Everyone lacks perspective if it doesn't apply to one's own point of view. Some people are frustrated. Some people are not. Don't lump everyone that is unhappy with the situation as being "blind" because you "see more clearly".

I've said it in the past more than once. Once Galaxy 2 is ready, I'll upgrade. If I don't like it, I'll go back to the old version or use something else. Just like I do with operating systems. Sometimes there are reasons why one would choose to run older software. It is however our choice on what to use on our systems.

Nothing here indicates that YOU have understood MY point, OR that I've missed anything AT ALL about yours. You are restating the same position that I already debunked in its entirety with my comments, and adding nothing new to respond to me with.

Galaxy 2.0 HAS ALREADY been forced on users. It is already the "only" option. People have to use hack-y workarounds to get access from GOG's website to prior versions. Even though it's labelled as "beta", it is automatically updating on systems which are flagged to NOT BE INVOLVED IN BETA TESTING.

Yes, testers are needed. Yes, being a tester helps. Yes, giving feedback is good. Yes, using the beta build to give feedback helps GOG to improve the platform. Nobody is disputing that at all. There is no need to dispute it.

But right now, the feedback they need - and the feedback they're getting, here and elsewhere - is that FORCING A BETA PRODUCT ON CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE EXPLICITLY OPTED OUT OF BETA TESTING IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

There is plenty of other feedback about why this new client isn't ready for launch and which confirms it to very much be a beta version and not a solid release build. But the most important feedback is about how poorly they are handling the fact that it is beta but being forced on users. Nothing about how good beta testing is for a product negates the fact that they are not treating it as a beta in spite of admitting that it is one.

There is a MASSIVE difference between "it's ready for launch we've ironed out all the bugs we can, but there might be new things discovered when it's opened to a proper customer base" and "it's openly still in beta but even though we have a polished and release-ready build that's been live and working for a while, we're going to just replace that for everyone with the still-beta not fully tested build where we have plenty of good constructive feedback we have yet to act on including problems that are locking customers out of basic functionality".

Some complains like the ones about the non-compatibility between tags from 1.2 and 2.0 or crash is legit and should be shared with the devs as feedback.

I also think forcing the beta to everyone is a very bad idea as some users do not have the education to deal with beta software. A lot of recent posts on the forum illustrate it. 'Outrage culture at it's finest' as Yama-Kami wrote it.

It is becoming difficult to make the difference between whining, trolling and legit complains about GOG 2.0.

So who decides what is a legitimate complaint and what isn't? I don't use tags but I agree it is a legitimate complaint for those who do. I can't use 2.0 because dark/low contrast screens hurt my eyes and give me headaches, which is a legitimate complaint to me but others who don't have problems with dark/low contrast screens may not agree. That does not make me a whiner or troll.

i wouldn't mind that either. like my own complaint is that they spread all the options around to much and took out the installed games on the left side of the client. I've been told you can sort of craft that left side installed games list. but in 1.2 i didn't have to so why the fuck am i being forced to now. I just want a client that is functional right out of the damn box.

are those valid complaints? i certainly think so.

You and Yama-Kami are both whining and complaining about people complaining about GOG 2.0.
I understand why people who are unhappy with GOG 2.0 would complain.
People who are outraged that people are complaining, should get a life!

Not outraged or complaining. I'm just making constatations. You reaction illustrate it.
"People who are outraged that people are complaining, should get a life!"
You made a slighty heated comment because of one single post...

As mentioned I'm good with users sharing feedback as long as they contribute to a healthy conversation. Sadly due to the fact GOG forced the beta to everyone we end up with posts where few users seem unable to stand back from the situation and severely overreact by making dumb statement like 'GOG 2.0 = literally the end of the word'.

It's a literary apocalypse! Sorry, the typo makes the saying even better.

Whether you like 2.0 or not, they don't require your consent to upgrade your launcher to the latest version... one way or another, you'll have to upgrade to 2.0 at some point. The old versions won't be supported or managed and rightfully so.

When the new launcher is still labelled as beta, and they explicitly allow you to opt out of beta testing and force the beta build on you while you have opted out, there's a pretty strong argument to misleading business practices and/or false advertising in some regions. Not sure what you could expect to get out of it as a legal issue though. Unlike Steam being an active health hazard for 6 months, there isn't really a claim you can make for "damages" on this one.

and morons like you are why companies making so much money no longer need to spend it to get their programs working before release.

i am not a beta tester. i do not work for gog. i fucking told them i do not want to use that pile of crap yet. my choices now are to use a workaround that may not work later, use a bloated piece of shit mess that is far from ready that i have no intention of going near, or removing galaxy from my computer completely. which do you think happened?
i do not give my money to companies that do this shit.
and if they hook cyberpunk to that monstrosity you bet your ass i will pirate that bitch

This talk about how 1.2 needed to be abandoned because they don't have enough resources to support it would be more convincing if it wasn't the case that 1.2 largely performs better than 2.0.

The only benefit 2.0 has over 1.2 is integration with other platforms. And only one of those integrations (XBox Live) is handled by GOG's staff. All the other integrations are community integrations which they do not spend any resources on.

Meanwhile Galaxy 2.0 is missing many features which work fine in 1.2, like the ability to easily access the forums, sort by purchase date, the ability to easily access your profile and the ability to use tags from the website (and even in the tags made in Galaxy 2.0 only work inconsistently).

And that's without getting into the bugs that people are experiencing, such as not being able to access games, not having playtime and other information properly update, having cloud syncs and achievements broken, not being able to access the overlay, etc.

It's not like they just switched everyone over either. If it was necessary to switch everyone over so that they could focus all of their resources on Galaxy 2.0, shouldn't we be seeing at least some of these issues being resolved by now?

Now that I have resolved the operational (caused by install issues) with 2.0 I can agree that 2.0 is a downgrade over 1.2.
There are features missing from 2.0 contrary to the claim all the 1.2 features have been included.