This is probably going to drive me nuts ;-) Indeed you are quite right here. But here and that's me, I'd rather keep things simple and have all links point to the same file, as opposed to have redirection/intercept instructions in order to fetch the exact same file.

Yep this is going to do my head in if I keep thinking about those infamous links :-D
If only there was a way for you to be able to test your theory with the Linux links.... When it comes to 'encouraging' the use of Galaxy which was always claimed to be optional, by in fact forcing its use by whatever maneuver, that most likely would have a rather unpleasant boomerang effect, not to mention some trust going right out the window.

Well, they are simple. You don't need to know what any of the links technically do. You just click and something responds ... browser or a GOG downloader.

You can even setup third party downloaders to intercept the browser links ... not very hard .... install a downloader, install a plugin. Then tell the plugin to capture links or those added to the clipboard. Oftentimes that is setup automatically.
Probably not possible.

It would require at least two things (or a key).
1) New location of Linux downloads.
2) Command-line parameter to provide that location.

Also taking into consideration the security aspects, which may or may not be okay as is.

You can use a BAT file with the GOG Downloader links to pass them to it. I've done such in my attempt to get the Linux downloads working, but alas only the Windows ones worked. Still the potential is maybe there.

P.S. It might not even be a new location, just a change of security key, that the GOG Downloader knows nothing about, and the old built-in one no longer works for the Linux downloads.

I understand all that, I think that at this point, it's just me who must have developed a fixation here on how those links seem hosted, something which until now I've never bothered to even think about. Probably a side effect of GOG downloader's end being nigh...

Reading you reminds me again how Linux users have the really short end of the stick. I ought to be ashamed coming across as a crybaby because one of my toy is being taken away ;-)

No. I haven't used the GOG Downloader for like 8 years or so, and even back then I found it quite broken, ie. it would fail to download games quite often and I had to restart the downloads. (That happened normally if I queued lots of downloads to the Downloader client; when I later came back, it had stopped at some point and rest of the downloads in the queue were greyed out and I had to restart them all.)

Plus, I did sometimes end up with corrupted downloads with it, even though it was supposed to make sure that the downloads finish uncorrupted.

I use web browser downloads and a third-party tool (gogrepoc.py), I don't use Galaxy at least for now.

Well, it is a client. Client is like being pregnant or dead, it either is or isn't. There is no middle-ground. If you are both pregnant and dead, that is a double-whammy.

Of the three (web browser, GOG Downloader and Galaxy), using the GOG Downloader was and is actually the most illogical.

With a web browser and Galaxy you have to log in only once, with either of those. You also initiate the downloads straight from that client (a web browser or Galaxy).

With GOG Downloader, you have to log in twice to your account (with your web browser, AND the GOG Downloader client), and run the two clients side by side. Then you initiate the download from your web browser, but it gets started on the GOG Downloader client instead.

I still recall when I tried the GOG Downloader the first time. I even asked here how am I supposed to use it, as all I got after running it and logging into it an empty screen. Only later I realized that was not enough, I was supposed to log in to my account also with my web browser. Errr, ok I guess, normal for people who are used to using e.g. bittorrent clients I guess... I was always more of an Emule guy anyway, Emule didn't necessarily need web browsers or web pages to initiate downloads but you could search for files and start their downloads also from within the Emule application.

Download managers (for web browsers) don't require you to log into an online account with them. GOG Downloader does. That is one of the reasons it is a client and not a "mere download manager".

You can say Galaxy is a heavier client with lots of extra features that are unnecessary for someone who just wants to download standalone offline installers with it, but that doesn't make GOG Downloader a "non-client". It is simply a lighter client more concentrated to one purpose (downloading of the offline installers and extras), that's all.

I fail to see why such a grace period would have been needed. It is not like someone's access to their GOG games (even the standalone installers) is prevented by removing the GOG Downloader option. There are two other official ways to download your standalone offline GOG game installers (web browsers and Galaxy), and some unofficial ways (gogrepo, lgogdownloader etc.).

