I've removed part of your response in the quote to highlight the bits I'm addressing, so apologies if the quote doesn't have the same sense as your original post.

I back up the game installers to an external hard drive so I always have access to them, so that's not a feature of Galaxy that I require. For windows based games, they may add registry keys when you install them, so it's presumably not quite so simple as just scanning for the games (unless Galaxy messes with your registry when it does that). I'm not convinced that I could continue to play games without an issue using Galaxy, so my preference is to continue with the offline installers which should continue to work for the foreseeable future (I'm assuming they're x86 installers, so will be okay whilst WoW64 works).

In terms of organising my games, I find a folder structure works best.

That being said, I might start using Galaxy for non-GoG games only (to avoid having to manually launch other launchers). I wouldn't use it for GoG games though.

Well, to counter a few of your points, updates are optional. You can turn them on or off on a per game basis, and if an update breaks your game or a mod, you can roll back to the previous version. It also performs the basic functions offline. Obviously, you can't download or update games offline, but it will launch your games easily enough. Also, the tracking is disabled in offline mode.

All your other points, however are completely valid, and if those are your concerns, then yes, it may not be for someone. While it is not used to control your games as DRM at this point, the ability is obviously there.

EDIT TO ADD: Epic's client still sucks ass. It's getting better, but Galaxy is far more developed and GOG as a storefront is more developed than EGS.

I don't hate it, but for backing up a large library Galaxy is not the solution. Gogrepo is. So as long gogrepo keeps working, I'm happy.

Despite the track other users have taken by saying how they don't "hate" the client, I will go ahead and embrace your vocabulary. I do "hate" what the client represents and will detail below. In short, I hate DRM and believe something like the client functions as DRM already in many cases, and is possibly a precursor to store-wide Steam-like DRM in the future. That "Scheme" DRM is why I abandoned my love of PC gaming for nearly a decade and a half until I eventually made my way here.

This store is basically "it" for me, the last major refuge of the kind of gaming I want. And I don't mean in terms of curation, or indies, or anything like that...I mean that GOG is the last place that gets big, expansive releases DRM-free and can provide a complete experience similar to how I remember PC gaming pre-Scheme. It's no wonder people like me are vociferous on this topic because if this store were to ever go fully the Scheme route, we have to choose between accepting that or no store at all. That's serious business, and I can tell you I would choose the latter "option." "I want this function" is a complete sentence. In other words, just because you don't understand why people need (or simply want to remain as an option) to have this function, doesn't mean they don't have their reasons. And yes, losing the ability to download individual installers is a big deal to me and other old school minded folks since we like to have the control of our games within our hands and no extra steps clogging up the way. With all due respect, since I love this site, what makes you think that just because GOG said it, you should trust it? GOG has said Galaxy will remain optional, but continues to sell games that require it for multiplayer. In fact, every so often they will post a cool-sounding forum thread title, that ends up being an advertisement for GWENT. GWENT, to my understanding, cannot be played at all without the client.

Besides being incoherent branding, this is a dangerous precedent of the client as DRM. You, as well as others, may say "oh that's just multiplayer DRM, that won't happen to singleplayer". This is what I call the "Horse Armor" argument, or if you prefer, the mobile microtransaction argument. People seem to think anti-consumer practices will just stay contained in their niche. Nothing we observe about the gaming industry indicates that is the case. I don't worry about it, as I am resigned to the fact that developers, publishers, and seemingly the store itself treats offline installer users as second class citizens, with the updated versions sometimes coming weeks (or more!) later. Even regardless of that, I would still rather be treated as second class and have to wait, than be forced into the client with no choice. Why are you against my choice? ...YET.

(also patently untrue in the case of many multiplayer games).

I'm not sure if you're aware, but GOG has a "sister site" called FCKDRM.com. It has a nice rundown of what the downsides of DRM are. Ironically, one can argue that "mandatory Galaxy usage" would fail multiple, if not all, of the criteria they had listed there. Now, I know your topic is more about why users don't like Galaxy as it is now (not mandatory, though some would say de facto mandatory given how offline is treated in comparison). But the point is that the FCKDRM.com criteria, if applied to Galaxy requirement of any kind, do not seem to paint a flattering picture.

Moreover, other sources of DRM-free media are able to be listed on FCKDRM.com; however, it says the sources must be "100% DRM-free". That is my standard as a consumer, 100% DRM-free. Not "well, you see, there haaaas to be DRM for multiplayer, but the singleplayer is DRM-free". Not "who cares, you used the INTERNET to download this game is the INTERNET a DRM? Are you poor or a hick, bro?". Not "you're a minority in your views and this is more conveeeeenient." None of that. 100% DRM-free.

Does this completely disable the tracking or only temporarily disable the uploading of the tracked data? Because I remember reading (probably here on the forums) that it will still track but only upload the tracked data later when it reestablishes connection. Dont know if this is true though - thats why the question.

I've not experienced this. Maybe it has changed in later updates, but my experience was if I play with it offline it will not update my time or my achievements to sync with what I've earned offline. I ran into this with a game I was playing and we lost internet, I wasn't going to go back and replay it for the lost cheevos because I don't really care that much about them.

I don't hate it. I run an OS that it doesn't support.

