I don't blame you.

You may have missed my point: Allow developers the "ease" of writing to a tight API code like Galaxy. Galaxy API should have built in automatic, unauthenticated, "VPN" connectivity for the LAN fall-back. This future-proofs things since, when Galaxy goes away, it's writing a single replacement to handle a ton of games.

Would I, personally, like games directly to support LAN built in? Absolutely. But asking developers to implement a bunch of different networking schemes is indeed a high ask. Which is why I wish Galaxy's netcode had been properly designed.

We used to ask it from them, and they used to deliver.

Now games studios are bigger, development times are longer, prices are higher, but we should set our expectations lower?

No, I am not missing it, I just don't think you thought it through. The one big question is: What for? What's the advantage?
You have an authentification and after that you are anonymus ... just for the sake of it? You are already signed in to begin with so you won't lose anything if that information is used. Or better: You don't gain anything by ignoring it.

But let's say we keep it this way. Because nothing can be connected to the user, there must be a different way to select servers and all that sutff you want. Two options: Either they create their own UI for it or GOG provides one, which then they must support, maybe via overlay? It would still have to be programmed custom for GOG, since other platforms like Steam, PSN, XBL and EOS don't have it, just replacing the DLL with the network interface would not cut ir.
And then of cource people would still complain about it being DRMed, because you need to log in to Galaxy. If you really want something anonymous, there must be no user of any kind. No login, no cookie, no anything. And it means more work.

Why would anyone want go through all that trouble for so little gain?

So you are still missing it. It wouldn't be authenticated. Compare to the old Gamespy back in the day -- worked entirely without accounts unless you wanted them. That's what I'm referring to. And it would supplant multiple disparate systems. (Because who really uses those things like "invite friends!" and all that other platform-specific crap?) The local component of the client would have the peer-VPN in there. (Hamachi X TeamViewer's "here's a one-time code to find each other")

Yes, I'm basically saying GOG should recreate Gamespy-like. The benefit: easier for developers. Easier for customers vs port-forwarding. Easier future-proofing b ecause it'd be fewer systems to replace later. Beneficial to GOG because splash screen "Powered by Galaxy".

Yes, it's overloading the word "Galaxy" because it doesn't use the Galaxy client.

What they did do with Galaxy's multiplayer can be half-way there (e.g., Stardew Valley "put in a code to connect" [SDV also has full LAN built in -- but that's because the developer is awesome]). They just stopped at the easy level, and probably because some suit has "increase client feature use toward future lock-in" as a KPI.

This is what bugs me they barely have sales. I have two games in my cart that add up to 30 dollars. While on GOG, I have 9 games adding up to 20 dollars thanks to their sale.

Eh if we want the video games 100% Digital Rights Management (DRM) free, we should as they say it pay the 100% Digital Rights Management (DRM) free tax and I guess that means very few sales. Which I do not mind as long as the video games do not cost $60 dollars (USD).

That sounds like some bull to justify paying more for DRM-free games. ( Not saying ZP is doing this ) Postal redux is DRM-free on steam. To view this as basic customer, why would you buy the game for 10 dollars on ZP when you can buy it for a dollar on steam sales or GOG with it still being DRM-free? There is no such thing as DRM-free tax.

The real reason is ZP, probably can only afford to have a few game sales. They said this before.

To have an offline installer, if nothing else.

Exactly.

Indeed, if one imagines all the various forms of multiplayer support as differently designed houses, it quickly becomes obvious that the way those houses were designed can have a huge impact on how expensive it could be to turn them DRM-free compatible only after they have been already built, whereas with the single player comparison we almost never find any major DRM-free incompatible design choices inside the houses, but just a last minute added more or less poorly made padlock on the front door.

Makes one wonder just how well GOG had thought through this massive potential difference between being able to deliver DRM-free compatible multiplayer support vs. DRM-free single player games before they rushed to make their 100% DRM-free promise, at least they must have failed to consider any upcoming trends in multiplayer design or their marketing department refused to dilute the message with a small print about only up to late 90's games being covered fully with the promise and from then on only single player games would be guaranteed to be DRM-free...

It seems rather unlikely that the car brands would have given those racing games a permanent license to sell new copies and I also have a hard time to believe that the licenses were so cheap to renew, that re-releasing those games only on Zoom-platform would have been a wise business decision, but who knows, perhaps that Jordan guy happens to sit in the boards of every racing car brand or all the other developers who have made racing games just didn't understand to even try to haggle better licensing terms?

I do love my offline installers. The main reason I buy from ZP and GOG. but I don't think it's a good reason, as why we should pay more for DRM-free games. Don't give GOG ideas now. lol

I'm pretty sure ZP sales will get better in the future if they keep growing.

Just post this in channels where you have lots of Steam fans and they will use it as an argument for having DRMed games. The vast majority of gamers want games as cheap as possible. If they see 10 bucks vs 1 buck they go to place with 1 buck. They will just say "NO" to a "DRM-free tax".

The term "DRM-free tax" is self-defeating. LOL.

I can understand people from poorer countries why they should or should not pay more, but why would we from the United States or any one from the United States complain about paying more?

Is this a real question? Do think everyone in the US is well off in life?