JakobFel: But how many people are actually experiencing that bug? It needs to be fixed pronto, no doubt, but I'm just saying: like many other criticisms, that bug is probably affecting a niche group of users.

Psykopat89: It's weird, you ask for reasons for the disdain, yet not one single reason is acceptable to you. What is your purpose here?

First of all, they don't HAVE to release 2.0. They didn't even have to develop it in the first place - many people are perfectly happy with 1.2. No need for more.

Second, you say they should focus all their resources on 2.0. Your reasoning being 2.0 will be done faster this way. How will 2.0 be done faster, when they already HAVE tons of feedback from the past YEAR that they have yet to actually implement and fix? How about doing that BEFORE taking the next step? I could maybe see your reasoning if they had literally completed their existing (and quite long) list of feedback and bugs, but as it is, they already have more than enough on their internal roadmap from the feedback they already have from their voluntary beta testers. Fix that, THEN go to the next step; instead, they decided to push all the problems they are fully aware of onto more people. Why? So more people can tell them what they already know?

Lastly, you really lose a lot of credibility when you haven't even used 1.2. It really is much simpler, more minimalist and to the point in the entire interface. It's like saying you can't see what's wrong with driving an old rusty pickup truck to a group of people who are all used to driving a Ferrari. Understand that those people may have a hard time taking your point of view seriously, because you lack the perspective to fully appreciate where they are coming from.

JakobFel: If you sit still in the tech industry, you will lose. They DID have to create 2.0 or else they'd fall hopelessly behind. All I'm saying is that y'all are complaining about an optional client instead of being patient, offering constructive criticism and being fair about it all.

JakobFel: All I'm saying is that y'all are complaining about an optional client instead of being patient, offering constructive criticism and being fair about it all.

yowshi: fall behind? fall behind what? that is falacious logic. if it works and your customers are happy with it there is literally no reason to do a complete overhaul like this.

yowshi: fall behind? fall behind what? that is falacious logic. if it works and your customers are happy with it there is literally no reason to do a complete overhaul like this.

Psykopat89: The thing is, you asked why people are so upset about it, and you have gotten several lengthy, thorough and thought out replies, but you keep throwing every single reply off as "just complaining". So what is the point here? You've had your replies, but you won't accept them.

Another angle here is that GOG has had more than enough feedback for a long time, and rather than responding to that in terms of development and bugfixing, they opted to pull MORE users into what they already KNEW - based on the constructive criticism you keep mentioning - was far from ready. Again I ask, what is the point? To let even more of their users tell them exactly what the beta testers already told them? Seriously, I would genuinely like you to think about this and come up with an answer.

Psykopat89: Exactly.

JakobFel: Their competitors. That is simple logic.
JakobFel: Because many of the responses are unnecessary complaints. It doesn't serve anyone to hate on the platform. Instead, constructive criticism and patience should be offered.

JakobFel: Instead, constructive criticism and patience should be offered.

JakobFel: I'm not saying my opinion is more important, I'm simply saying that I, personally, would much rather them dedicate more resources to development of 2.0 and get it fully finished quicker than they would otherwise.

Psykopat89: @JakobFel - I will now ask you for the third time, because you keep ignoring this particular question:

When GOG already has plenty of existing stuff that needs addressing (features to implement, bugs to fix) from the voluntary beta testers - stuff they are fully aware of, KNOWN ISSUES, that they have yet to be even close to fixing... What good does it do, to drag even more users into this? What does it accomplish, aside from clearly pissing off everyone who did NOT volunteer to beta test, completely ignoring all the existing known issues?

JakobFel: All I'm saying is that y'all are complaining about an optional client instead of being patient, offering constructive criticism and being fair about it all.

IkustEnustik: Jakob's position is simple:

-Any problems you may have with Galaxy 2.0 can be fixed later, so they aren't valid complaints.
-Allowing anyone to use 1.2 would slow Galaxy 2.0, and so isn't allowed.

Anything you say on the matter will be met with one of those two respones.

Old_Dragon: Except it's not optional to get the best out of the only game I use it for, No Man's Sky, some features in the game are not available without the Galaxy online connection. Because i cannot use the new dark version I had no option but to uninstall it, revert to 1.2 and disable updates so they can't force it on me again.

You clearly don't care that some people are not able to use version 2 because it doesn't affect you so I see no point in reading any more of your posts on the subject.

I will not be updating and if they ruin my favourite game by stopping connections from 1.2 I will not buy any more games from GOG. That is a fact and not open for discussion.