It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
high rated
A more likely explanation for the hack still working is that GOG has no idea it exists because they never bother to read their own forums.

It's just a matter of time before they notice it and close the loopholes that the hack depends on.

A "proper response" would be to an upgrade button in 2.0 that would restore 1.2 and never change it again.

It's just amazing how much effort they are putting into supporting people who are spending money with other companies (Epic, Steam, etc) and completely ignoring people how buy games from them. Maybe they're planing to sell the company? I can't think another logical reason.

Get your DRM free installers while you can people.
Im also done. Really tired of GOG Galaxy 2.0 autoupdate and the lack of option to install the old one. From now Im going to use GOG just via web, and really worried and sad because the new course that have taken this company.
avatar
jconde: A more likely explanation for the hack still working is that GOG has no idea it exists because they never bother to read their own forums.

It's just a matter of time before they notice it and close the loopholes that the hack depends on.

A "proper response" would be to an upgrade button in 2.0 that would restore 1.2 and never change it again.

It's just amazing how much effort they are putting into supporting people who are spending money with other companies (Epic, Steam, etc) and completely ignoring people how buy games from them. Maybe they're planing to sell the company? I can't think another logical reason.

Get your DRM free installers while you can people.
i would like a button to go back to 1.2 as well. without the blue bar taking up realestate and telling me i need to upgrade.

as for why i quote you. well the thinking basically goes that if you're main launcher for all your games is the GOG launcher then you are more likely to see the GOG store first, and the GOG sales first. and are more likely to spend your money at GOG then at the other stores.

the problem is all their integrations are technically 3rd party mods, so they don't entirely work properly and they can't really do anything about it.
low rated
As I've said before, this is not going to happen and doesn't need to happen. While I agree that they shouldn't be forcing upgrades until 2.0 has been smoothed out a bit more, by them doing this, it means that 2.0 will be improved much quicker since they don't have to manage two separate clients.
Just seen this thread after messing atound with the new launcher. So if there is no way back I think I've to go back to the offline installer.

The new one is really not very handy. It looks like a mobile app ported to desktop but without the ease of use. Simple things like re-check what is already installed or pause a single DL or bring a DL to top are missing.
avatar
PolarClaw: Just seen this thread after messing atound with the new launcher. So if there is no way back I think I've to go back to the offline installer.

The new one is really not very handy. It looks like a mobile app ported to desktop but without the ease of use. Simple things like re-check what is already installed or pause a single DL or bring a DL to top are missing.
Those features aren't missing... you can easily check what games are installed, you can pause a download and you can prioritize a download no problem.
avatar
JakobFel: As I've said before, this is not going to happen and doesn't need to happen. While I agree that they shouldn't be forcing upgrades until 2.0 has been smoothed out a bit more, by them doing this, it means that 2.0 will be improved much quicker since they don't have to manage two separate clients.
I never suggested they should manage 2 clients, just that they allow people to use the one they want.

If they never add anything new to 1.2 I would be fine with that, I don't want my GUI changing for the sake of change.

Better yet they could just open source 1.2, again that would cost them nothing but people would be able to use it again.

There is simply no *good* reason for them to try to force people to use only their new, defective, launcher. There are many *bad* reasons starting with basic incompetence and ending with this being the first step to locking everything down with Steam style DRM.

It's a sad situation when the best you can hope for is that the people running your favorite games company are incompetent, but all the other possibilities are worse.
avatar
JakobFel: As I've said before, this is not going to happen and doesn't need to happen. While I agree that they shouldn't be forcing upgrades until 2.0 has been smoothed out a bit more, by them doing this, it means that 2.0 will be improved much quicker since they don't have to manage two separate clients.
avatar
jconde: I never suggested they should manage 2 clients, just that they allow people to use the one they want.

If they never add anything new to 1.2 I would be fine with that, I don't want my GUI changing for the sake of change.

Better yet they could just open source 1.2, again that would cost them nothing but people would be able to use it again.

There is simply no *good* reason for them to try to force people to use only their new, defective, launcher. There are many *bad* reasons starting with basic incompetence and ending with this being the first step to locking everything down with Steam style DRM.

It's a sad situation when the best you can hope for is that the people running your favorite games company are incompetent, but all the other possibilities are worse.
Inevitably, though, by keeping the old client, it requires them to manage two of them. They can't just neglect it and move on to developing only Galaxy 2.0 because that would introduce security risks, bugs and massive limitations on their service going forward.
Post edited August 18, 2020 by JakobFel
avatar
JakobFel: As I've said before, this is not going to happen and doesn't need to happen. While I agree that they shouldn't be forcing upgrades until 2.0 has been smoothed out a bit more, by them doing this, it means that 2.0 will be improved much quicker since they don't have to manage two separate clients.
"They don't need to roll back to the last known stable version of the client, because <NO REASON HERE>. Also they shouldn't have forced 2.0 on us when they did, but they still don't need to roll back to what is actually ready for release.

And given that this mess has been going for months with no improvement to literally ANY of the serious problems with the new client, I don't think "quicker" is the right word here. "Exactly the same pace, at best, and probably slower", would be more accurate.

