PlayNite is not meant as a custom game database thingy, but is meant for launching games.
I personally don't sit on Windows anymore and when I still did I never used anything like it.
Is Playnite like Lutris essentially (minus the general point, because Lutris at least makes sense to have due to different architecture of the system and somewhat different runtime flow of launching native Linux games)?
Btw, I don't know the internal structure of Playnite but looking at what people write about it I am under an impression that it handles DB itself without reliance on some already existing DB system.
Is this correct?
Because if that's so it's pretty profoundly stupid.
I understand that some people would rather create attrocity instead of making users install additional DB system dependency, but running on something like PostgreeSQL or MariaDB would make far more sense from all sorts of perspectives in the long run.
for now Galaxy is not available for Linux users nativelly
Well nobody sane would willingly pick Galaxy other what we already have.
There is plenty of things that act as a "central launch authority" on Linux, one of more popular (also very extensible) is Lutris.
Galaxy is a steaming pile of trash code-wise. It has ludicrous overhead that close to nobody using *NIX would accept.
IF it would exist "natively" on Linux then quite the only people who would use it AT ALL would be those who want GOG achievements. Basically no one more as this piece of software is attrocious and we already have far better things with the same purpose on Linux ;)
Just for the record, in Galaxy the external clients plugins can be disabled or deleted, and the things like time measuremet, autoupdating, cloud saves and the other Client features can be disabled as well. It can be used just as a database to add external games or for ordering managing/rationalizing your library, or for download/install the games in one pass or to use it as a downloader for the offline installers.
I understand that eventually everyone will use what they prefer, but what I don't want is to install an army of external random apps to make things even more complex and time demanding. Obviously I am referring to windows users, for now Galaxy is not available for Linux users nativelly.
Mmm, I could install a closed proprietary ecosystem which is there to push their microtransactions and loot box market whilst bloating offline installers, and tying them to galaxy as well. Or I could look for an open source manager.
Let me see, support the destruction of everything GOG was, or keep it under my control...
No, galaxy has nothing to offer me, I would rather have a plain text file than install that or support anything to do with it.
Personally I never understood the implied "NEED" for a "launcher for other launchers".
Pretty much since I heard what Galaxy 2 is supposed to be it was immediattely really stupid for me.
I already said this more than once, including probably somewhere in depths of this thread, but let me repeat this:
1.This only creates more overhead. This will not interact with API and CMs directly. No. It will just launch another client. What's the point then? And if coding of the "launcher of launchers" would be bad then it could potentially memory leak and crash people's computers (or worse, example being it's technically possible to burn components on BSoD screen if you get certain not-so-unusual circumstances and then don't shut off IMMEDIATELLY).
2.This will NOT allow "proxy viewing" ALL of 3rd party services' pages. I cannot see a worldline in which Valve (or anyone else really) would allow some glorified "man in the middle proxy launcher" for viewing for example account management pages like Steam Guard, password change, and few others.
Nobody sane would risk exposing that to a very questionable "PROXY launcher".
And then there's a difference between open source - which can be AUDITED - vs closed source where you NEVER know what ACTUALLY is happening. I think the aim which way GOG is going with it's software is pretty clear (closed garden for those who don't get it).
So basically people using Galaxy 2 would STILL have to manually visit launcher / website of 3rd party service EVENTUALLY, for security stuff for example. Which makes the entire concept of that software absurdly redundant, even possibly being in the way.
Close to nobody would WANT this software (G 2.0), let alone NEED
edit: added a word plus text in brackets in last sentence