@jacob



i asked how exactly are they falling behind by not completly overhauling their currently fuklly functional 1.2 client? You never did answer why a software overhaul is REQUIRED.

...at least until you remember that ONE OF THEM IS A BETA TEST VERSION that isn't ready for release yet. At which point, NOT maintaining the last known stable version is the awful idea.

How does one understand the position of another? You have be in their place. Your responses are essentially you promoting your own opinion, and being indifferent towards everyone else's. We're not forcing you to not use Galaxy 2.

Look, we get you like 2.0. We understand that eventually 2.0 will have the majority of its bugs fixed, and added the features that are missing (if one has faith in GOG). However as you said in your original post, "no one is forcing you to use this client" (even though a forced upgrade was applied).

Your argument that maintaining two clients somehow hurts them really isn't valid when you consider that the vast majority of software dev companies of all kinds, from tiny to huge, do exactly that consistently and constantly. Whether it's old versions, complete redesigns/rewrites, alternate versions, etc. it is easily considered to be the norm in the industry. Does MS remove support for the current version of Windows and make it unavailable while the forthcoming version hasn't even been released from BETA yet? No, and the same goes for many, many, many other programs and companies.

Additionally, large companies (which CDPR certainly is these days) don't work on just one thing at a time til it's done and then move on to the next thing. They are always working on multiple things including multiple projects at a time and they allocate resources to each thing as needed. So when they made the decision to begin developing Galaxy 2.0 they would have begun planning for resource needs as well. This would include resources moved from other areas of the company and new resources brought it. Having concurrent projects does not mean one impacts the other in any way.

Finally, maintaining Galaxy 1.2 would not take the same amount of resources in time or employees as developing 2.0 does. The reason for this is that 1.2 is already built, online and running. The only "work" it needs is monitoring to ensure it stays online and possible emergency development work should a security issue with it arise. This is not something that would impact the development of 2.0 in any way. Perhaps if CDPR was a small company without the ability to expand their resources in terms of workforce and had to use everyone for everything there could maybe be an issue here but that's not the case. In all likelihood there already where no people truly assigned to 1.2 anymore but rather it was just part of their existing monitoring of servers, connectivity, services, etc. requiring nothing but ensuring it stayed up the same as they already need to do with the rest of their services.

All of the above said though, having read through this whole thread I don't see anyone suggesting that CDPR should be maintaining 1.2 along side 2.0 in perpetuity. Only that 1.2 should continue to be available at least until 2.0 has reached a point that they have moved it out of BETA and into Stable release. This again is absolutely the norm for companies releasing overhauled or redesigned versions of their software. They leave the old version available, usually with a disclaimer that it is not actively monitored or maintained and the user is using it at their own risk/discretion.

I think I'm done arguing with you guys. I'm sick of hemorrhaging rep because I'm apparently the only one that sees how ridiculous it is to hate on an optional client.

That gives a pretty deep insight. It would perhaps be more sensible to change the discussion platform. Then you'd get another chance to let people celebrate the one-dimensional drivel you're spouting.

With this "Me Against the Whole GOG Usership" mentality you won't get very far anyway, and for good reason as it has been explained countless times.

Just be satisfied that you are satisfied with what you get - but this does not mean that you have to make your views forcefully known and that other people have to share your lower, personally perceived better standards.

Maybe if you hadn't blatantly proven your "I don't get it" mindset to be "I refuse to even put in the effort to pretend I'm trying to undestand" with an emphasis on trying to push others to accept your view instead of trying to get some insight into their perspective. You could have instead used such a question, as it would make sense to use it, as an actually reasonable attempt to understand the position you're asking about...

...nah, that can't be it. The entire GOG community other than you are the toxic ones. Obviously.

Galaxy is only optional in the sense that you can either choose to use it or not. If you are having issues with downloading via browser even their own support indicates that your only other option is to use Galaxy.

https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/212807585-I-don-t-want-to-use-GOG-GALAXY-but-my-downloads-are-corrupted-when-downloading-via-my-browser-What-are-my-options-?product=gog

If you are using Galaxy then your only option is 2.0. There is no option to continue to use 1.2 so in that sense it is not optional.

