I had forgotten all about that show!

Who paid you to post this?

According to GoG's user agreement, the grace period is actually 60 days.
Which still might be not enough if your connection is not up to the task though.

On the topic of hating Galaxy - I don't hate it either, it's just of no use to me whatsoever and therefore I don't need it.

If there's something I "hate" about it it would be that - like the other clients, mandatory or not - it contributes to and helps the propagation of convenience and the negative side effects that come with it.
Working with the offline installers may be more of a hassle and less convenient but at least I have full control over what version of game X to install, for example.
Which, in some cases, comes quite in handy since, with Galaxy you often cannot roll back (to an earlier build/version of game X) that far.
The original Gothic 2 (without the NOTR expansion) or CHUCHEL (before the "de-blackfacing"/"orange-facing") being just two of those cases.

I loved it so much I used to watch old episodes back to back when torrents/etc became a thing. Sad ending, but a great show.

I don't hate Galaxy. In fact, i use it only to download large offline installers.

And yes, i know there is a GOG Downloader, but for some reason, it crashes a lot on my PC.

You didn't ask me, but I have my GOG game installers on one 5TB USB HDD only. The second backups are on GOG servers so if I suddenly lost (some of) these backups, I guess I would redownload them from GOG. So you could say I have the secondary backups in the cloud.

If it ever seemed GOG servers might go offline for good, then I'd start taking secondary backups (unless I had completely lost interest in gaming and my GOG games, of course). That is what I've done e.g. with my DotEmu installers, since DotEmu doesn't (probably) allow downloading anymore as they closed their store, I have my DotEmu games on two or three separate hard drives. Then again, many of the DotEmu games are obsolete as I now own them also on GOG, but there are many there which don't exist on GOG.

In addition to above comments:

Just looked at the page "https://www.gogalaxy.com/en/" and it didnt work. So I looked at my 'uBlock' stuff and noticed
"recaptcha.net". I really do not want to support this. For me this is sufficient reason to stay away from this Galaxy stuff.

Sounds good, but with that many games i'd be keeping backups from the get go mainly because i'm a worry wart as they used to call such people. :)

It really isn't the matter of opinion you seem to think it is, though. Reality, via the laws of logic, dictate that a game is either DRM-free, or it isn't. One can quibble about the degree of DRM, such as saying at least Galaxy isn't Starfarce or whatever else is (allegedly) worse. But that is a matter of degree, not a matter of kind.

Let's look in more detail at GOG's sister site, FCKDRM.com. The site, as accessed just now, runs a comparison between DRM-free and DRM. Here is what they point out as the advantages of DRM-free, which I will respond to line by line. Galaxy requirement is in violation of this criterion alone. Requiring a client is plainly equivalent to someone else (in this case GOG/dev/pub) "getting a say" in how the customer accesses their media. Furthermore, the differences pointed out between Galaxy installers vs offline "backup" installers are arguably an example of the "how you store" part of the quote. Galaxy necessitates internet connection for multiplayer even when a game needn't be designed like that. You can rightly point out that is more the fault of the dev and pub for designing a game that way, and I agree...however, for a store to be "100% DRM-free" as is the standard on FCKDRM.com, these games with such requirements should be rejected. Curation rejects content-rich singleplayer RPGs but accepts, in increasingly great numbers, games which require Galaxy for multiplayer or some other third party multiplayer authentication (like Paradox). What kind of message does that send to the consumer?? See above with how multiplayer does not need all this authentication junk. You are aware there are games that can be played multiplayer, including online, without Galaxy, right? So, what does then that make a Galaxy requirement that blocks out anyone not using it? Answer: DRM. To Galaxy's credit, there is a "rollback" feature, which as pointed out is not available to non-Galaxy users. You may think this as a point in Galaxy's favor, but given the problematic nature of Galaxy (as illustrated in my previous points), this is really more a cause for concern. There is no obvious reason to the customer why GOG can't provide additional offline links to different versions of games. They already do so for patches, but don't allow users to see an archive of all patches, just the most recent ones. Where is the support of digital preservation for non-Galaxy users? The existence of Galaxy is taking away, or at the very least, forcefully transforming, their ability to preserve their games. See user concerns about being able to download all games in a horrible hypothetical future if GOG goes out of business. Obviously in that scenario, games requiring Galaxy for multiplayer would lock users out of those modes. Oh, oh, but it's so conveeeeenient!

And some(not you per se, but some) also see things that might not be DRM as DRM if they try hard enough or believe such, should they so choose. I am not saying such thingsd are/are not DRM by saying this, just that some see DRM differently than others, and see some things as/not as DRM as a result.



Technically the above is true.....you can use it anywhere(sp that is).....and the mp as well as long as you use galaxy.

As for MP by itself/no accounts: I wonder if they do it because making MP work is hard to do for non-galaxy use or something similar?

You need an internet connection to DL the games anyways, and many do not do Local LAN play anymore(afaik).....they are simplay catering to the bigger user base/crowd.

Also no......no rejections....we get enough of them as is......

I call it a private server system, and it doesn't bar anyone from playing if they want to. If one self imposes a limit on themselves then to me that is less DRM and more their own choice.