Plus, they already stated five years ago that they will not officially support GOG Downloader anymore, and will not fix it if something breaks with it. I don't think this news came as a total surprise to anyone, in fact I am surprised they kept it on for full five years after dropping official support for it. (People still kept complaining about missing or non-functional Downloader links etc. in games, even after that end of support.)

I loved GOG Downloader.
But yeah it was like GOG Galaxy Lite with minimal option.
So even if it's painful and heart breaking move it's time to move on.

I just hope the offline downloads will not be removed.

Did you use the final version of GOG Downloader?

I have well over 900 games from GOG now, and I could count the failures for me on one hand, and attribute certain factors to them, so not usually or ever the fault of GOG ... unless you call congestion a fault.

And as you state later, about logging in with GOG Downloader. That is never an issue, you set once and forget.

I also fail to see how running it and your browser is ever an issue. Both together use far less resources than Galaxy for starters, and once GOG Downloader starts it is independent, unlike doing a browser download.

You can't seriously call GOG Downloader a client, just because you login to it. It is just a downloader and many other downloaders provide username and password options as needed at some sites. Do you call them clients too?

A client does much more than just download.

It is still illogical, having to log into two separate clients at the same time (the web browser and GOG Downloader), and running them side by side. Then you initiate the download in one, but control and follow the download in the other.

The resource usage of Galaxy is pretty much irrelevant if you are using it only to download your offline installers. You shut it down after the download.

Yeah Chrome or even Firefox also use more resources than Netscape 1.0, but I still rather use Chrome to download my GOG games.

I didn't say I call it a client "just" because of that. That is the reason it is not a mere "download manager", like all those third-party download managers for various web browsers.

Below is the primary reason I call it a client (or maybe to be more precise, a client application). Just like I call web browsers clients.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client%E2%80%93server_model

Rubbish.
It runs the whole time while downloading and you may be downloading for hours.
And when it is downloading, queuing other downloads is often painful as the GUI is slow to respond and painful to browse, often seeming frozen. In my view, it is a badly made resource hungry program, that is really just a crappy embedded browser inside an app.

It is so resource hungry it impacts other programs you may wish to run.

Of course, as I stated earlier, if you have a powerful PC, you may barely notice, but not all of us are so lucky.

And the whole ridiculous thing, is it isn't necessary for many of us.

Many of us don't want Galaxy and its bloat and we don't need it for our GOG gaming.

P.S. Just for the record, I have never been against GOG Galaxy and often defended it. But not if it is the only downloader.

Eh. Downloader offered a bit more features than a 3rd party manager, but I've always found FDM and others serve my needs rather nicely to manage my downloads, even over a flaky internet connection. Sure, I still have to log into my account via browser to grab download links and check for updates but my library is rather small and I'm not overly paranoid about downloading a new version every time the game got flagged (even when it was a new version and not a false positive). Really most updates have been tiny little bug fixes or language additions lately for me (but yeah I understand people have more modern games in their collection that necessitate re-downloading).

What GOG has here is an opportunity to give us more detail on the offline installer pages like file sites used to do years ago. Checksums would be fantastic GOG. Really, if we could get a sign that you're still serious about offering a non-Galaxy alternative this would go a long way proving it.

(Shameless plug)
https://www.gog.com/wishlist/site/more_detail_on_offline_installer_pages

Wasn't it 5 years ago that they discontinued the GOG Downloader?

They just stopped updating it.

It still worked and they still provided it.

I only joined GOG 3 years ago in May, and the GOG Downloader has been my downloader since then ... for over 900 games.

The GOG Downloader and GOG Galaxy could in theory use the same links (if Galaxy was setup that way), as a customer is unlikely to have both running at the same time. So in theory at least, we could avoid what is about to happen.

Yes, they officially discontinued it. However, they made the new game API's compatible with it, and did indeed provide some updates during this periode, but the main aide was that it was going to be phased out.

What happened now is that they no longer make sure that the new games added have an API compatible with the old donwloader.

I must say, 5 years is a long lead time for people to adjust.... we knew this was going to happen, there was ample warnings.