People have made very detailed, well thought out and rational posts here with nothing but constructive criticism and you have continually dismissed those posts as hate and/or ridiculous. The reason you are "hemorrhaging rep" as you put it is because you refuse to even attempt to acknowledge that the majority of the posts here have done everything but be hateful towards the client.

For my part, I actually like 2.0 quite a bit. That said, I agree with just about every single point posted here. The client is still in BETA and as such has lots of issues, this is normal. It will take time to get it built up to the level of quality, functionality and reliability of 1.2 and that is perfectly ok. What isn't ok is replacing 1.2 with 2.0 while it is still in the current state it is and it is ok for users to voice that sentiment in a constructive fashion.

Also, while I (and most people in general) feel that replacing a functional product with one still in BETA (and it is still in BETA, it is label as such on the versioning) is bad practice, bad for your customers and a bad idea in general it is certainly well within their right for CDPR to do so. It would make very good sense to communicate this decision and it's reasoning and/or purpose to your customers before doing so in order to prevent or mitigate the very situation occurring now which CDPR failed to do initially and has continued to fail to do thus far. A simple statement from them of "We understand there are issues but here is why we have done this. We apologize for the issues and are working to correct them as swiftly as possible." would go a very long way here.

Plenty of people are hating on 2.0 without reasoned thought or argument but just as many people are offering their constructive criticism and concerns for how CDPR have handled the situation thus far. In this thread at least, almost no one has done anything but make posts that fall into the later category. You however, have dismissed those posts as simply "hate" at every turn, usually without so much as an actual acknowledgement even.

I'm not sure I've ever seen an online discussion that was so astonishingly civil and well thought by so many people at once. Besides yourself, nearly no one on this particular posts has been anything but polite and receptive to discussion and yet, you are treating people as is they are simply foaming at the mouth and spewing vitriolic bile without pause. Simply put, to reference you post quoted above, you are really the only one "arguing" here. Everyone else is making reasoned and polite attempts to get you to even acknowledge the points they are making as perhaps valid.

You never used 1.2 which is fine but it is certainly much different in it's operation than 2.0 is. Now that you have used 2.0 for several months try to think how you would feel if tomorrow you discovered that it had been forcefully downgraded to 1.2 with no way for you to change it? Would you simply shrug your shoulders and move on? What if you were told that 2.0 would never be coming back and the things you had grown used to in 2.0 that were missing from 1.2 might never be added? Would you say oh well, they aren't important? How about if core functionality such as downloading games was broken for you? Would you just think, well I'm just a niche case so i shouldn't worry about it?

Honestly, these are genuine questions I would love to hear you answers on. As I said above, I like 2.0 so I am not "hating on an optional client" as you put it. So will you make an attempt to actually engage in a discussion of the client as it stands or dismiss this as just another person "hating" on the client?

well said. the lack of communication is what really drives me off.

If CDP don't want to keep old client then, Why don't CDP just open source old client GOG 1.2 and let community taking care their old client instead of removing old client entirely!

I'm all for open source software and development but in this case, doing so wouldn't be as simple as it may seem at first blush. There are a not insignificant number of concerns that would need to be addressed by them first. This would include things like assessing whether any significant code would be reused in the new client and whether or not that code could be made open source, whether any proprietary code would be reused which would be a huge issue since it would make that code available to competitors and whether making the code available would put them at risk to security breaches. Those are just 3 off the top of my head but there would be many others to consider as well.

Aside from the above, it would very likely actually not really end up meaning less work for them as with that client still up and running they would have to ensure that any backend changes on their end would still be compatible with the old client and with it now being run without their input or insight, a change made by that dev team could render it non-functional without CDPR ever knowing about it until it happened. Preventing something like that would take a tremendous amount of communication and coordination between the two parties.

Finally, it would be creating another competitor to their product and worse yet, one that is effectively themselves in many ways. The semantics of something like this and whether it's good or bad are certainly debatable but in a general sense it would not be a very smart or good business decision for them.

I too would enjoy an open source version of Galaxy, but I agree with CrackedTech. You see how many issues people are currently having with the plugins right now. All it takes is one end of the connection to change slightly, and then they can't connect to that particular service. Adding in another group, with another application to act as a middleman would cause even more frustrations, particularly right now there's already quite a bit of polishing needed with the original.