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

×
avatar
djoxyk: I can stand by this claim. gog is awful in maintaining their site, their galaxy (1.2 up to this date), there was visual issues with site and galaxy layout after new site design and it took gog more than a week to fix simple issues that could be taken care of in 1-2 hours by the right coder. their galaxy 1.2 still lacks link to game store page (if it's a game from bundle - it have to point to bundle page but leads to nowhere). It had the link but it was removed with new site design and they still can't figure out how to add it back.
avatar
DerBesserwisser: The problem here is that you create a link between two observations you made (and can only speculate about the reasons for that) by mentioning them in the same paragraph > you create the idea that gogs devs aren't good so they most probably just copied work from others.
if someone takes a week to fix something very minor in complexity it is natural to expect they are not good to create something big from a scratch. I don't believe in miracle. Yes, I have my doubts if they created this new galaxy UI by themselves (considering main selling part - integration plugins that were forked from existing web parsing plugins). maybe they wrote backend by themselves somehow (assuming they put limits on amount of filters and custom covers one can have in their library which screams of noobish approach) but they reused someone's work for integration and it's in plain view. Yes, gog devs are not so good. If they were any good they'd have all integrations created by themselves and kept in main galaxy code.
avatar
DerBesserwisser: The problem here is that you create a link between two observations you made (and can only speculate about the reasons for that) by mentioning them in the same paragraph > you create the idea that gogs devs aren't good so they most probably just copied work from others.
avatar
djoxyk: if someone takes a week to fix something very minor in complexity it is natural to expect they are not good to create something big from a scratch. I don't believe in miracle. Yes, I have my doubts if they created this new galaxy UI by themselves (considering main selling part - integration plugins that were forked from existing web parsing plugins). maybe they wrote backend by themselves somehow (assuming they put limits on amount of filters and custom covers one can have in their library which screams of noobish approach) but they reused someone's work for integration and it's in plain view. Yes, gog devs are not so good. If they were any good they'd have all integrations created by themselves and kept in main galaxy code.
So as said before you have no clue, but want to state "facts" nonetheless
avatar
djoxyk: if someone takes a week to fix something very minor in complexity it is natural to expect they are not good to create something big from a scratch. I don't believe in miracle. Yes, I have my doubts if they created this new galaxy UI by themselves (considering main selling part - integration plugins that were forked from existing web parsing plugins). maybe they wrote backend by themselves somehow (assuming they put limits on amount of filters and custom covers one can have in their library which screams of noobish approach) but they reused someone's work for integration and it's in plain view. Yes, gog devs are not so good. If they were any good they'd have all integrations created by themselves and kept in main galaxy code.
avatar
DerBesserwisser: So as said before you have no clue, but want to state "facts" nonetheless
well, I have a clue, I spoke to gog member Jonny on reddit a while ago about one of galaxy shortcomings. I asked why is it required to sync all of data to their servers if that data does not belong to gog (it's aggregated data from all gaming accounts and gog). I suggested to add an option to avoid sync and keep data locally in some file so user can move that data to their another PC if they need. Just an option to keep your data to yourself. One would imagine it is simple thing to ask, but I was told it would be hard for them to implement.
I believe that gog does not harvest our data on purpose, they still want to keep our privacy intact. Then what does that mean if they can't add that tiny feature? One thing - they are not that good at planning their project (if they have no room to add simple feature) and not good to create something solid. or if you believe they are capable then I should think they're turning into google and hunt for our data from other accounts. what should I pick?

avatar
Randalator: It's remarkable, though, how clunky, ugly and outdated Valve managed to make it look despite so many role models. Oh well, at least they're consistent in their design philosophy of having Steam look like an early 2000s mishmash of UIs...
true, that new UI is questionable at best. and it doubled RAM and CPU usage for people with many games. I wonder if they did it on purpose to sabotage galaxy :) imagine you have ubisoft game purchased from steam, only clients will take +1Gb of RAM to run it :)
Post edited September 24, 2019 by djoxyk
avatar
djoxyk: I believe that gog does not harvest our data on purpose, they still want to keep our privacy intact. Then what does that mean if they can't add that tiny feature? One thing - they are not that good at planning their project (if they have no room to add simple feature) and not good to create something solid. or if you believe they are capable then I should think they're turning into google and hunt for our data from other accounts. what should I pick?
How about a third option?

Modern gaming clients are in a large part designed around cloud features, which make games, saves and statistics instantly available on every machine you choose to login from. The vast majority of customers who a) use a client in the first place and b) use a client to consolidate a variety of other clients into a single library not only don't mind but actually seek out these cloud features.

From personal experience, in software development even seemingly simple features can be ridiculously expensive to design/build/implement. With the above in mind GOG probably didn't divert precious resources towards a feature that most likely only a small fraction of their target audience even wants. That's neither bad planning nor malicious data gathering but simply a smart strategy. GOG doesn't exactly rake in the big bucks right now, after all.

Should demand for such a feature become high enough they might shift resources into its development. But at this point in the development process it's an unnecessary and expensive complication they can't afford.
avatar
Randalator: How about a third option?
there's no third option. you have your privacy or you don't. company can have any excuse they want (cost of development, complexity etc) but it can't impact the end result. if their app "can't stop" from taking your data they're no better than google who "can't stop" reading your emails and learning about your every move online. there's no third option available.

don't worry, gog old timers would have their say about this feature later when galaxy will hit open status.
what you call "development" ? adding ability to use local storage for user data? I doubt it needs anything big, but then, it is gog, if they can't fix simple visual glitch in html what it would take to add selector in UI, couple of functions to handle read/write for local storage and skipping sync. that must be really hard and expensive for them, right? something that can be done by any freelancer for 50-100 bucks.
I find that the Steam Beta is really not readable, I much prefer Galaxy 2 looks.
avatar
janus0x: Is it my imagination or Steam has taken its new beta UI to look like Gog 2.0 Beta UI?
If only. Steam's new Library is so much messier than GOG 2.0. In GOG you have a clear distinction between tags (or categories, or shelves, or whatever) and games. In Steam, both live in both the sidebar and the main area (which i find super confusing), whereas in GOG there is a clear distinction: you select a category on the left and see the games on the right.

I also find Steam's new look much more old-fashioned, with their gloss effect on all the box art and the slow zoom when you hover over them. It's also much less costomizable (like, there's no list-view in Steam anymore).

So, i'm also one who vastly prefers the new GOG client.

2.0 thumbs up!