Hear, hear! Abundantly well said. Achievements (meaning client-based/online achievements) should have never existed in the first place. Much like Valve's Scheme store client monopoly, which also should have never existed in the first place, people will bend over backwards to try and graft on rationalizations for why these things into which they've become inculcated aren't really that bad.

I have pointed out that DRM is a "feature" as well. So to argue for "feature parity" between GOG and Scheme, or GOG and Epic Fail or whatever, is to argue for DRM coming in the package too (for games that were DRMed there but not here). Otherwise, the argument isn't at all about actual feature parity; rather, it's just about wanting these shiny noisy cheevos. Special pleading, essentially.

Unfortunately, not only have we seen where it leads, we also continue to see where it leads, as many games have content locked behind the damn thing and even apart from that many offline installers are still out of date (yes, please note the irony that to support Galaxy and want Galaxy features has resulted in this second class treatment which can be described as a lack of feature parity).

Those are strawman arguments.

Neither I, nor any Achievement/feature parity advocate in history, has ever advocated for "forced Achievements." Achievements are and always have been optional. Anyone who doesn't like them or doesn't want them can either:

a) not use Galaxy or
b) use Galaxy, but disable the Achievements feature.

Therefore, there is no sensible reason for why Achievement haters should be able to dictate that likers of Achievements must not be allowed to have them, since Achievement haters are under no obligation to participate in the Achievements system (and nor should they be, even Achievement advocates would never say they should be).

Alternatively, if by "forced" you are referring my statement that GOG should not allow games onto its platform that lack feature parity (unless there are good reasons for some features being removed): in those cases, the devs had already decided, of their own Free Will, to implement Steam Achievements into their game, which is something they did because they believe in their hearts Achievements to be a worthwhile and value-adding feature to their game.

If they then decide to treat GOG customers like second-class citizens by refusing to give GOG customers Galaxy Achievements too, then that wouldn't be because they suddenly decided that "Achievements are bad so therefore we won't give them to our GOG customers because we don't believe in them."

Rather, they would be excluding the feature solely because the devs decided it's easier to be lazy and/or cheap and/or unethical (i.e. not caring about treating all of their customers equally well).

That is to say, "being forced to add Achievements" has nothing to do with the scenario that would occur if GOG started to enforce feature parity. That makes it sound like devs who are opposed to the idea of Achievements would be compelled to add them against their will. But that's not what would actually be happening.

If anything were being forced, then the only thing being forced would be devs being forced to stop unfairly discriminating against GOG customers on the basis that they are too cheap and/or lazy to put in a few hours of work to give GOG customers feature parity.

As for your other points: since Achievements are optional and also since they do not remove, nor alter, nor restrict access to any in-game content of any game, then that means that no, they are not DRM either.

No, Achievements aren't damaging to you, nor any others who dislike them, because none of you have any obligation to participate with them when they are offered. You can completely ignore them forever, and by doing that, they will have never have any negative impact on you.

No, I do not want to "reinforce Galaxy." Rather, I believe anyone who doesn't want to use Galaxy should be free never to do so.

I also believe that no game content should ever be DRM-gated behind Galaxy (which is something that Achievements do not do, because they are not "game content" per say).

Achievements also have no impact on preventing GOG from offering offline installers for everything, so I'm not sure where the logic is in conflating the Achievement subject with the offlline installer subject, even though they have no relevance to each other.

Forced by the platform to the developer. You're quite literally saying the developer should be forced to implement Galaxy.

And you keep saying "second-class" and there are certainly cases for that. But not developing for Galaxy [meaning not implementing achievements] means those developers are treating GOG customers in a *superior* way.

So once again, please lock yourself for a few minutes in a quiet, dark room, and think. We've laid out out many times how you're wrong, and how you're trying to make GOG a worse place. (And that's even ignoring my personal feeling that having achievements -- even in-game, not client based -- tends to make most games worse.)
When you are dictating that games be tied to a DRM-like system, yes, there's absolutely good sensible reason not to implement it. Nowhere am I saying to remove in-game achievement schemes (even though I prefer they not exist personally). I'm saying to eliminate the propping up and reinforcement of the system that leads to a DRM mechanism, the system that lends itself to violation of consumer rights.

I have taken your sentences above and simply replaced Achievements with Microtransactions, and they seem to have remained just as valid. Do you think GOG should be selling games with microtransactions, i.e. in-app-purchases (once they implement an option to disable them via galaxy)?

