JakobFel: It's not ready for release, I agree, but that doesn't justify the hate. It's a forced update because they really don't have any other option.

Icinix: How do you figure that?

JakobFel: Maybe it's because I never used the original GOG Galaxy. Maybe it's because I've had absolute crap experiences with other platforms like Steam. Maybe it's because I'm against digital distribution but support GOG for trying to keep the best elements of physical distribution alive.

Whatever the reason is, I do not understand the hate that Galaxy 2.0 seems to be getting.

Sure, it has its bugs. I've made it clear that I don't feel like the client is ready for its full release yet, that it needs a bit more time in beta. However, those issues will be fixed in time. I also understand the complaints about certain features missing from 1.2 to 2.0, but those issues will also probably be fixed in time, as those features were clearly used by a niche of users rather than the majority.

All of that being said, why does it seem that so many are vehemently against using 2.0, insisting that GOG should continue to support their soon-to-be-outdated client? If it was a piece of software that didn't require continual maintenance (such as the Windows example of people still using Windows 7), I'd agree entirely and be right with them in requesting that the old client be left up but don't people realize that when it comes to something like this, it'd be akin to running two separate versions of an active site? For the sake of the security of all of us, as well as the company, they can't just leave 1.2 users alone without maintaining 1.2 alongside 2.0 and if they did that, they'd be spending an unnecessary amount of resources on 1.2's maintenance for a core group of people that are being stubborn in refusing to even try 2.0. Likewise, I see plenty of people complaining about the removal of the GOG Downloader, but a similar issue arises with the Downloader as did to Galaxy 1.2.

Galaxy 2.0 is the future of this client and, I believe, the future of gaming in our ridiculous digital age. It's an attempt to make digital distribution less painful than it currently is. Like I said before, I understand some of the criticisms but I've also seen so many who refuse to even try 2.0, stubbornly insisting that GOG cater to their demands to keep their soon-to-be-outdated client.

Why is it such a huge deal that you have to upgrade to the newest version? Why is it such a big deal that they shut down the Downloader? It's not like GOG removed the ability to download the game and its goodies separate from ANY launcher; if you're that stubborn and refuse to even try 2.0, you'd still have the ability to download your games directly from the site. I still do it myself, from time to time, due to a bug on my end (involving all of my security software) which sometimes screws up Galaxy's installation process.

To just conclude here, I'll reiterate on the title of this thread...

After nearly three months and hundreds of hours of using Galaxy 2.0, I don't understand the hate. I understand some of the criticisms about missing features and really do believe that GOG should hold off on the full release, as I don't feel like it's ready for that yet. However, there's really no reason for all the hate that I see for this client. GOG is about DRM-free gaming. If you don't like the client they give us, download the game and its goodies direct from the site. That's the option we're given. That's the option we've always been given. Nothing has changed except for the fact that they've redesigned their 100% optional client from the ground up. If you're upset about missing features, keep pressing for those features to be added. The thing is, as it stands, Galaxy 2.0 is a fully-functional client that can be used as a headquarters for all of your PC gaming activity so it's not like you can't use it while simultaneously pressing for desired features to be added.

Plus, at the end of the day, no one is forcing you to use this client. We are truly fortunate that GOG is a company that actually cares about the players' choice and lets us decide whether we want to use their client or not. That's not an option you get on any other major game distribution platform.

JakobFel: It's not ready for release, I agree, but that doesn't justify the hate. It's a forced update because they really don't have any other option.

JakobFel: I already explained that. They cannot just let people keep using 1.2 because it'd require them to maintain two separate clients.

JakobFel: I already explained that. They cannot just let people keep using 1.2 because it'd require them to maintain two separate clients.

JakobFel: Maybe it's because I never used the original GOG Galaxy. Maybe it's because I've had absolute crap experiences with other platforms like Steam.

JakobFel: It's not ready for release, I agree, but that doesn't justify the hate. It's a forced update because they really don't have any other option.

Phoenix-co: They have other options. Like what they've done for, like, a whole year: putting back 1.2 as official galaxy client, putting 2.0 back into beta with voluntary application, and actually doing their job by reading the complains and fixing their junk

JakobFel: The problem with that is that by managing two clients at once, it puts a massive strain on their resources, thus further hampering the development of 2.0. As a 2.0 user, I'm not okay with that.

obliviondoll: And yet you ARE okay with forcing an unfinished beta service onto users who have EXPLICITLY OPTED OUT of beta testing?

I'm not okay with anyone pretending that's acceptable.

JakobFel: I am, simply because the core experience is fully functional.

Old_Dragon: It is not functional for me and others with visual issues. It is not functional because I am not able to use it. It's nice for you that it doesn't cause you any problems but you are not the only GOG customer, your opinion is no more valid or important than that of any other customer. Do you work for GOG? Serious question.

JakobFel: The core functionality -- that is, to install/manage your games and serve as a library -- is there.

obliviondoll: Well, except the ongoing bug that's been known about the entire duration of beta testing where users have been losing games from their library and are unable to use them in Galaxy 2.0 (while still being able to access them just fine when reverting to 1.2 or downloading from the website).

And the fact that being unusable due to vision problems DOES prevent it from doing its job for affected users.

And the fact that several features included in prior versions of Galaxy are missing, including the most practical library view in the industry (something which no other game launcher is lacking).