They launched the 2.0 client... IN THE MIDDLE OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC WHILE THEIR SUPPORT SERVICE IS RUNNING A MONTH-LONG BACKLOG... and have only been getting WORSE with that backlog in large part because of the failures of Galaxy 2.0 to live up to basic standards of functionality. In total, GOG staff haven't even addressed 10% of the feedback they've received through Mantis.

These aren't the numbers of a company which is in a position to be pushing their latest beta build onto users in violation of their specific opting out of beta testing.
avatar
jconde: I never suggested they should manage 2 clients, just that they allow people to use the one they want.

If they never add anything new to 1.2 I would be fine with that, I don't want my GUI changing for the sake of change.

Better yet they could just open source 1.2, again that would cost them nothing but people would be able to use it again.

There is simply no *good* reason for them to try to force people to use only their new, defective, launcher. There are many *bad* reasons starting with basic incompetence and ending with this being the first step to locking everything down with Steam style DRM.

It's a sad situation when the best you can hope for is that the people running your favorite games company are incompetent, but all the other possibilities are worse.
avatar
JakobFel: Inevitably, though, by keeping the old client, it requires them to manage two of them. They can't just neglect it and move on to developing only Galaxy 2.0 because that would introduce security risks, bugs and massive limitations on their service going forward.
This is completely wrong, the only change they ever need to make is to rip out the code to force upgrades.

It would not introduce any security risks or bugs that didn't already exist, nor would it limit in any way their service going forward. It's difficult to see why you would think that it would.

In any case they could still simply open source Galaxy 1 and it's not their problem anymore. All the work needed, if any were actually needed, could be done by the people who want to use it. That would, as I've said before, cost them nothing and make many customers happy. So why don't they do it? the world wonders.
avatar
JakobFel: Inevitably, though, by keeping the old client, it requires them to manage two of them. They can't just neglect it and move on to developing only Galaxy 2.0 because that would introduce security risks, bugs and massive limitations on their service going forward.
avatar
jconde: This is completely wrong, the only change they ever need to make is to rip out the code to force upgrades.

It would not introduce any security risks or bugs that didn't already exist, nor would it limit in any way their service going forward. It's difficult to see why you would think that it would.

In any case they could still simply open source Galaxy 1 and it's not their problem anymore. All the work needed, if any were actually needed, could be done by the people who want to use it. That would, as I've said before, cost them nothing and make many customers happy. So why don't they do it? the world wonders.
Because of how Galaxy accesses GOG's databases, leaving an unsupported client available for use is leaving a lot of potential for security risks. If they disabled the online portion of the Galaxy 1.x line, then that might be a possible way for them to allow it but that would mean you couldn't add any more games through Galaxy, you couldn't use any of the online features, etc. It'd basically just be a launcher for the offline installers, rather than an actual game client.
avatar
jconde: This is completely wrong, the only change they ever need to make is to rip out the code to force upgrades.

It would not introduce any security risks or bugs that didn't already exist, nor would it limit in any way their service going forward. It's difficult to see why you would think that it would.

In any case they could still simply open source Galaxy 1 and it's not their problem anymore. All the work needed, if any were actually needed, could be done by the people who want to use it. That would, as I've said before, cost them nothing and make many customers happy. So why don't they do it? the world wonders.
avatar
JakobFel: Because of how Galaxy accesses GOG's databases, leaving an unsupported client available for use is leaving a lot of potential for security risks. If they disabled the online portion of the Galaxy 1.x line, then that might be a possible way for them to allow it but that would mean you couldn't add any more games through Galaxy, you couldn't use any of the online features, etc. It'd basically just be a launcher for the offline installers, rather than an actual game client.
Is there any existing documentation about the different implementations of access of Galaxy1 and 2? I'm not asking rhetorically, i'm really interested, and you seem to have some insight in the topic?

Having an open and documented API would be nice, GOG profits from some other shops open interfaces, so it would be only fair to act in the same, cooperative way.
avatar
JakobFel: Because of how Galaxy accesses GOG's databases, leaving an unsupported client available for use is leaving a lot of potential for security risks. If they disabled the online portion of the Galaxy 1.x line, then that might be a possible way for them to allow it but that would mean you couldn't add any more games through Galaxy, you couldn't use any of the online features, etc. It'd basically just be a launcher for the offline installers, rather than an actual game client.
avatar
jhAtgog: Is there any existing documentation about the different implementations of access of Galaxy1 and 2? I'm not asking rhetorically, i'm really interested, and you seem to have some insight in the topic?

Having an open and documented API would be nice, GOG profits from some other shops open interfaces, so it would be only fair to act in the same, cooperative way.
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.
avatar
jhAtgog: Is there any existing documentation about the different implementations of access of Galaxy1 and 2? I'm not asking rhetorically, i'm really interested, and you seem to have some insight in the topic?

Having an open and documented API would be nice, GOG profits from some other shops open interfaces, so it would be only fair to act in the same, cooperative way.
avatar
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.
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.
avatar
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.
avatar
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.