Some people don't want to/can't install another client for various reasons(extra space/resource usage, possible data leaks, not compatible with their OS, etc).

If one "niche" is dropped then what's to stop them from dropping others? What about dropping older OS support as well? Or all mac/linux users?

Basically if you keep cutting off fingers eventually you will have nothing left to eat/get sustenance with.

Also it doses have a point/use(the discussion you were having)....others can read such and make up their minds on the issue being discussed or chime in as well.

GOG has been beating the DRM free drum and promising that since their inception, there's no way they can drop it without a massive backlash. They know that. However they never promised client-free downloads forever, as far as I know, and it's the equivalency of client and DRM that I am rejecting outright, so...

... So in doing so you're still arguing over a single symptom though rather than addressing the problem that has multiple symptoms : People seek out DRM-Free versions specifically to maximise a game's life-span by eliminating unnecessary 3rd party middle-man "blocks" or bottlenecks. DRM is one "block" but not the only one. Others include a client / loader (even DRM-Free) that suddenly becomes locked to a new OS version that's less compatible with the game it's downloading, or perhaps a 3rd party anti-cheat mechanism whose servers have shut down.

Example - Commandos Ammo Pack = Unlisted for W10 support and yet in your "everyone must be forced to use Galaxy" world, may only be downloadable via W10 in future (should the compilers GOG use to build Galaxy require W10 in a few years) even for someone who is running a W7 retro rig precisely because they want to actually play the game they're downloading not just stare at an installer they can't play under the only OS they've been forced to use to download it...) That's a flat-out ridiculous downgrade to the current system where GOG gives everyone the ability to download any game on any OS, without any newly added OS version blocks (caused by requiring Galaxy).

Forcing Galaxy = re-introducing one of those same potential "blocks" that people buy GOG games to get away from whether the client is DRM or not. No matter how many people argue themselves in circles over what is / isn't "client vs DRM", there's still zero substitute for long-term reliability for having direct download / file access throughout the whole chain not because of how it works today, but rather as "insurance" against unforeseen future changes with the clients & Windows 10, 11, etc, tomorrow.

@StingingVelvet...And here I thought you said you were done engaging with us anti-progress Luddite dinosaurs. Maybe there is hope for you to address the question I posed earlier. Please be mindful that this question stands, whether the client is considered "DRM" or not:

How does it make any sense to require the client for all users, when power users demand the extra options remain available, and casuals do not seem to care about the fact the extra options are there, one way or another? In other words, what is the point of losing power users and the original audience, for literally no extra gain whatsoever?

I see you have posted about expanding the audience by requiring the client for everyone (how does this expand the audience?). I also see you have posted allusions to a more "secure" site by requiring the client for everyone (how does this make the site more secure?). What I have not seen is, well, substantiation of claims.

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 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.

How is it more secure? :D

Except I cannot let my NAS back up my steam games automatically.
Honestly as long as gogrepo works, I'm fine with Galaxy and whatever GOG wants to do to cater to the steam audience.

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.

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?...

The folder would contain everything so couldn't you just synch the steam folder to a folder on the NAS? Unless you mean because you install both DRM and non-DRM games in the same folder. You can choose where to install though.

It would mean to keep another computer running just for steam. Right now the NAS handles gogrepo on itself just fine.

Ahhh I see what you're trying to do there. I doubt Steam has anything particular for that. Maybe, if your NAS allowed Steam to be installed you could use remote install to active installs on your NAS storage but even if it worked it'd require manual triggering and wouldn't be a full collection/update thing like GOGrepo.

I think in a world where most people flat-out prefer clients and GOG has rather small market share it is zealotry to act like they must meet a very pure DRM-free standard decided on by a small number of loud folks on their forum. I'm using that term for a reason, not just throwing it out willy-nilly. People on here on a daily basis check GOG against some purity test they're running in their heads, which I find aggravating. You don't, and feel passionately that you're fighting for what's right, and that's all well and good. But it's like posting about casual sex on a Catholic message board, there's only one answer and there's not much point to saying anything else. That's what I'm trying to get across here, not belittling you but more just saying there's no real point in me endlessly prattling about with this stuff on the GOG forum because it's not going to change minds. It's not a failure on my part or yours, it's just the way things are.

