith) when you back-up installers is a concern (for me and some others). What's the point in DRM-free offline installers if they aren't "convenient" to backup ?
But I won't insist since you are already aware of issues, concerns and eventual solutions.

I'm sure there is a solution which would meet our wishes and the ones of GOG.

Well for the same reason why some peoples add non-Steam games to their Steam client and why some peoples ask to have a similar feature added to Galaxy.

Instead of having icons on the desktop or in their start menu some peoples likes being able to launch their games from a client application where they are all grouped together and easy to find.

Personally I prefer desktop icons but that's just me.

Does Galaxy even launch without signing in Online at least once?
I see someone file a bug/feature request ;)

Honestly no idea, I only use it when I play online.

i also would like to repeat my proposition from the other thread:
about making available to users an offline tool that would allow them to clean up /unbundle galaxy data off regular offline installers

that way, gog wouldnt have to use storage and manpower themselves to maintain such versions of installers, but allow customers who just dont need/.dont want galaxy and also dont want the bloatware syndroma of extra required storage space required for their collection

i mean, ok, gog storage space aint cheap ? but so aint mine, unless gog agree to actively provides me extra cash discount to a new 4TB synology nas or 4TB HDD, because if gog plans to slowly extent galaxy installer bundling to every game, i'm in for over 880 time the required space

make such tool able to work in batch, to maybe scan an existing folder/drive for existing gog installers, and allow us to convert those galaxy-including installers into regular galaxy-devoid ones
ok, that's THOSE peeps 's choice and likes and desire... i'm ok with them doing that for themselves, but why should i get stripped of the choice to manage my own stuff at my home because of them ?

i mean, i was handling steam+humble+gog collection on my stuff and i didnt ask those peeps any help on that, right ? i never bothered anyone in that regard, so why shouldnt it work both ways ?

i also already made my own cloud save/sync stuff way long before galaxy.

i dont mind "convenient features" for those who would ask for it, but is it a reaso to force it upon everyone without leaving people a choice or a word on that matter ?