Well, I likely was being selfish and thinking of my own future self having to troubleshoot the installation for myself in next week or so when the latest version of Galaxy become available.

As for the article you linked, all it says about uninstalling is to do it, but it doesn't say how.

For example, the Mac version is installed with a package, not as an application, and generally that means uninstalling needs a package, too. I've yet to discover an uninstaller for Galaxy on gog.com website or mentioned in that BETA thread you linked.

Usually an installer package will have a list of files it installs. For some reason this package provided for installing does not have a list of files that it installs. If I understand correctly the database you are referring to is not in the application itself, so it's not going to be deleted when the application is put in the trash as the attempt to uninstall Galaxy. As such, this information you've provided here in the forums seems to me crucial for aiding in uninstalling.

Linux gamer here. Galaxy getting awesome features, eagerly waiting for the Linux version.

Here I thought you, GOG, already did? Doing documentation properly certainly does take time and effort. It would be great to see GOG have someone sit down & produce it.

In fairness to GOG, that video was almost 3 years ago and it takes time to write documentation. :)

Point is, it was kind of promised. Surely it can take time, but it's not the same as no promises :) Reverse engineering this thing is a major time drain, and if community is to build some good Galaxy based clients (not just for downloading, but for actual updating, managing installation and what not) documentation would really help.

The way I see it. Once things are documented, it would be good to write a library that would implement major functions of potential clients, using the API. Then writing a client would be a matter of using the library itself. That would make things modular, and would allow writing CLI or GUI clients.

And library itself, would be good to write in a language which allows easy bindings to other languages, in order not to restrict clients languages choice. I.e. C++ isn't the best candidate for that. Rust would make more sense.

Point is, my comment was sarcasm - directed at GOG for dragging their heels on this.

I don't think they were dragging feet so far. They said at some point that they aren't likely to work on the documentation until the protocol is stabilized. It has just happened now, since it's out of beta. So now is the time to start it. But if GOG will drag feet now because of lack of resources - that would be pretty unpleasant. We have already waited for a long time.

We're in agreement that it has taken a very long time and we're still without something they said we'd have. I never doubted that they'd do it, but I'm not alone in thinking it has taken a lot longer than anyone expected it would, and I believe that includes GOG themselves as well.

I think it acts as an example as to why companies should not promise things to their customers that they can't or wont deliver within a reasonable amount of time (or ever in some cases), and also as an example of why GOG is rather tight lipped about pre-announcing other potential features or timelines on things in general - as are most companies who are in the game long enough.

Young companies are much more likely to share details of their plans of their products with their customers at an early stages. Problem is once customers are told about just about anything, they want it immediately or as soon as possible and that is not necessarily possible nor the planned timeframe. Projects often take longer to accomplish than even the best estimates can predict also, so announcing release dates often causes companies to have to delay a release date, or release early without all of the features, or release early with a lot more bugs and problems, or some combination of all of these things.

I believe that as companies experience various negative customer sentiment over not delivering a product on time or with all of the features promised or even suggested without promise - even if no timeline was ever stated, the companies all end up sooner or later realizing that customers get less angry when they just don't know anything at all, than when they know or think they know something and a product takes longer to produce than the customer's patience is once they've heard about it.

Note how GOG never once publicly mentioned anywhere that they were working on cloud storage support for Galaxy, it just showed up in version 1.2 suddenly as a surprise, and for the most part everyone was thrilled to find out. Some are disappointed that more games are not yet supported, but overall sentiment is good. Had they announced that they were working on cloud storage 3 years ago people would have been flipping out angry for 3 years waiting for it.

In the end, we can probably expect that GOG has learned from all of this to simply not ever publicly talk about what features they're working on nor when they plan on making them available to the public in a released product. I can't really blame them for this, because I think it's something every company learns sooner or later for the most part.

Nonetheless, they did promise some things when they first announced Galaxy which are still not there yet, so even though they generally don't talk about anything publicly anymore in advance we still await the things that they did previously promise.

While 1.2 is allegedly going to be out of beta in April, they never specifically stated that they would consider the protocol stable after 1.2 was released either, so they may not document it for some time to come yet. Hard to say, but I suspect they wont want to tell us and commit to anything for reasons I mention above. Hopefully the wait isn't too much longer though, so 3rd party clients/scripts etc. can be developed sooner rather than later. I think this ultimately is going to be a place where GOG has some major value-add for some non-trivial percentage of the customer base over all of the other online shops if they play their cards right, especially on the Linux side of things.

Do you mind me asking what you mean by "Cool, thanks GOG, this is much more useful now!" under your nickname? It's hard to believe that you might actually refer to the Galaxy client because much is promised but atm nearly nothing works as intended. Just curious here.

Forum title. Space was increased from 16 characters to 50, thus it's much more useful now.

Thank you - did not even notice this :)

Yeah, what JMich said.

Hey Judas, 1.2 will be out near the end of april, or can we expect to have it sooner? I'd hate to wait almost the entire month, but I can understand if you guys want to polish the program a bit more, than to release it quickly. Thanks.

Please don't push them. The state in which 1.2 is atm is absolutely catastrophic imo so letting them polish (meaning making the promised features work as theyy are supposed to do) the client is a very good thing to me.