It depends, some games need to be allowed to be online to even get the possible achievements listed by the client and anything you earn offline will not be recognized later, while with some games after you allow the them go online the next time you start playing you will need to wait a few minutes while all the earlier achievements get awarded to you one by one...

I don't necessarily hate Galaxy, but it's completely pointless for me.

First of all, I have my whole library (Windows and Linux installers plus goodies) on an external HDD that I'm keeping up to date. I don't need to download a game when I want to install it, I just need to plug in the HDD and install it from there.

Secondly, the only functionality that Galaxy provides that I actually like is cloud saves. I don't like it enough to put up with the rest of Galaxy, though, so I manually upload saved game files/folders to Google Drive.

And thirdly, I'm using an app called TileIconifer to change start menu icons. For some reason, though, this doesn't work properly when Galaxy is installed.

I don't hate it either. Choices are a good thing in general, and if some users find it useful, that's great.

What I dislike is how GOG always stresses that it's optional but then clearly gives it priority over offline installers, hiding the latter in your library (admittedly, the current solution is still better than how they initially hid them, but still an extra click). And I don't know if it affected any other games, but the current offline installer of Forgotten Realms Unlimited Adventures comes with a DOSBox.conf that includes a line aimed at Galaxy cloudsaves which breaks offline savegame functionality, and apparently GOG can't be bothered to fix that, because why would anyone NOT want to use the OPTIONAL Galaxy client? :P (And the few who don't can just fix their installation themselves, right? Not that anyone will even warn them and tell them how, mind you.)

All of which I can do with downloaded installers :o)

Not used epics launcher. Would never consider uplay, origin, gfwl (or the new version). I understand gog have to jump in on the latest big craze to stay relevant, but a simple bit of organisation is far simpler and easier than any client.
TBH I become less bothered each year now. Drm free hasn’t gone anywhere, drm gets worse, as mentioned on another thread we are heading back to the 80/90s with all the different launchers and streaming services. Expect a huge resurgence of piracy in the near future, these companies never learn.

My main point was dissemination of the proper information. I know I won't convince you, nor was I trying. We've gone around on this discussion a few times before.

I can't use it on my OS either (macOS), even if I wanted to. This is because Galaxy does not allow multiple computer users to be logged in on a single computer, even if only one user has ever run Galaxy. (*at least this was the case the last time I tried Galaxy).

I don't hate it. I have it installed myself but I don't use it to play games. I use it to update my games because in the past I had issues with with the offline updaters with certain games such as Grim Dawn. It is very good for that if you have had issues with the offline patches.

Not only GOG will know. Everyone will (could) know if you don't turn everything on your profile to private.

A better example of a "questionable" game is HuniePop. A Match 3 game where "your goal" is to bang as many girls as possible. The game isn't as pervert as it sounds. And in fact, it's quite a good game, too! The sexual content isn't fapfapfap-like content. It's more like a very special kind of humor. But people who didn't play the game know it as some sexist piece of crap.

When I launch Galaxy (I used it for a while when it was new and still hae it installed) and click HuniePop in my library, I'm not only seeing my own playtime. I also see how long my friends played it (names blurred out for pointless reasons). I don't even need Galaxy to see their stats. All I need to see the time they've played it is a browser. I don't even have to be friends with someone to see this. Just compare the time played to the ones of my friends. I'm not friends with that user. It's just some random profile (had to click through a few to find someone who owns and played HuniePop in Galaxy).

@topic
I don't hate Galaxy. I tried it for a while, but... Well... I don't care for social features, achievements, cloud saves, auto updates or whatever. So I don't really see what it's good for (in my case) and stopped using it. If I want to track the time I've spent with one game, I'll maybe use it again...

But there's a couple of things I don't like about Galaxy.

I've seen quite a few comments recently where people complained about not getting patches for offline installers, although Galaxy got the patch some time ago. This sucks! This means buying games on GOG when you don't use Galaxy is double risky. 1. You don't know if the publisher will patch the GOG version and 2. if they do, you don't know if GOG will provide these patches for the offline installers without you begging them. That's not how you keep your old users (the ones who came here for DRM free games) happy. That's exactly how to drive them away from GOG -.-

By the way: What's happening with the patches now, is exactly what I wrote back then when GOG told us that the situation with patches will become better with Galaxy, because it allows publishers to patch their games via the client. I knew that patches for offline installers would suffer. It's common sense.

A second "issue" I have with Galaxy, is another thing I've read on the forums a few times already. Users who had problems with games and asked support for help, got "Use Galaxy" as a solution. That's not exactly what I'd call "optional".

And then there's still the problem how the definition of "DRM free" changed over the last few years. GOG's totally fine with Galaxy-only multiplayer, which isn't what DRM-free means to me.

Again: I don't hate Galaxy. I just think GOG has bigger problems than trying to build their own client (Galaxy barely developed after the beta release). Like fixing their website. Or giving devs one or two nice kicks between their legs when they think it's okay not to patch the GOG version of their games. Or like sorting out what they want to achieve with their random curation (Game's too niche. Give us something that looks like a mobile game instead!). Or like working on their communication skills (with users AND publishers). But GOG isn't my business... It's their decission.