I wasn't aware that heart monitor technology and psychic mindreading had evolved so far. Seriously, you don't know what they believe about achievements. I could just as easily suggest achievements are considered a necessary standard by a large portion of Scheme's audience which is not the case on GOG (proven by your arguing them in every topic), so that's why they include them on one and not the other.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I had read on these forums that Axiom Verge did not come here because GOG insisted on Galaxy achievements and the dev didn't do the work to provide that. I wanted Axiom Verge on this store. If that is indeed how it played out, then achievements are damaging, had a negative impact to my experience, and are in place to reinforce Galaxy. Saying that the dev was lazy or something is a non sequitur and doesn't change that.

If it is okay for non-game content being locked behind Galaxy, then it sets a bad precedent. After all, why not lock a soundtrack or artbook behind Galaxy? Or an interactive map behind a website? (this one happened already). It's not "game content", so it's perfectly fine, right? The more people share that view, the more the online content lock-in perpetuates. GOG and any company does not even need much excuse as the impression I get from real world evidence of practices is that they really want people to be online and logged-in so they will basically try to push that regardless of how popular it is. Still, I don't think we should be "helping" that type of goal any. Also it is untrue that achievements have no impact on GOG offering offline installers, insofar as that resources going to Galaxy (which allows for the achievements) are resources not going to offline installers.

Look at it this way, chaps. Supporting games on GOG may inspire more developers and publishers to release DRM-free content, while not supporting games on GOG may or may not inspire GOG management to stop pushing the overton window into a more Steam-like direction.

In my opinion, boycotting GOG outright is not the solution, especially if it means going back to Steam or the Epic Games Store. Kinda defeats the purpose, no?. It only means DRM-free games will become less and less attractive to prospective publishers, because they will see less and less returns.

Whatever extra features GOG Galaxy brings is fine, as long as it does not interfere with my offline, DRM-free version of the games I purchased. In fact I would welcome the option of cloud saves, especially, if and when GOG decides to release a native Linux client.

GOG is still the best online storefront for games, by a wide margin. The simple fact that it respects my right to real ownership more than Steam ever did.

May or may not..
How would you suggest we convince GOG to not go down the route they're so obviously intent on?
With the knowledge that supporting them financially means supporting the road they're on?

I do agree that boycotting GOG while buying on steam/epic is hypocritical to the max.

But it does interfere.

Here is a more-or-less accurate list of games where the offline installers are outdated vis-a-vis galaxy (the list is updated about once a week):
https://airtable.com/shrldLsErlUf3eHqS

This is quite strange, although I'd say it's more the developers' fault than GOG itself. GOG Galaxy seems to be more of a convenience than anything else, it really shouldn't affect those who prefer offline installers.

How can it be the developers' fault when offline installers are produced solely by GOG itself, never by the developers?

Download speed of Witcher 3 - 5Mbps.

Download speed of Pillars of Eternity - 51Kbps.

Don't exactly feel "unaffected."

Came back to get all my offline installers back after getting flooded to the ceiling, can't even download through browser anymore (used to love GOGDownloader) because connection keeps dropping with 12hours+ wait times due to horrible download speeds (and that's on GOG servers, I'm on fiber).

I know they want to peddle their "Galaxy" data-mining, but this is beyond ridiculous. Already had to swallow accepting Tencent-server-hosted login scripts just to get to my account, turns out can't even reliably download without Galaxy anymore.

Pretty much why I haven't bought any game here for a long, long time already, and I'm by no means a fan of Steam in any way.

Hell, WhattaF... This is a real serious public known GOG GALAXY security issue since 21Aug2020!

The CVE details here:
nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-24574

quote from the Proof of Concept github
github.com/jtesta/gog_galaxy_client_service_poc why does this not surprise me? ...Aha! Because it is the inept GOG support style (TM)!

For those folks using GOG GALAXY: This is a solid reason to stay away from it. Seriously!

Thanks for sharing reaver894!

Oh yeah, chap, we've been supporting GOG for years and buying all or almost all games exclusively on GOG (plus many double dips) for years and what have GOG done with that money and support?! They used the money for Abomination of GOG Galaxy and they squandered our support on weird decisions and changes to their policy.
So, sorry, you are new here and you can support them all you want, but some of us are done with that.
Cheers!

Then don't use GOG Galaxy and don't buy GOG games that include DRM, simple solution. No reason to halt our efforts in promoting DRM-free releases. The heart is there, but your actions are misguided.