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

×
I bought from here because i like physical copies and manual managing. Pushing galaxy in every direction means i could have been using steam instead
The galaxy is a dangerous place.
HULK SMASH!
high rated
avatar
bhrigu: ...
Very well articulated point. If I'll buy a game as opposed to register to some online subscription service, ala Netflix, then I want as much of the game as possible to be independent from some third-party internet service.

In addition to the above, I take exception to vendor-specific client being integrated into the games for the following reasons:

- It makes the distribution of the game, or at least the complete game with multiplayer features and updates, dependent on said vendor (even if you can run the game with the vendor software offline, the game-maker might not be legally able to sell the game via other services unless the vendor-specific software is removed from the game which may either be impossible or greatly reduce features) and that's not good for healthy competition among vendors.

- Unlike the Steam-client, the GOG client doesn't run on Linux. That means that any game that is tightly coupled with the client, in addition to being bound to the GOG store, will be bound to Windows and won't run on Linux.

I get that some game-makers may want to integrate online features (multiplayer, ladder, etc), into their games, but if their intent is to sell their game as a product and not a service, then they need to:

- Gravitate toward a free (as in free speech) cross-platform standard library for such features that is supported across vendors
- Decouple as much of the game from those features as possible so that you can still play single player (and preferably LAN as well) offline

I find the current trend from bigger vendors to lock-in games with their proprietary "online" libraries (Galaxy or Steam or something else) disturbing. It's reminds me of the hardware lock-in that console games have.

PS: Beyond the social implications, my personal preference as a gamer is that I don't care all that much about all that ladder/achievement/social crap. If you force me to connect to the home base in singler-player or remove Linux support in order to enable those features, I'll be far less likely to buy your game.
Post edited June 04, 2017 by Magnitus
Don't like social anything, I dont buy half finished products, achievements aren't, so clients offer me nothing. Hence I dont want them pushed on me. If I wanted a client I would use steams, 10 times better, better catalog, cheaper prices.
avatar
USERNAME:eumerius#Q&_^Q&Q#GROUP:4I've just tried it and it is super awesome. Nothing negative about it. I do not understand why some people do not like it.
avatar
That exactly.
avatar
eumerius: I've just tried it and it is super awesome. Nothing negative about it. I do not understand why some people do not like it.
avatar
UltraComboTV: There is nothing negative about it. It's "Optional" you don't even need it installed on your machine if you don't want it. The fear that it will become Steam isn't relevent. The company is built on NO DRM, thats why we're here. If they make the client manditory, force DRM. Everyone would just go to Steam were there is larger library of titles.

Personally I like the Client, auto updates, multiplayer. Whats not to like?
If you had to wear the client around your neck like a collar, would you still be "what's not to like"?
avatar
avatar
anothername: That exactly.
Check out DRM. What you buy you don't own. Can't convert a DVD to a tablet. Have to buy it again. F'ed up I think.
high rated
CENSORED BY GOG
Post edited July 22, 2017 by Serren
avatar
eumerius: I've just tried it and it is super awesome. Nothing negative about it. I do not understand why some people do not like it.
avatar
Serren: I don't like it because it's redundant, proprietary, resource using bloatware that is little more than a cut down version of Chromium which is restricted to a single web site and doesn't offer the user full control over what it does. The UI on my OS already functions very well as a program launcher and my web browser already allows me to update and purchase games from gog.com. The only thing that Galaxy offers is multiplayer functionality for some of the titles where lazy developers couldn't be bothered to include networking directly into their games, which I view as a way of artificially making Galaxy a requirement.
Haters are going to hate. lol
.
.
People whose interests are purely proprietary are anti-social in the extreme.
Post edited June 04, 2017 by richlind33
avatar
eumerius: I've just tried it and it is super awesome. Nothing negative about it. I do not understand why some people do not like it.
I'm not against Galaxy, but.. I'd prefer store-agnostic client-independent offline-working games as much as possible.

Btw, I'm currently not using the program, because it doesn't allow me to properly manage standalone installers and I'm not sure about its configurability level, security and bug-free status.
Post edited June 04, 2017 by phaolo
avatar
UltraComboTV: There is nothing negative about it. It's "Optional" you don't even need it installed on your machine if you don't want it. The fear that it will become Steam isn't relevent. The company is built on NO DRM, thats why we're here. If they make the client manditory, force DRM. Everyone would just go to Steam were there is larger library of titles.

Personally I like the Client, auto updates, multiplayer. Whats not to like?
avatar
richlind33: If you had to wear the client around your neck like a collar, would you still be "what's not to like"?
The point was, its not being forced on you. Don't use it, get your games straight from the website. I hate Steam with a passion for the "forced" client, and mandatory internet conection. Thats not being done to us. As long as the client always stays optional, its not a problem.
Post edited June 04, 2017 by UltraComboTV
avatar
richlind33: If you had to wear the client around your neck like a collar, would you still be "what's not to like"?
avatar
UltraComboTV: The point was, its not being forced on you. Don't use it, get your games straight from the website. I hate Steam with a passion for the "forced" client, and mandatory internet conection. Thats not being done to us. As long as the client always stays optional, its not a problem.
It IS a problem because the site is getting increasingly shittier as GOG becomes increasingly pushier about using Galaxy.

There are certain characteristics that opt-out marketers have in common, and none of them are positive.
Post edited June 04, 2017 by richlind33
Personally I believe Benjamin in this matter: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
avatar
eumerius: I've just tried it and it is super awesome. Nothing negative about it. I do not understand why some people do not like it.
avatar
phaolo: I'm not against Galaxy, but.. I'd prefer store-agnostic client-independent offline-working games as much as possible.

Btw, I'm currently not using the program, because it doesn't allow me to properly manage standalone installers and I'm not sure about its configurability level, security and bug-free status.
The application files for Galaxy are spread all over the system, at least when installed on macOS. Galaxy requires administration privileges. Only one computer user account can be logged in, otherwise Galaxy won't open for anyone at all. Though Galaxy seems to be nothing more than a web browser for gog.com, Galaxy is not customizable with a personal style sheet (CSS), which makes web browsers more adjustable for visual comfort (and perhaps accessible in other ways).

For what Galaxy does offer beyond a web browser (such as cloud saves, etc.), all the junky characteristics about Galaxy has to be accepted, too.
Post edited June 04, 2017 by thomq