that means you trust all information leaving you computer
you don't know what info is send back...

what if account gets blocked? you still have access to your paid games?

I agree

The second GOG.com will start using a "client", I will stop purchasing games and will start to trash them wherever I can. You like your Steam-DRM shit? Good for you, I fucking hate it and I won't touch Steam even from miles away.

And the difference is ... ?

You do realize that Firefox/Internet Explorer/Chrome etc, are 3rd party programs? Through which you log into your account on GOG, and then use those programs as a downloader?

Arguably the client created by GOG itself is actually a more secure option.

And why would an optional download client lead to any blocking?
Let me just wade through the bile here and point out you clearly read nothing in this thread, and certainly not what it was about.

Yup, GOG most definitely needs to do that. But seeing they have somehow managed to screw up even something as simple as the introduction of DLC pages, I'm not sure how are they going to do it. At any rate, the minute GOG introduces a proper framework for multiplayer, they're instantly going to get more sales. Of course, not to mention a proper platform for achievements and the likes. Buut, all of it needs to remain optional.

What part of 'optional' did you not understand? ... said Crosmando on the social-based discussion boards maintained by GOG :-P I'm sorry, I've had such a good laugh at how ironic that is that I've had to break you off my ignore list for a minute.

I agree with this. I don't see the point of something like a GOG 'client'. Easier to find your games? How is it easier than checking the website? You still have to search the client (like Steam or the GOG client, if there were one) to find the game. Easier to install? Just DL the files(s) from GOG and install it. I don't see the point.

What would worry me is if they do come out with an optional Steam-like client, then publishers may want to try to use that as another point of leverage when negotiating with GOG to say "Well, we want you to make the client mandatory for our games". Sure, GOG can say no, but as I noted, it would just be another point of leverage and make it that much more difficult to get them to come around to the DRM-free way of thought.

If your current GOG account got blocked for some reason, you wouldn't be able to download your GOG games anymore, client or not. Or what was the question again?

I'm still unsure though if adding social features (achievements, friends lists etc.) are really that important to GOG, as the people who would be willing to use them would probably bitch that they are not Steam social features. But if they want to do them too, fine (after they have performed many other needed improvements even to their current downloader client). I personally don't see myself using the social features though, as I don't use them with the Steam games either.

Anyway, as long as GOG downloader client had an easy way to check all my hundreds of GOG installers (not necessarily installations) whether they are:

a) up to date

b) not corrupted

...I think I personally would be fine, and wouldn't really require any additional improvements. But I would be fine too if they added some other enhancements too which I might or might not use.

I think the Humble Indie Bundle Android client is close to what I am looking for. And it is totally optional too.

Has anyone here ever been blocked from downloading their games? I know people have been blocked from the forum but they can still access their account.

For a moment I thought I might have a use for this to the extent that I could run it when I wanted to check if I had the latest installers... then I realised it would mean that I would have to keep copies of all my installers on my hard drive... no thanks! I'd rather keep them on DVD and/or removable hard drives, than waste hard drive space. The way GOG already alerts me when new content is available for the games I've purchased is fine with me.

I think GOG are wise to keep out of the client business. When the clone... I mean the client wars heat up, GOG's model will be the alternative for those fed up with conflicting clients.

I'm guilty of starting a couple threads on this:

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/do_you_think_a_gog_client_is_on_the_way

http://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_and_multiplayer

To me the best thing about a GOG client would be some sort of built-in VPN capability to allow people to play "LAN" multiplayer.

GOG only does that in response to fraud or chargebacks. You can get banned and still retain access to your games and buy new ones.
Those already exist and knowing Mr. Gog, the program would be buggy and function in a flaky fashion.

Umm, no. You seem to be kind of hung up on certain words in particular. I was offended by the name calling regarding folks who like clients and beyond that just name calling in general. There are lots of words you could use, all of them equally inappropriate in that context as far as I am concerned.

Nope, common behavior. Using bad manners to amplify your arguments is so pre-teen.

I think you misunderstand. We know VPN exists, but if GOG had that capability in-house it would be a huge draw for people. One or two clicks to play a Duke 3D deathmatch against other GOG users, for example, versus. having to go to another site like GameRanger, register, coordinate, etc. It would make things a little bit easier for people, and in this day that can make a big difference.

I'm not saying GOG is going to have a client to compete with Steam. But offering this kind of feature in a client, the ability to quickly set up a VPN and play certain multiplayer games that use LAN, could be a fruitful move. Will it happen? Probably not. But we're here to talk about possibilities and the pros/cons of each.

If there were no lazy people in the history of mankind, we would all be running around in a forest with spears today.

I didn't misunderstand. I've used their downloader and posted to their forum. Both were developed in house and both are barely functional.

Replicating functionality just to replicate functionality is a huge waste of money. We've got Hamachi and a few others out there, having a half-arsed, buggy, irregularly developed VPN client that replicates features available elswhere, is unlikely to be a particular draw.
That's not really bad manners, that's bigotry. Bad manners is using the serving knife to pick meat out from between your teeth. But yeah, the use of the word fag in an argument is very much a pre-teen sort of thing and definitely is a valid reason to ignore an entire post.