Maybe you didn't notice but many people have actually left GOG (sometimes with dramatic forum threads about their departure). Others stopped buying here but still hang out on the forums now and then.

You may call it complaining and moaning and just believing imagined things, but being unable to play a game without the optional client is a very real issue impacting e.g. Linux users who don't get their game at all here on GOG because GOG's f*cking optional client doesn't support Linux, or people who can't get the right version because GOG doesn't update their offline installers (and doesn't support rollbacks or distribute old versions, outside of the "optional" client).

You're free to believe what you want to believe.. you're free to believe that none of this impacts anyone, that regional pricing doesn't affect anyone (good for you if you're in the US, I guess?), that DRM in online games doesn't impact anyone, that the sudden lack of support since 2019 doesn't affect anyone, etcetra. You can even call yourself the voice of reason, and tell that others lack critical thinking skills, but I guarantee the "doom and gloom" is real people experiencing a real impact after having witnessed GOG pull their stunts while failing to improve things that matter. I'm quite baffled that you don't understand why people take issue with GOG taking money for DRM'd games and supporting those games..

I am not saying that some of these issues do not exist. I think it's ridiculous there is still no Galaxy client for Linux after being promised all these years ago. I think it's bad if GOG did not update installers after being informed via a support ticket they were out of date compared to Galaxy (if that happen).... and that is why I am doing my best to have that looked into. I do not agree with GOG on many things. There are many valid complaints to be had here for sure and valid complaints should be shared for sure.

However, complaining that GOG.com is turning into DRM store or that GOG is going to make Galaxy mandatory or that GOG is going end installers just isn't based in any sort of reality. It's fear mongering. If and when GOG.com (ie this site) starts selling DRM games from EGS (or Steam) whatever, then I will be the first to say that is wrong and will also probably leave GOG too at that point. I shop at GOG.com so I know I am getting a DRM free game and I don't have to go through and guess what is DRM Free and what isn't. I have no issue whatsoever though of GOG wanting to create a universal launcher that provides a shopping experience from all major PC stores. I get why they are doing that.

Just wanted to clarify...

------

Disclaimer: I do not work for GOG.com, nor am I paid by GOG.com. All views expressed in this post are my own, and do not represent the views of GOG.com or it's employees. My views are expressed as a fan, gamer, and fellow GOG user... that is all. Thank you.

How else do you expect people to react?

Aside from GOG saying one thing and doing another a lot, Galaxy is plastered all over the website.

You go to download a game the first thing you see if click here to download Galaxy. The offline installers install files that Galaxy and only Galaxy reads. You contact support, get told use Galaxy. You want the latest version of a game which includes bug fixes, then you have to use Galaxy. I could go on.

If their end goal was not to make it all use Galaxy then why push Galaxy so much? Why not let people either use it or not?

That sounds like a fair assessment. It shows that GOG is largely unconcerned with the state of their website and users, if nothing else.

The crux of the matter is:

* GOG launched back in 2008 on a platform of treating customers fairly, with a number of "core values", the main one being their opposition to DRM.
* They built up their brand and userbase on these core values.
* Over time these "core values" have been eroded and dropped one by one, leaving just one: DRM-freedom, which they have repeatedly assured us that they would never back down on, stating that they view DRM as an anti-consumer and unethical practice that they would never support. "DRM-free" essentially is/was GOG's identity.
* Meanwhile they've been working on a client, GOG Galaxy, which they insist is entirely optional.
* However they've been working towards making GOG Galaxy the primary focus of GOG to the extent that:
- It's heavily promoted everywhere on the site and many users don't even know that the standalone offline installers are a thing because Galaxy is pushed so hard. For many users there is no distinction; "GOG Galaxy" == "GOG".
- They've used deceptive tactics to try to trick users into installing the Galaxy client (such as a BIG download button for Galaxy + hidden or small links for the game installers, or bundling the Galaxy installer with game installers and installing Galaxy by default, etc.)
- The standalone offline installers are now getting neglected in many cases; missing updates, broken updates not being rolled back, etc.
- Users of the standalone offline installers requesting support are routinely told to use GOG Galaxy as the first suggestion and have to be persistent to get proper support for them.
- Linux versions of many games are not being released here because of the lack of Galaxy support, etc.
* As a result of the above, it's clear that GOG Galaxy isn't as optional as they claim, and that GOG's "traditional" userbase/people who use the standalone installers are now effectively second-class customers. Linux users are pretty much third-class; an afterthought.
* At the same time, GOG's communication with the userbase has mostly stopped. It used to be that staff members would regularly interact with the community & seemed like GOG actually cared about gaming & their customers... now there's mostly silence, except for the occasional "good news" (tm).
* And now GOG plans to drop the last of their "core values" and start selling games with DRM. They'll be promoting and profiting from DRM'ed games, and apparently they think this is ok because it'll only be offered through their client - the same client that they've made the primary focus of their store & direct their customers to as much as possible - and because they'll only be the ones selling the games & won't actually be the ones supplying them.

It's completely hypocritical. Why should anyone trust GOG after this?

Perfectly put.

I agree with what you say in one way or the other but consider that a lot of people know from GOG not through word of mouth from normal people but through companies, promoters and streamers (who're more or less also companies). Social media only plays a minor role, at least from what I can tell. I think that streamers like CohhCarnage have a much bigger reach than most of the GOG social media capacities.