I think they need to make installers then for the other versions and store them on their servers. That takes a bit of time and some storage space(with bigger games and multiple versions this can be a problem.

As for taking away ability to preserve games: Many can & should DL the versions when they buy the games, and not wait until a new version comes along that borks something. They should also check the relevant thread to see what was changed before getting an newer version.

(And if they miss an older version and have bought the game, some other sites host "grey" versions with older versions of the files sometimes)

Of course I agree gog should help more in informing us of changelogs/etc so others don't have to do it.

That could happen with the offline installers too if one's library is big enough, to be fair.

Look up "law of excluded middle" and "law of identity." My point is that something is either DRMed or it isn't. In other words, ONE of the sides is necessarily mistaken. Since both sides can just proclaim being right, this is why it is important to look at the traits of the thing in question to see what clearly matches reality.

Unbelievable...by your logic, DRM isn't DRM, as long as you use it. What was your point again??

Imo it is a combination of factors, none justified on principles of "100% DRM-free" however.

Was wondering when this old chestnut would pop up.

You or anyone else can call it super happy DRM-free puppy playtime, doesn't change the traits of what it is. It does bar people from playing: everyone who doesn't want to use it. Games can have private servers without requiring a client or authentication. The limit is being imposed UPON customers, not by customers.

How does it work for the Galaxy games that support rollback?

Yes. We agree on this. However, offline users have a much tougher time of this since the message is that they are second-class customers. One approach (yours) is to conjure up excuses as to how it is the offline users' fault. A different approach is to realize the inequality of treatment and strive for better.

No, not in regard to that multiplayer point. In a horrible hypothetical future if GOG goes out of business, how will those Galaxy-mandatory games play multiplayer? Perhaps eventually it will be open-source, or people will find workarounds etc etc...however, the fact remains that multiplayer in games without Galaxy (or Paradox/third party account requirements) has a vastly better chance of being preserved. Game preservation...where have I heard that before...ah yes, FCKDRM.com ;)

========================
Had to post this way....the site is borking up again....post bits correspond to your post's bits in your reply in order from top to bottom.
========================

1st part: Reality is often enough(though not always) subjective to one's beliefs/views, and as I said some will believe some things are DRM even if they aren't(example: some people likely think needing internet to DL things is DRM) and some likely think stuff isn't DRM when it is(cd key checks). Regardless of what's DRM or not objectively, people will always quibble over such based on their own views and not always technical definitions.

2nd part: I never said that, but what I did say is true. My point was just to illustrate how their words are true from a certain pov.

3rd Part: It might be financially/etc justified on the basis of them being a smaller store than others with limited budget.

4th Part: And there are likely some who view it as drm, oddly enough.

5th Part; By barring from playing, I see that/meant that as more being barred physically(either by people/some device/some software) from playing/using something as is....not if someone imposes limits on their behavior. In the former cases, someone is actively trying to stop one from using something/in a certain way, and in the latter no one but one's self is stopping themselves from consuming such media/items.

(Note that this does not mean I am trying to mitigate or deride those who believe such is DRM.....just offering some criticism/my pov is all)

6th Part: I am not 100% on this, but iirc in another thread they said the two types of installers use seperate servers to store the files and do not come from the same source....so likely they'd need double the space for older game versions if they did such with offline installers(rollback/etc).

7th Part: 1. They don't have a tougher time.....simply click the links and DL. 2. I am not trying to come up with excuses but rather put blame on all parties equally....the storefronts for doing bad and the customer for not using their brain and common sense/good backup practices. And even in your approach I still say people need to be responsible and use common sense. That is not me trying to be mean, but just offering criticism/good advice & leveling blame(for people losing out on old game versions) equally across the board.

8th Part: Since there are original versions for many gog games(old disc images/copies) and such online already, preservation shouldn't be an issue for many games.

Also I was talking about backing up games in regards to the above point and not the MP aspect....i'm sorry for not making that clearer. :)

=====================
Done for now...will try figuring out what went wrong later
=====================

Thanks like always for the response.

I am still trying to understand your distinction.

Scheme/U-Rent/EA O-rent-gin requirement to be phoned in to play the game you purchased = DRM.

"DRM-free" game's multiplayer requirement to be phoned in to play the game you purchased = not DRM?

Basically, as long as the thing I'm calling DRM is "baked in" to the game, the blame goes to the customer? What is supporting your distinction between these things? I am honestly not understanding.

Also relevant: doesn't "someone actively trying to stop one from using something/in a certain way" apply to any game that lacks private servers?

Interesting. Thank you for this info! I am curious if they ever say more about this.

Not a problem....the same goes for your replies.


To me, if the MP capability is there(in the gog/etc copy) then it isn't DRM(by that I mean the old capability of the original game, if one tweaks the files/can do so that is), and if it has been stripped or made by the store(any store) to not work at all or removed by them then that is DRM or sh*tty practice.....although I wouldn't worry as much myself as I don't play much MP, but I can see why some would be upset over it.

If the game has some form of free MP or the game is old & the servers are just not around anymore then I don't see it as much of such.....now XBOX Gold only MP, to me that is much worse as you need to PAY to play MP on bought games. :(

Not a problem. If I see more on the matter I will let you know.