Dear GOG, this question is still unanswered, although it was asked not just once:

Is there a deal involved concerning our user data?

And if so, does opting out from the second store also mean opting out from the data exchange?

Edit: clarified the second question

It was fcked without a condom and now a mongrel baby is born.

Tempted to not buy from GOG anymore (my go to store) if it means GOG will just turn into a proxy for Epic. I'd rather deal with Steam's DRM then associate myself with anything Epic related. It's already bad enough that I have to restrain myself from buying UE games.

Epic's definition of an "open ecosystem" is to just have everything funnel into Epic. The exclusive deals, loss leading, industry consolidation, and the man child Tim Sweeney acting entitled to everything should all be huge red flags for everyone.

GOG becoming basically a third-party key seller is already bad enough, but being a key seller for Epic, that's a complete 180 from what GOG is to me, a consumer friendly platform that says FCK DRM.

People talk about the PC environment needing more competition. Well this move seeks to remove a competitor and turn them into another proxy like Humble Bundle and GMG.

Don't let the big guys walk on you GOG, especially Epic.

https://fckdrm.com

So much for the core mission. Guess I'll stop prioritizing GOG over Steam when it comes to my wishlist.

Do you remeber for this ? Of course not , since it also died .

And this is how you gather all the anti-Epic protesters. Guys, have you actually been invited to the new store? Or do you just like complaining for the sake of complaining? Don't judge something before you've seen it. If you don't want to buy from Epic, don't buy from Epic, no one is forcing you to. Bye!

My initial presumption given's GOG.com's famously anti-DRM stance was this initiative would only include a selection of DRM-free games from the Epic store (given the 'hand-picked' wording of GOG's announcement) and since the games shown off in screenshots are DRM-free. However the FAQ seems to be carefully phrased to avoid outright stating that games with DRM won't be sold via Galaxy's new feature, so it's no wonder there is community confusion and push-back.

FAQ: Also according to the FAQ games bought via Galaxy from Epic can be downloaded and installed via the Galaxy client, making the user-facing integration native in every way except for needing a separate account on Epic (GOG handling purchase, refunds, service, client, install).

This is a concerning route for GOG to take imo if it includes games with DRM, but regardless as one person pointed out it puts GOG in a less ideal position for obtaining games for their own service if publishers can reason to themselves that it's easier to put a game on Epic without having to worry about GOG.com, even if the game is DRM-free (however at least in those cases the consumer ends up with a DRM-free game, yet if GOG.com handles purchases of DRM'd games it becomes quite conflicting).

No confusion, the games will have DRM: https://old.reddit.com/r/gog/comments/j35rry/new_store_inside_gog_galaxy_launches_in_test_phase/g7aevm9

Then it is quite disappointing that GOG is both doing this and trying to obscure this in their FAQ, not to mention stating it's the most requested feature---which as many have pointed out is publicly not the case: either in wishlist votes or forum topics/posts (I'd be very surprised if the issue tracker had more requests of this feature than Galaxy bugs, as well).

I did the same thing you did. And now I'm contemplating the same.

We know we don't have to buy EGS games. The issue that at least I have is that this helps Epic, and the direction GOG is going in may do more harm than good for GOG by turning them into a key seller for the big players.

And yes, I acknowledge that this move alligns with the whole "unified launcher" goal. However, I can't see this feature being good for GOG in the long run, as it risks turning GOG into another key seller like Humble and GMG.

Mostly though, I don't want to see any support for Epic as they are basically the anti-GOG when it comes to consumers. But if I'm wrong and this does end up benefiting GOG more than Epic, then I will accept it, but as of right now I'm very concerned about what this feature will lead to, especially in regards to Epic.

And STILL waiting on news about the option to roll back to the last known stable client, since Galaxy 2.0 is blatantly still in beta, staff have confirmed it's still in beta, but users who are OPTED OUT OF BETA TESTING are still having to use unsupported workarounds to maintaint access to the last known stable client version.

I think feedback about v2 vs v1 is all good (I've done it myself both here and in a more constructive way on the issue tracker) but given you addressed this in the very first and most visible reply in this topic (and the issues have been continuously been in bumped topics for months by countless users) I'm not sure what good it does bringing it up again in response to an unrelated post. It's pretty much preaching to the choir, though does bump one's rep I suppose.

No staff have responded directly to this recently and I doubt they'll be coaxed out of the woodwork like this tbh. I do hope GOG can remain a healthy service on their own as TwinEdge touched on above.

It is absolutely relevant here. This is a discussion of a major update to Galaxy. The update is being rolled out on a beta platform. That beta platform is being grossly mishandled right now. Making sure there is as much visibility as possible on the severity (service breaking in some cases) of the problems is not just relevant, but IMPORTANT.

When the company is downplaying the impact of Galaxy as a launcher platform by emphasising its optional nature, pointing out that there's still a major problem where they're FORCING BETA TESTING ON USERS WHO THEY GAVE A CHOICE TO OPT OUT OF BETA TESTING is valid and necessary. Similarly, pointing out that there have been long-standing known problems that actively break the most basic of core functionality which they had been advised of repeatedly prior to them forcing the beta on everyone, and which remain not just unresolved, but not even responded to officially, is worth continuing to do until they address the concerns they are making it necessary to push for them to address.

GOG is a great plaform, run by a company which deserves a lot more respect than most of their competition in the PC games market. That said, they are dropping the ball BADLY here, and they NEED to hear it. And in hearing it, they NEED to respond.