Without transparency we can never know, and you are just guessing.

I agree, it has changed, and that probably those spending the most money, and possibly now the biggest group, are those who don't care about the store they get the game from, and maybe not even the price so much, and not DRM either.

So I also suspect you are right about the target.

That said, they may just be playing a hanging on strategy, and will eventually shift in other factors, like removing the browser links next, then some elements of DRM will creep in. Eventually I suspect they will just be another minor store, living off the dregs of Steam and others. Probably ultimately doomed because they alienated their fan base.

But personally I think it is far more than just that.

I have looked at many factors, joined a few dots, made some intuitive leaps, and have a pretty good idea I know where things are heading. I don't need to prove that to anybody, and I can't, as it is just educated guesswork. So only time will tell.

Sorry, but I see no correlation ... and we've only just lost the GOG Downloader anyway ... and Steam was always DRM.

Not sure how long that strategy has existed, but maybe since Galaxy was born or a bit later. Personally, I think it was either born out of desperation or because some aspect of management and ideals have changed. They are no longer the store that was true to an ideal, that's for sure.

The miscalculation, remains to be seen.

And all need to consider, especially GOG, that without their true fanbase they would never have existed long enough. So in a way, we are right to feel like we are being repaid by abuse and neglect ... taken advantage of in fact.

Thanks for getting us where we are now, but now we are here, we can dump you.

LET GOG KNOW HOW YOU FEEL BY VOTING
https://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/keep_the_gog_downloader_and_keep_it_up_to_date

FOR THOSE WHO WANT SOME KIND OF SOLUTION TO OUR DILEMMA
See my post above - https://www.gog.com/forum/general/we_do_not_want_say_goodbye_to_gog_downloader/post155

It IS a client, whenever you like it or not, it was created by Gog, it could only be used on Gog, could only be used by logging to Gog, it is as much as a client as Galaxy or the Steam one even using the most creative definition.

That peoples found the Downloader to be more lightweight or more convenient than using Galaxy to download offline installers and that they are disappointment or angry or it's removal I can totally understand, but it doesn't change the fact that it was a "client".

And if you were there when it was originally release there was already peoples complaining that the downloader was a first step for Gog to become like Steam and that the only real "DRM-free" way to download games was using the browser.

Touché.

It is a client in the technical sense. But it is not a client in the context of how most of us use that phrase. I don't see any sense continuing this particular point since we're just going to be talking past each other. By the way, both Galaxy and Scheme require you to be logged in to access actual game content (like multiplayer, so pipe down, Galaxy defenders) even after you've downloaded the game.

So what? There are people to this day, including GOG themselves, who seem to deny that Galaxy requirements for games are DRM. Though I happen to think there are distinctions and do want Downloader, I'd rather err on the side of the people you mentioned, honestly.

Well currently the only game were Galaxy is mandatory is Gwent, and I don't remember Gog or CDPR ever saying this game was DRM-free.

Yeah, sure there was. How about you provide some proof for that bald faced lie it seems to me .... or if it was true, those people were idiots. Downloading huge game files from a browser link has always been a bad idea ... especially with no checksums.

And if you can call GOG Downloader a client, you can call any software a client.

In the end it is about context, and GOG Downloader doesn't fit into the right context as a client, any more than your pajamas do.

LET GOG KNOW HOW YOU FEEL BY VOTING
https://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/keep_the_gog_downloader_and_keep_it_up_to_date

FOR THOSE WHO WANT SOME KIND OF SOLUTION TO OUR DILEMMA
See my post above - https://www.gog.com/forum/general/we_do_not_want_say_goodbye_to_gog_downloader/post155

There are good clients, and there are bad clients. Personally, I think the pressure should be for Galaxy to be open-source. That's a reasonable and ethical demand.

Ah, not quite. Galaxy is required to access the multiplayer features of many games. That is not "DRM-free" no matter how much people try to weakly argue that GOG is "at least still DRM-free for singleplayer". GOG's "sister site" FCKDRM.com lists sources of media that are DRM-free. To get listed there, the source has to be "100% DRM-free". Yes it is ironic that GOG fails their own test so to speak. Yet GOG's whole advertising is that this store is DRM-free.

