StingingVelvet: There's no "blocks" at all if the client works on all currently supported versions of Windows and downloads an offline DRM free installer you can backup and use without the client in the future. It's literally the same exact thing as the website, only a more secure app. Do you not think Chrome or Firefox are "blocks" as well? This literally makes zero sense to me.
You're making a false assumption that you'd have already purchased everything by the time you bump into problems, ie, the old
"If x game made in 1996 is removed from GOG's catalogue and you missed it, that's your fault for not buying it in 1996" chestnut. People can and do discover games at a later date that they missed all the time, years even decades later. (I only played Planescape Torment for the first time in 2015). Even if someone were to download their entire existing catalogue now, if Galaxy went W10 only and you removed direct downloads, then you'd still end up blocking those on older OS's from actually buying more games after that. Forcing GOG to have fewer customers is hardly in GOG's interest, is it?
The "web browsers are clients like GOG / Steam too" thing is BS for several reasons :
1. Web browsers are not locked into being little more than single website "wrappers" (the only way your analogy would be remotely true is if only Chrome could browse only google.com, only Firefox could browse only mozilla.org, only IE could browse only microsoft.com, etc, and access absolutely nothing else),
2. You have the choice of more than one browser to browse and buy from any digital store (can you buy Steam games via Galaxy or GOG games via Steam? No),
3. If one browser went W10 only (eg, released only a UWP version), there are others that will still work on older & non-Windows OS's (including older versions of same browser), etc. I could go on but at this stage trying to compare open source, cross-platform multiple choice web browsers vs compulsory store-front locked, OS-locked, single-site client "wrappers" simply because the latter include a browser within them as a feature subset is flat-out dishonest.
Your "security" claim is also false. Galaxy's internal Chromium based browser (used to browse the site / grab backup installers) has exactly the same issues (no better no worse) than a normal browser of same version / build. If (as you seem to be suggesting) that GOG.com is "insecure" for downloading game files via normal browsers, then Galaxy is also compromised given that you need to download setup_galaxy.exe file from GOG.com via same browser to install it the first place... If you find Galaxy more convenient, then fine, but don't make up fake security scares that simply aren't factually true.
StingingVelvet: You guys think I'm arrogant because I disagree with you strongly and don't back down, that's fine. Believe what you like. This forum used to be a great place to discuss old PC games but the Steam hate and zealotry on these topics has turned it really toxic for me, which bums me out, so maybe I come across slightly cranky because of that. I'm not changing my opinions though, I think this stuff is pure blinded-by-passion nonsense. I don't think you're stupid or bad people, I'm not making fun of you, I just think you're out in left field on these topics.
I don't think you're arrogant for disagreeing or holding a strong opinions. I do think the way you talk down to people here with
"anyone who disagree with me is 'religious', 'triggered', 'crying', a 'zealot', 'toxic', 'blind', etc are childish ad hominems that you seem to package around
what you are promoting as a substitute for repeatedly being unable to justify
why you're promoting it (something multiple other people here have also noticed & commented on including
rjbuffchix post immediately above yours).
Bottom line - As multiple people have repeatedly pointed out, all you're promoting is an anti-feature, ie, removing a zero-effort feature that already exists in exchange for absolutely nothing whatsoever other than increased customer dissatisfaction and fewer customers for GOG. And you repeatedly dodge the question - "Why" when there's zero positive and only negatives for GOG forcing a client. Direct downloads aren't some "zero-sum game" where having them is at the expense of something else. We've literally had GOG staff posting on the forum before saying something like (paraphrased)
offline installers aren't going anywhere, we know how many of you use them and what the consequence of removing them would be. If you seem to think people agreeing with GOG staff over keeping GOG's Unique Selling Point is "toxic to GOG", then perhaps the "discernment problem" is not at our end?...