Galaxy was never really promoted this hard compared to the huge amount of publicity it recieved from hundreds of other sites throughout the entire planet (there are video gaming sites in Africa and Asia that wrote about it). The promotion GOG recieved was so huge because of the promotion it recieved not through themselves but from third parties. Because of this, people recognize GOG Galaxy and the brand related to it way stronger than the initial offline installers. This also proves my point regarding branding and recognizeability. If people remember a company because of one specific thing such as GOG Galaxy, The Witcher 3, Cyberpunk 2077, etc then of course most of the connections that people make between these brands brand and the company will help people to focus on a certain thing.

Imagine if Cyberpunk 2077 is a "galaxy exclusive", kinda like how Valve made Steam popular because of "The Orange Box". From a companies perspective, using branding in such a way is beating two birds with one stone. The popularity for GOG would skyrocket, way more than how many subreddits sticked to GOG after The Witcher 3s release. Reminder that most of those people there have never heard of GOG before the release of The Witcher 3. I do believe that it hurts the good name/will of GOG in the long run as this threads also proves. If people relate GOG with a certain specific brand thats always a huge plus, but I do agree that the company shouldn't neglect many of the core principles that are important for it to function as well.

I've been here for almost a decade and have noticed a lot of (positive and negative) changes myself. At any case, contructive criticism is still valueable and I have that the GOG staff takes this serious as some of the users on here do. Perhaps this thread will inevitably change things for the better.

Of course all of this also means that people can use their social media/promoter influence to criticise GOG for whatever reason. Imagine someone like Jim Sterling or whoever criticising the same thing as you do (while also providing significant advice). Perhaps reaching out to him or similar influencers may help, at least as long as they don't function in a social media bubble like this board does?

It's a shame that this will be ignored or given a hollow response.

I hope everyone here knows, that this will open the floodgates. I n my opinion this is a very bad development and removes one of the main reasons to prefer gog over its competitors. No doubt we will see more DRM games in the future on this store.

One mistake after the other from GOG's marketing department. They really ought to change them.

Yep, well put adamhm. One more thing:

When I first heard about Galaxy and their AVP2000 multiplayer demo, I genuinely believed that GOG was about to release the first DRM-free gaming client that implements all the APIs game developers seem to want these days (achievements, matchmaking, etc.) and at the same time extends their (once-a) habit of patching old games to now include DRM-free multiplayer, in case the original implementation of multiplayer had ceased working. That could have been a good thing!

Instead, they created yet another DRM client that requires players to authenticate with and be connected to GOG's servers to get this functionality working. (I assume the client also checks whether you have a given game in your library before it permits you to access these functions; but nobody has bothered to help me confirm whether this is the case)

I would have called him a propaganda agent, but I may be weird that way...

The management is ultimately to blame. If marketing has wild ideas (that's in part what they're paid for) management has to assess what are good or bad ideas.
I don't play MP, so I don't know.
Galaxy 1 at least happily launched games you didn't own, or if you were logged out. I don't know if they changed that in Two.

You were here for long enough to remember that before Galaxy one of the main complaint seen on this forum and even in the "gaming press" was how Gog (and by extension DRM-free gaming) was so much more of an hassle, less convenient, etc... than Steam. It's not like Galaxy was a random thought that they suddenly took them one morning, it was for a very long time one of the most requested feature. So yes they are heavily promoting them and it's the "default" but it's not because of some evil scheme it's simply that it's the solution that the huge majority of users will uses to download, keep their games updated and play online and that even among those who actually backup their installers.

The big button is not some sort of "deceptive tactics" as you said but simply to try to make it as easy and straightforward as possible for the majority of users who, for better and for worse, have been conditioned by Steam and think that downloading installers and double clicking on setup.exe a too much of an hassle nowadays.

Rollbacks never existed before Galaxy, the only reason why it was less of an issue back then was because there was barely any updates given that most of the games where X+ years old.

For the other part I agree that there are some "hiccups" in the updates of the offline installers and that it would be good if Gog was more reactive on that parts. IMHO it would be more productive to keep a list of those games and push Gog to act on those who are really out of sync, rather than mentioning it as a foot note every time there is a complaints against Galaxy.

Linus users were never part of the "traditional" user base of Gog, Linux support was added pretty late and never was the primary focus and sadly for Linux users it didn't generate enough sales for Gog to really keep investing in this direction and that's probably the main reason for their lack in interest into making a Linux version of Galaxy.

Can you really blame them ? I am the first to recognize that Gog communication skills are severely lacking, but every time they tried to communicate and be open about something it backfired, add to that the dumb Twitter controversies and you can understand why they switched to radio silence mode. I don't think it's a good idea in the long run but I can definitely understand why they decided to do it.


I don't really think that are really going to "profit" from it in any real way, they are going to get a cut from Epic cut, which is already much smaller than the usual 30% they are taking, I suspect that was they will get is probably just here to cover the costs of the extra support and the extended refund rather than making any real money.

IMHO the idea is not really to make any direct profit from those same but more increase Galaxy visibility and push the idea of an universal client. This whole "weird" deal with Epic is probably just a way to convince Epic to let them use their store as a Guinea pig, as in, "you want us to integrate with your client ? do all the work and handle the support and it's ok".

Is it a good idea ? personally I am not convinced, it might increase visibility but given Epic not so stellar reputation and the confusion (i.e. this thread) it can generate, it might backfire. But on the other side I don't think it means they will start selling Steam or Epic games on the "main" store.