The threads in question were locked, and don’t have numbers:
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/epic_store_games_you_can_play_without_the_epic_launcher
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/steam_games_you_can_play_without_the_steam_client

See I was the same as you, however even the installers provided now have gone downhill, being “galaxified”, so streams rather than direct unpack. Also compression is crap on these installers, compare the 40gb+ for serious Sam 4 against a repack of 20-22gb.
Then there is no downloading of old versions, and no chnagelog most of the time, plus missing patches for offline (ss4 springs to mind again) means a large full redownload.
Not saying that any other store sorts these things out any better of course. TBH though, I now don’t really bother saving as much, slowly deleting it all as I will unlikely to back to anything apart from a few, and with the whole push to have everything (and I mean everything from your teatowels through to cars) being locked online now it’s hardly worth the effort.

Yeah, GOG closed those threads down or they were closed pre-emptively which was unfortunate. I still got the impression that more big games were playable without the Epic client than they were with Steam.

I remember there was a post on this board here on how to create your own offline installers from drm-free games because the current version is not optimal.

I didnt know about the change in installers. How has this changed exactly to be worse with Galaxy? Are the installers downloaded through Galaxy different from downloading from the website?

I do wish other stores also offered offline installers but given we only buy “licenses,” they dont care. It would be a game changer if Epic did it.

GOG does the same thing. I need to have a compatible web browser installed, or Galaxy, and those games purchases are autheticated and made accessible to me afterwards. So GOG isn't really DRM-free either now, is it?

If I can do whatever I want with the files once I obtain them from S**** then it's really no different at all from the GOG website or Galaxy.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but the majority of gamers disagree with that, and that's why S**** has the market share it does, and why GOG has the market share it does.

"No DRM-free games" - That's a lie from you, or ignorance on your part. Either way you're wrong on that.

"Everything needs to be done through a launcher." More lies, or ignorance. There's plenty of software that can be purchased through S**** that functions the same way it would if purchased through Galaxy. Buy the game, Download / install said game, Close or Uninstall Steam and play said game.

S****'s dominance may have started from that, but they've remained where they are because they provide a better service. You don't remain on top by resting on your laurels.

You said it yourself, "S**** is the first name that comes to mind". S**** is considered the Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo of PC, and when you can say that about your platform and service then you're in a dominate spot.

Not necessarily. I agree with the general statement that competition is good, but not when you're dealing with digital products and services. There's nothing beneficial to software ownership being fragmented across a half dozen (6) and more stores on PC.

That's part of the reason why people continue to choose S**** for a game that still releases on GOG the same day. There's too much value in having everything on a single platform / account.

The same idea applies for the numerous number of paid streaming services these days.

I disagree with both. I think most people do know about GOG, and most certainly know what DRM is. People don't care about GOG, and consider any DRM that you get with S**** to be acceptable because there's value in the service.

There's also what is DRM-free "out of box" and what can be easily made DRM-free. Valve themselves have said the totally optional DRM within S****works is not an anti-piracy solution.

"As a policy, they don't give af about DRM-free." - Where are you getting this assumption from? From the list of DRM-free games you linked that you yourself just said "isn't the most reliable source". Come on, man.

Not to mention that Valve's own actions dispute what you say with the fact that most of their own games are in fact DRM-free, or don't use third-party DRM's. Which again, Valve themselves saying that the S**** wrapper is not an anti-piracy solution.

Valve encourages enhancing teh value of legitimate copies by using S****works features like online multiplayer, leaderboards, achievements, trading cards, and so on.

Do I think Valve cares about DRM-free? I don't know. I think people having and keeping the software they buy on S**** is extremely important to them.

There's also a difference between caring about it and advertising it. The latter is why I think GOG has the problems that it does with certain publishers. It's one thing to be DRM-free, but it's another to advertise it as such. It's one thing to leave your door unlocked from time to time, but it's something completely different if you were to put a sign up telling everyone it is. You understand what I'm saying?

It's a lot more than you think, and it's even more when you consider what can be made to be DRM-free very easily. Again, like I mentioned above, there's no anti-piracy solution within S****. Valve has literally said as much.

If DRM was a priority for them then they'd obviously put the resources into creating something within S**** that actually a solution, but they don't. You say that DRM-free isn't a priority for them, but DRM also isn't a priority for them either.