As for the whys and what fors, the original points being made (if I can remember that far back) were about GOG expanding its market-share. I firmly believe to do that they'd need to do two things: enhance the client and features, because most people like clients, or get exclusive games, because most people can't resist exclusives. I believe a lot of client enhancements would require moving more things over to it and stuff like two-step authorization. So that was the reason for the "anti-feature" as you call it, in simple terms. None of this is even about me honestly, I play the website downloaded versions and keep Steam in offline mode with the in-game interface off, so I couldn't give two craps. We were talking about GOG expanding its audience, and a bigger focus on the client would please more mainstream customers. Simple as that.

Why do you find it "aggravating" to hear people talk about DRM-Free on a site whose niche thing is DRM-Free? It's like going on a guided tour of NASA and calling everyone around you "zealots" for talking about space a lot... Those who get backup installers directly aren't any more niche than those who get them via the client (vs those who use the client to install them The Galaxy Way that doesn't involve downloading installers). It's a completely arbitrary and irrelevant distinction. And most people who really don't care about DRM-Free or needing to use a client obviously use Steam, so even Galaxy users on GOG are still the same niche.

Your reasoning is to "gain audience" yet you still haven't said how installers are holding GOG back from improving Galaxy or how a wave of newcomers will be magically attracted to GOG reducing accessibility by... what?... There's already literally nothing to stop them using Galaxy now. Adding cloud saves, achievements, etc, is already done and clearly was no obstacle. Steam users who want "all their games in one place" will keep buying games on Steam loudly proclaiming "they don't want another client". (If anything you'll drive those who use Steam for the client and GOG for the downloaders, into just using Steam for everything). Downloaders are still needed anyway for Linux. Exclusive games, curation changes, etc, are completely unrelated topics. If you can still run GOG games outside of Galaxy (ie, games are still DRM-Free), then it still won't entice any more AAA publishers here either, nor will GOG be able to offer "no quibble" 2hr non-technical refunds, nor can you add "VAC" / multi-player, etc. The bottleneck there is DRM-Free vs DRM not "offering 2 ways of getting DRM-Free installers vs 1".

I think you're just falsely projecting "direct downloads must be the reason" onto "GOG needs to improve Galaxy" when there's no real link at all between them. The real bottleneck for GOG competing 1:1 with Steam on client features is more : 1. Steam was first, had a 4-5 year head-start and has an entrenched de-facto monopoly level of market share, 2. Steam has massively more resources and better finances to throw at Proton, in-home streaming, SteamOS, SteamVR, etc, and 3. 95% of games on Steam are DRM'd. Steam has all these not because it "lacks offline installer yet is still DRM-Free", but simply because it has a cr*p load more money and a huge head-start. That's why all the other stores (Origin, uPlay, Epic, etc) that also lack offline installers are also playing catch-up on the same features - Steam was "the first" (in a market where ironically gamers say they don't want too many clients installed...)

1. As I said before: Some don't want to have to DL another app/client to DL installers....it's not just those who see the client as DRM. Also some can't get the client to run(linux users).

2. One usually needs a web browser to use the internet so they usually have one beforehand/for other uses. This would involve having to DL/use another app/client just to get your games.
=====================================
3. I personally don't think you're that arrogant and admire your strong convictions(though I can see others might not be so understanding). Even though we don't see 100% eye to eye I welcome your take on topics such as this.

4. It still is a great place to discuss games/etc. Yes, there are more trolls/spammers/etc, but that comes with growth and overall the forums are much better in many ways than other forums(steam/etc).....so, to me, I don't see the little bad conversations/replies as being worth getting too upset over.

5. It's not all blinded by passion nonsense...some have legit concerns here and some think you're brushing them off for your own sometimes(just my two cents).

6. It's good you also talk civillly to those here and I respect that.





You seem to be(correct me if I am wrong, though) saying that everyone who has a valid complaint against going client downloads only is fueled by blind love of no drm/etc, but as some of us have presented reasons why we think this is a bad idea this is obviously not the case and painting everyone under one banner is a bit intellectually dishonest & allows one doing sch to quickly dismiss the other side as well imo.

Also if GOG wanted to expand it's audience it'd make more sense to try and keep those users it could without cutting them off/allienating them to expand in other user markets.

Perhaps you could cut to the chase and explain why your subjective standards are so important that we should consider being "less loud"?

Thank you.