JakobFel: You don't need the documentation to know that leaving a piece of legacy software which receives no updates, yet still connects to your databases is a major security risk. Someone is bound to eventually find a hole in the system and that could compromise not just YOUR account, but all of our accounts, mine included. I'm not cool with that.
I understand that Galaxy 2.0 has some things that need to be fixed, but GOG users really need to just suck it up and let GOG handle the situation the way they are. Keep providing feedback, keep suggesting features, that's all good but threads like this that beg them to let users revert to older versions... at best, they're just wasting time. At worst, they could lead to slower development for BOTH clients if GOG decided to cave and leave 1 open.
jhAtgog: Hey no need to get all defensive, i was just asking friendly. :)
I agree that supporting two different ways of access would need more resources, if there are in fact two different ways, which i simply don't know, maybe you can enlighten me here?
The need for me, as you expressed it, "to suck up" something - well i disagree: i have the freedom to just not use Galaxy 2, which i gladly make use of, until they break 1.2 on the server side. Hopefully 2.0 will be usable by then, and if not - there are enough other shops around, so no big deal either.
Until then, i definitely won't spend any of my precious free time improving closed-source software for the commercial benefit of some web-shop. There are certainly better projects out there to spend it on.
Oh sorry, did I sound defensive? I didn't mean it that way, I was just trying to give a serious answer haha. But yeah, Galaxy 2.0 is basically a rewrite of Galaxy, at least as far as we know. Because of that, developing 1 and 2 concurrently would require a lot more resources. Shoot, it'd probably require two separate teams, given the fact that the 2.0 team would get used to its code and functionality after a while, making it harder for them to transition between the two if they didn't have two separate teams.
I agree that you have the freedom to not use 2.0. However, at some point, you will have to switch over and it's better to get used to it now, or at least start learning it, so that you know its full functionality by the time that you have to fully switch over.
The thing is, you can't hope for 2.0 to improve if you don't offer constructive criticism and feature requests. I mean, I don't do it very often myself, but I still occasionally submit bug reports, offer feedback and suggestions, etc. It doesn't take too much time. I know first-hand that GOG's team does pay attention to feedback. I mean, I had one of the devs on the 2.0 team PM me on Facebook after seeing a comment I made about how 2.0 still has a few kinks to work out. They asked me what problems I was having and if I had any particular, major bugs that I could report. They didn't have to do that, but they did. I feel like that says quite a bit as to how they view feedback.
Just because they're silent on the forums, that doesn't mean they're not seeing our feedback.