Offline installers are important to GOG users, but I don't know how important they are to GOG now. The current Offline installers are a byproduct of Galaxy. They wouldn't exist without Galaxy and the automated creation loop. The installers themselves come with Galaxy baked into it, and they're horribly inefficent. We've had threads here stating as much and going into detail on that.

I do agree with you on GOG digging their own grave if they were ever to drop offline installers. I mean, honestly, they're already standing in their own grave right now.

GOG can't abandon being DRM-free or providing offline installers. Not to mention that the creation of offline-installers is an automated process. But when I see people sometimes worry about GOG moving away from being DRM-free I always laugh. Why? Because what would GOG be if they were another store that is open to DRM? They'd be like another S****, just without the games and without the marketshare. GOG would have even less marketshare than they do now if they supported DRM. GOG will live and die being DRM-free.

I don't see Epic going DRM-free either. I'm not sure where I see Epic going right now, but I don't see them ever realistically competing with S****. It's been a financial disaster for them so far with how much money they've lost. They're doing everything they can to get people on board. They're subsidizing game cost during sales with their coupons, they're giving away free games, but not many actually care to spend money there. Most are just redeeming the free games, and nothing else. Epic can absorb those massive loses for now it seems, thanks to Unreal Engine, Fortnite and the predatory exploitation of our children, but I figure we'll hear Tony Burton (R.I.P) yelling to "Throw the Towel" at some point and the free games will go away. At that point it'll just become another store that sells games that no one really buys anything on.

-Edit- Few instances of that censored word I had to fix :)

It was a big change some months back, you can see because all they put in the change logs was installed updated. Instead of being compressed files they are now streams within the file much like how galaxy downloads files. There was a post on this, will try to find. Further on that they also add in galaxy.dll to a lot of the programs now. It’s stated as not doiing anything if galaxy is not installed, me I don’t particularly believe that, and it is hard linked in some games (titan quest recently messed up and had loads of them, steam, discord etc. and wouldn’t run without it all). Teams old compatibility too.

Tell me when steam provides offline installers and gives me the ability to add any mods I want that doesnt need to go through the workshop for approval.

Sure, they have some games but as shown, a far smaller proportion than even Epic.

And yet I need to load the launcher every time I want to play Gwent? Sure, my statement that there are no DRM-free games was extreme

Steam is playing a platform game like Epic and GOG. Once you have your users buy-in and its hard to leave the platform due to other costs, you have successfully locked in your customer. Its because steam offers things like achievements, cards, limited time profiles, etc that shows how long the user has been on steam that the user is unwilling to move to other platforms. Same with Playstation and Xbox with their achievements.

Just because a product is digital does not mean consumers dont benefit any less from the forces of competition. Convenience encourages the desire to shop at one market but convenience comes at the cost of other benefits like lower prices or higher quality products which comes from competition.

This is what every platform business wants you to think. Just shop with us and only us because its convenient (Amazon, any streaming service, Uber, etc.) so they can kill off the competition. They price cut and operate at a loss. Once they gain majority marketshare, then they ramp up the pressure and start enjoying the fruits of their labor. Game developers have already vented their frustration about steam.
https://www.polygon.com/2018/10/19/17959138/steam-valve-developer-support-pricing-reviews
https://hackernoon.com/barely-surviving-as-a-game-developer-while-steam-gets-its-cut-7028x34z8

Hell, this is why Uber and Lyft are no longer cheap. Now that other car sharing companies are gone, Uber prices rose by 92% between 2018 and 2021. Uber operated at a loss, subsidizing every ride with investor money so it can be top dog. Now they are, its time to cash in.
[url=https://slate.com/business/2022/05/uber-subsidy-lyft-cheap-rides.html#:~:text=Average%20Uber%20prices%20rose%2092,account%20for%20high%20gas%20prices]https://slate.com/business/2022/05/uber-subsidy-lyft-cheap-rides.html#:~:text=Average%20Uber%20prices%20rose%2092,account%20for%20high%20gas%20prices[/url].

And why is it not beneficial to have games on different launchers? If you had no achievements, no record of how long you played, just access to the game which you only need to install from a launcher and then never needed the launcher again, does it really matter if you have Witcher 2 on Steam and Witcher 3 on Epic and Witcher 4 on GOG? Its because we have the added task of opening launchers and the additional "benefits" of achievements, badges, and other means to show off our accomplishments in the game that we want our products in one store.