I didn't have to still be logged into Downloader in order to access modes of games I bought and already downloaded. And before anyone starts tut-tutting "but these games were programmed to have a client for multiplayer, the only alternative would be to not have the games featured on GOG at all", the answer is yes, don't have them, or at least don't have them while the store is trying to appear 100% DRM-free.

In both cases, the bulk of the (current) community don't see what the fuss is about. Nagging about a forced client or about DRM, respectively, is seen as meaningless, whiny, outdated, hair-splitting.

Dude we had peoples saying that Gog wasn't really DRM-free because you had to enter your credendials on the web site to download games, are you really having that much trouble believing that there would be peoples complaining about using a proprietary client to download games :) ... and given the wonderful Gog forum software I am not even trying to find posts...

That's why I said even using the most "creative" definition, not just using the "literal" definition.

For the downloader :

- It's something that can only be used on Gog
- It uses a specific, proprietary, API provided by Gog
- It can only be used online. connected to Gog servers. Totally useless offline (i.e. without a server)
- As we just saw, if Gog pull the plug it immediately become useless
- etc...

Even a browser or a file downloader, that are technically clients too, can be used on other site, can be used offline, etc... all sort of things impossible with the Downloader.

All those things are also true with Galaxy, or does Galaxy qualify as being a "client" just because it support auto-update and achievements ?

And you know how it was before Galaxy ?

Exactly the same, we had games with required online activation to be played online; we had other which required a third party account to be created, and finally we had a lot that had the multiplayer part of the game disabled. Exactly the same than today for peoples who don't uses Galaxy.

The only things that changed today compared to the beginning of Gog is that there are some games that on top of what was offered before, have also the option to have a multiplayer mode, achievements, and other optional features provided by Galaxy.

Something I would agree is that years ago Gog was clearer about the fact that the "DRM-free" promise was ONLY guarantee for single-player and not necessarily for multi-player, IMHO that's something they should mention prominently in the FAQ, it would avoid a lot of misunderstanding.

I'd be very interested in this if you decide to make it public as, like you, I just want to be able to download single games as and when - thanks :)

There is a bunch of people responding here and in other threads, that have no interest in the GOG Downloader, other than to criticize us that do. They spout all sorts of crap and try and tar us with absolute rubbish. They have no idea how to use logic, but pretend they do, but clearly none of that matters, as they are just here to cause trouble ... that is their sole agenda.

I encourage all good folk here to just ignore them .... and I should listen to my own advice.

The answers to all the nonsense they continually repeat, is spread right through out this thread and others, and really only to educate those who are genuinely interested. When you try to engage with them, they just bring up even more ridiculous nonsense, truly bordering on the nonsensical.

It should be obvious to anyone who has been here for more than five minutes, that GOG are now straying far from why they were created in the first place. The original owners can see the writing on the wall I imagine, and are not happy.

LET GOG KNOW HOW YOU FEEL BY VOTING
https://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/keep_the_gog_downloader_and_keep_it_up_to_date

FOR THOSE WHO WANT SOME KIND OF SOLUTION TO OUR DILEMMA
See my post above - https://www.gog.com/forum/general/we_do_not_want_say_goodbye_to_gog_downloader/post155

Great post, that's a way to check the integrity of the downloaded installers without having to reshuffle my folders so that gogrepy can see and check them (I've created my own file structure in archiving, but I've read somewhere that gogrepy needs to have the files in their original place with original folders names just like the GOG Downloader created - or GOG Galaxuch creates).

I think that even though the practical effect of customers having to deal with DRM was the same, there was actually a difference then, in that the DRM didn't use to be "codified" in GOG's own client itself. Mind you, my position is that for consistency's sake, such DRM doesn't belong no matter whether it is via the client or a third-party service. I think GOG has done serious damage to its brand of "DRM-free" with such inconsistent behavior, not limited to only Galaxy but certainly magnified and you could even say made standard by Galaxy. But I know the Galaxy genie is out of the bottle so I don't want to get too far astray. Thanks for the info about how GOG was clearer in the past about DRM-free only being for single player. For sure that was before my time here!