So, I can't store any patches locally on a HD so I can apply & reapply as needed without additional bandwidth usage?

You (GOG staffers) have repeatedly avoided to answer a very simple question that has been asked multiple times by a number of people - will this client thing come with the functionality and the features of the GOG Downloader or not? How hard can it be to answer this question?
I'm almost certain that the answer is "NO", and that you're just stalling, probably hoping and aiming for the complaints to be drowned under the screams of joy for the release of the GOG Galaxy client.

You (GOG staffers) stated that you're going to ditch the GOG Downloader, I understand this to mean that even if we keep it, it would be pointless as it won't work with the revamped account pages.

So, please do us all a favour, and come out and say it already, so that we can look into and test alternatives before the GOG Downloader becomes history.


I'm going to be the party-pooper here and say that the Galaxy account system sucks big time. It's slower to load than the old one, half the times it doesn't log you in at the first try (especially if you try to login from the front page), and occasionally logs you out for no good reason. If the login system is any indication, I dread to think how "lightweight" and "responsive" this GOG Galaxy client will be.
Now that I think about it, if it's not modular, perhaps it's best that it won't replace the GOG Downloader. This is a good question - anyone at GOG thought about this?

Uh, do other people have those problems? I haven't been logged out since the upgrade!
I didn't also notice any major slowdown and I have an old system.

As I posted many times, I think that GOG should release patches that update our stored installers!
We cannot re-download GBs of data every time that something changes.


Another last question by me: will GOG Galaxy allow to save the installers inside custom folders on detachable hdisks? (without losing game status if the drive is removed). Same for bonuses? (I'd like to extract them all elsewhere)

Well, I'll take this to be our "more news in 2014", thanks!

I think many would like the answer to what's going on with the bland grey colour scheme to the gog site - is it deliberate?.

Can we get a screenshot of the client??? :D I'm sure a picture won't hurt anyone ;)

Yeah XD This is such a small thing and doesn't really matter, but it still bothers me that the icon for GOG on my Firefox bookmark toolbar has changed to black and white. I really miss the green and yellow icon (it was much easier for me to notice amidst my other bookmarks and I like it better). I even tried to see if there was an add-on that would let me change the bookmark icon back to what it was before, but apparently the add-ons that did that no longer work with new versions of Firefox XD

Anyhow, I'm looking forward to Galaxy but I can wait as long as the current downloader still works. I hope they leave the downloader intact for at least awhile after Galaxy is out so that people can still use it while Galaxy gets any bugs ironed out.

The thing is it's all pretty inconsistent and random - some times the login screen loads pretty fast, other times that swirling icon takes its bloody sweet time before the actual screen appears, the "have to enter my credentials twice" issue seems to be related with the front page, though I occasionally experience it when logging in directly to the forums, the "getting logged out" is quite rare, but still pretty random (i.e., haven't been able to relate it to something specific when it happens).


Prerequisite for what you're asking is that, additionally to direct installations, the GOG Galaxy client will offer the option to download the standalone installers and extras in the first place.;-)
As I said, the fact that GOG staffers have been and still are silent about this makes me think that it won't - so much for "your experience won't change".

Hopefully it won't be released until it's good and ready. I doubt it will, but you never know.

Same here. While I am interested to see the client, I am still doing pretty fine without it. The main reason I hope GOG to release it sooner than later is to win the hearts of those who possibly don't want to buy from GOG due to the lack of client. Or at least they'll have to come up with some other excuse next.

Out of curiosity, what are these features of the current Downloader that you suspect the Galaxy client would miss?

I'm asking because to me the current downloader client is so simple (=few features) that I have hard time seeing how the Galaxy client wouldn't have all the same features, and then some. The only "advanced" features I can think of with the downloader client is e.g. the ability to throttle the download speed, even based on the time. Are you talking about that, or something else? (I never use that throttle though, I download everything at full speed, just like on Steam.)

I'm pretty sure one of the them will be 'I don't want to run yet another client'.

I think the biggest concern is that it might not allow you to download the *installers* but rather only the 'preinstalled' versions.

On top of that I guess there might be a worry that there will only be a 'Galaxy ready' installer of the most current version of the game, rather than having a base installer for the game with patches (so you can choose which patch you want to be on). Not sure how that works with the newer games GOG already has though.

Count me in...

Buying new games with regular patches without an autopatcher is right now just uncomfortable - if I want to use nice words... Right now I can download one patched installer and three(!) additional patches which must be installed in the correct order and Steam is one patch ahead...
I was hoping, that the client would be ready during August or September, maybe even as a beta version as mentioned as excuse for the delay of Original Sin. I'm disappointing that it seems, that it will take additional month. GOG announced it to early...

Pheace summed it up pretty nicely. All the features of the GOG Galaxy client will be useless to me if the client can't be used to download standalone installers and patches, just like I can now with the GOG Downloader. And GOG staffers have been dodging this question since the announcement, while emphasising how similar to Steam the client will work.

I don't think it's unreasonable that we ask for a clear answer.

Has GOG said yet in which "format" the default Galaxy installations will be? The two options I see are:

1. The Steam way: there are no separate installers (nor patches), the download and install procedures are seamless with the client, as well as (auto)update. In this case yes, it is a relevant question about the standalone installers (and patches), how they will be managed.

I don't necessarily consider this optimal from GOG point of view either, as then they would have to maintain two different formats for their games: the one which the client uses, and the standalone installers. If this was the case, I am not expecting the client to support the standalone installers, they will be handled differently. Maybe even offering a mere http download option for them, similar how e.g. DotEmu does it.

I also think it would be probable in this case that there wouldn't be separate standalone patches anymore, but only a installer which is kept up to date. I personally would be fine with that (especially as quite often the standalone GOG update installers don't work with all previous versions, so quite often you end up reinstalling the whole game anyway).


2. The "Humble Bundle Android client"-way: as far as I can tell, this HB client downloads the normal .apk installers, and then installs them. You can also access and install those same .apk installers manually, ie. using the client only as an installer downloader.

Not sure if there are similar clients for Windows too (e.g. Desura? Never used it.), but this way GOG would have to maintain only one format that covers both the needs of the client, and the people who want to keep standalone installers (and possibly patches).

However, this could also be a bit clunkier/slower, and mean bigger downloads for updates, at least in those cases where you have so old version of the base game that the new patch is incompatible with it, and the whole game needs to be re-downloaded and reinstalled.

Or alternatively, GOG would finally be able to offer update installers that always work with all previous versions of the game installation, something that hasn't been always the case so far AFAIK.

Ummm that way can and does break mods and considering a good number of games on here can use mods, that one reason not to have forced autoupdating. And say Galaxy Client only offers autopatched games, why not just keep the gog downloader available for those as an OPTION?. Plenty of people want the standalone installers and manual patches to remain as they are..