And what is this value? Is having everything in one launcher so important? If thats the case, shouldn't Galaxy be king because you can access your gaming library from steam, epic, ubi, etc. from Galaxy?

This value comes from the achievements you earn from the game, the time spent, badges earned, etc isnt it? All stuff created by Valve through steam?

If this is really the case, then why have steamworks in the first place? Its own description says its weak and can be removed by a motivated attacker to recommend being used with other DRM measures but that doesnt mean that steam wrapper itself isnt DRM.

Well do you have any other data? I say its not the most reliable source because its from a wiki but I dont see any other more reliable source. The numbers show us that as a proportion compared to its entire library, its very low, lower than even Epic. Epic isnt exactly a strong proponent for anti-DRM but they did open with the Epic launcher being DRM-free with no license check in contrast to steam.

Except that Half Life 2 required users to install steam to first run the game. You're argument is essentially "Steam isnt DRM because Valve says isnt not DRM even though it its used to combat casual piracy. Since it can be broken, its not a DRM measure."

Im not an Epic games defender and dont expect it to go DRM-free (theyve seen GOG) but the obvious target is new gamers. They arnt aiming for the older gamers because they have already bought in to steam and have become steam heads. Hell, the are even people who claim "no steam, no buy." You will never convert those people to another store, even if steam decides to just drop sales and increase prices. They have their customers bought in.

Epic is going for new younger gamers. Introduced through fortnite, new young gamers can build a library of games for free on their Epic account. They are already introducing achievements, lower prices, and with an existing library, new PC gamers already have a foothold with Epic. Combine that with exclusives to try to attract the not-so diehard steam and GOG users and they can build their market share.

Nevermind the fact that Epic is also better for developers. Even without exclusivity contracts to guarantee some revenue, publishing a game on Epic using the unreal engine allows the developer to waive the licensing fee for using unreal engine as well as getting a better share of 88% vs 70% on steam. Yes, Epic is losing money right now but hopefully they will become a rivalling force to make Steam improve its service for both gamers and developers such as cutting their 30% cut which screws over indie developers (especially since indies are the ones making good games right now). I did see it at steam users being entitled when they boycott indie game Sifu with the "no steam no buy" chant when Sifu is a good game by an indie studio that could use the cost saving by publishing on Epic first (uses unreal engine).

Another thing about Epic is about a portion of their shares is bought by Tencent and thats in bed with the CCP, which is bad news for democratic nations like the US. that being said, This news is not going to change anything. in fact its going to make more losses in profits and which most players will resort to using other methods to acquire these DLCs

Thats worrying. The point of these offline installers is the ability to reinstall and play the games in the event that GOG closes (and with it Galaxy and any other related services at the time of closing). Will need to check my installers. A link to the thread would be very appreciated. I wonder why galaxy.dll was added in the first place.

Edit: I did a search and might have found the thread. Did a test installing a game with an installer from the website and found galaxy.dll and galaxy.int in the systems folder. Deleting galaxy.dll caused the game to not play. I was able to play the game as long as I had the files even if GOG Galaxy was uninstalled though.

Yes, the titan quest one was fixed quite quickly, you still need steam and galaxy dlls to run it, but they should do nothing.
It’s was added so those who accidentally downloaded the non galaxy version would still get achievements and cloud saves. Also devs need to put hooks in their games for these things. Having a proper separate version is way too much trouble as anyone who has setup multiple build paths will tell you, no wait wrong way round that! But it is what it is, I suppose its slightly better than bundling galaxy with every offline installer which they tried before. Anything to get you hooked online.

The thing is that I can create my own installers for S**** games (or GOG for that matter), and they're actually better than what GOG provides. Yes, there's no additional "work" with GOG "out of box", but the GOG offline installers are not exactly good for a variety of reasons.

Where do mods come into play here? S**** doesn't restrict what mods users can add to their games. I can get and install mods for outside sources and use them in Skyrim or any other game that has modding. The workshop has no affect on that whatsoever and you're certainly not forced to only use approved workshop mods.

I'm starting to wonder if you have any clue at all about what you're talking about. Having an opinion is one thing, but you're saying things that are just flat out wrong.

This is based off of the list you linked where you yourself said, and I quote - "isn't the most reliable source?Riight...
The list you quoted as a source even says that it's only tracking "confirmed" so it's possible that the number of DRM-free titles on a platform is much higher in reality.

Anyways, I've always disputed that list. If you go over to S**** and just search for games, not DLC or anything else, just Games, you get over 70,000 results. Do you really believe that only 802 of those games are DRM-free? But hey, if you want to chalk up an imaginary win for Epic and GOG for at least beating S**** at something, well, knock yourself out.

This is your response? When I dispute your statement that "Everything needs to be done through a launcher" you respond with "I need to load the launcher everytime I want to play Gwent". Dude...

There's no "other costs" on PC that are preventing someone from buying on other stores. This isn't a console where you've bought in on proprietary hardware needed to run the software you bought. Nothing is stopping anyone from buying a game on GOG or Epic. Those services both have achievements also, by the way.

So basically what you're saying is that S**** is a service that has more features people care about and because of that they're unwilling to move? Gotcha.

I think you're being a little hyperbolic with what you're saying, but there's some truth to it. Ultimately, it's about the games more than anything, and S**** just has far more major games than the other PC stores. There's plenty who are perfectly happy with shipping exclusively on S****.

Don't make it sound like people are trapped, because they're not. People are happy with S**** and Valve has given them no reason to look elsewhere when it comes to application features and software support. Both things are sorely lacking from GOG (software) and Epic (both).


I'm not wrong, because it's my opinion. Now moving on - Where has convenience come at a cost for people who prefer only buying on S****?

Your whole argument here about "They price cut and operate at a loss" which doesn't even apply to S****. The revenue split on S**** was always 30%, so how does that apply? They didn't have a better revenue split for developers and then all of a sudden jack it up once they became the dominate PC gaming store.

If anything your argument here is reason why people shouldn't be buying from Epic Games. Epic has already said their store is not sustainable. Maintaing and operating a major PC store while working with a 12% revenue split is not possible. Have we seen any savings passed on to the customer for Epic giving developers 88% of the pie? Nope. Epic is subsidizing game cost themselves with their coupons because they're basically begging people to buy something on the store.

And Yeah-Yeah, I see some developers venting about S****, and crying about the algorithm and not having front page visibility when there's hundreds of titles probably more deserving. Boo hoo. Like we don't hear that kind of crap from bitter people all the time on Youtube, S****, consoles and everywhere else.

Again, S**** has never done what you're basing this whole defense of "competition being good" around. They've never operated at lower costs or provided a better developer revenue split only to jack it up later on after they found themselves in a monopolistic position.

You've just been talking about how many of you GOG users make a big issue about Galaxy, so why would I want my software library to be fragmented across a bunch of Galaxies?

Also, Galaxy doesn't remove the requirement of having those applications installed and running. It doesn't remove the need for accounts on these services to access games. There's absolutely no benefit in it for anyone by having a bunch of games on S****, some more on GOG, more on Epic, more on EA Origin, more on Ubisoft, more on Battle.net, and so on.

Yeah, why the need for multiplayer, leaderboards, stats and achievements, cloud saving, and so on... Think McFly...

S****works isn't just a "DRM" which, again, is totally optional.

Already touched on this above.

When it first released Half-Life was like that, but that hasn't been the case for a long time now. As for S**** being a DRM, well, it isn't. S**** itself isn't a DRM. There doesn't need to be an argument or defense about it, because it's a factual statement. The S**** client itself isn't a DRM, and is nothing more than application based store designed to deliver purchased content to users. It's no more of a DRM than Galaxy is, or the GOG website.

People who are ignorant on the subject automatically assume Steam is a DRM when the "DRM" part is just a totally optional feature within Steamworks. It's not much of a DRM either, because like I said, Valve has said it's not an anti-piracy solution.

Are we ignoring that S**** isn't in just as good of position to also get the younger PC gamer also? You said previously that a lot of the PC gaming industry revolves around S****, and that S**** is the first name that comes to mind. S**** just has far more games, and better games from major studios than Epic does. Capcom for example releases basically exclusively on S**** and doesn't have a single title on Epic.

The revenue split might be better for the time being, but developers are still make more money on S****. That 12% revenue split isn't going to last either, because it's not finacially viable to operate at that kind of split while having a sizable store. S**** offers an industry standard 30% revenue split that is tiered now so studios can hit revenue milestones and move into a 25 and possibly 20% split.

Let's remember, while that Epic revenue split might sound good, the thing is that Epic will not ship most of the games on S**** or even GOG for that matter. Most of those "indie" developers you claim are being screwed over by S**** wouldn't even have a place on Epic's store, and a lot of them wouldn't even have a place on GOG either.

Epic has even famously refused to sell games that wouldn't offer exclusivity to them also. And do you think GOG can accept every game that wants to be sold here? They literally can't, because GOG has to make money. So let's not act like S**** is some horrible entity that is screwing over indie devs.


-Edit- Had a horrible time trying to get this to post. Dunno what was going on, but I didn't think I had it formatted wrong. Had to cut out some of the quoted text for it to post. Not going to reply again for a while. Waste of time. I mean, I got Summer sale games I'm in the middle of and should be working on!

Yes, the innovator mindset. You're willing to depend on some property in software that is not officially supported, do some research and hack your solution on top of it.

Good for you.

However, I'm more of a pragmatist mindset. I like to depend on things that are officially supported because for a lot of things, I don't like surprises. A lot of people are like that.

Yes, a lot of people will be terribly happy with Steam... right up to the moment where it shuts down (or falls under new management and stop applying forbearance on the considerable control it has given itself) and then they'll be screaming for blood.

Welcome to the human condition.

However, some of us do use history beyond just the last decade or so as a reasonable predictor for future events and predict that the honeymoon a lot of people are having with Steam won't last forever.

You see a lot of companies around that are even just 40 years old and that have not heavily changed over the years?

Take off the tinfoil hat, buddy. I mean, nothing lasts forever. Your GOG games aren't going to last forever either.

Yeah, that honeymoon period with S****. Going on close to 20 years now. It's bizarre how worried some of you are about holding onto you digital DRM-free games.

Like, if I'm thinking about the next 10-20 years, I'm not at all thinking about how or if I'm going to be able to play digital video games.

Exactly, a lot of people don't like planing for the long term. The human condition.

Btw, Gabe is close to 60 now and not in great health. It will be an interesting turbulent times for a lot of you when he passes on the reins. In terms of games, he is essentially a lot of people's monarch. I won't care.

Otherwise, I like my odds for my GOG games. My collection is backed up.

When GOG goes under or changes management, I might have to put on my innovator hat and tinker a fair amount with Wine/Proton for future compatibility, but I'll manage.

Otherwise, overall, some of us just like to own content and don't like to lose access to said content at others' whims.

Are you getting paid by Valve for this level of obvious shilling? It's one thing to discuss DRM, but you've dialled your sales pitch up to 111/10 over the past 48hrs. Give it a rest.

That's exactly the kind of bizarre thinking I'm talking about. "Planning for the long term"... That's something that most responsible people do think about, but not when it comes to videogames

Hmm. I need to start planning for how I might be able to play my GOG game collection 30 years from now. Haha.

Most games from S**** are already archived and easily pirated. I mean, just considering how big Steam is, do you really think that isn't going to happen? So to think that your offline GOG installers are in better shape than what's on S**** would be wrong.

As for Gabe, it's kind of morbid that you even bring stuff up like that in your attempt to defend GOG and your long term planning (LOL) of your software collection.

Plus I don't worry about "what if" situations, so I'm not worried about S**** in the short term, and most definitely not thinking about it in the long term. Whatever happens will happen. I leave that kind of tinfoil hat crap for the people on GOG, and I get my laughs because of it.

For all we know Gabe has his vision for S**** and how he wants to see his private company run when he steps down. He may already have a sucessor lined up to take over the reins when that time comes. You mentioned how important he is to the industry and the PC community, so I don't think Valve is going to be in the wrong hands when Gabe is ready to move on. For all we know he might not even really be active in the company much now, and is more of a figure head at this point than anything else.


Why would Valve pay for someone to Shill on a GOG forum? Think about that for a second...

And please don't quote my posts and edit them, especially in immature and juvenile ways. I don't disrepect you by doing that, so I don't expect you to do that either. If you can't handle forum posts of differing opinions then don't use the forum.

And by the way, I spend a lot of money here on GOG also. In the past two years I've probably spent more on GOG than on S****.