Good luck trying to download offline installers for 433 games on Steam...

I get around 20-32 MBytes/sec download speed with a browser, and over 70 MBytes/sec with Galaxy (downloading the offline installers with it) on GOG. The latter is faster than what I get on Steam.

That 20-32 MBytes/sec is plenty fast for me, I have 2500+ GOG games (offline installers) backed up.

steams downloads are smaller by default because they dont suck at packing

steams updates arent reloading the entire game every time because they dont suck at integrating

steams downloads dont randomly throttle to 0 ever minute because they dont suck period

whats the point of downloading an offline installer if the next patch doesnt get an upgradeable standalone in a reasonable amount of time anyway
whats the point of an offline installer if you make me redownload the entire thing anyway

fun fact you can just backup the entire folder of DRM free games on steam and "it just works", no installer required at all

do what you want, ill be over there -> pointing and laughing
maybe hire more highly skilled women, that seems to have worked out great so far

I dont know if trolling since your profile says 45 games instead of the 433 games you want to back up but complaining about taking an hour for 35GB seems pretty outrageous when you can just do something else during that time and have it downloading in the background.

Its not like GOG is shutting down tomorrow and its a race to get your offline installers before they become permanently lost.

And the benefit of offline installers is that you can reinstall your games onto a PC sometime in the future without GOG and have them work so if GOG ever goes down (knock on wood), you still have the games you backed up which isnt the same for Steam. I know people believe Steam will never shut down but people thought the same about Blockbuster and Yahoo back in the day too.

Actual 1999 downloading experience:

https://www.gog.com/upload/forum/2025/04/3e664bbde65c1b399ed88a5d6394959b18b1f287.gif

Uh.... it doesn't sound like it should you take a long time at all to back that up if you can download 35 gb in an hour. The VAST majority of your games are much less than 35 gb. I am certain of that.
Your math skills are complete trash

You've just reminded me of a darker time in human history.

you just self reported having 2 braincells, 1 of which is defunct - very good!

Yeah, I dream about getting such a good speed.

Clearly the OP has no understanding of how the internet works.

Sure with a good web connection to some sites, it is possible to get amazing speeds. But a lot of sites around the world, the majority, cannot provide that.

I suspect if the OP got the single thread speed I get, they would have a conniption and die of a heart attack. Bud, reading your post and in between the lines, it is very clear you are not very savvy and you also haven't been doing the right thing, when it comes to GOG and DRM-Free ... or maybe only sometimes.

For instance, why would you have that many games to download?
Haven't you been downloading them after purchase?

I can appreciate, that GOG does indeed give lousy speeds to many of us, but you aren't one of those, as 35 GB in an hour is a pretty good download speed, honestly. And you cannot expect to have greater, just because you didn't keep up with your game downloads, as that is an issue created by yourself.

1999 is more like 5Kb/s

So where is the actual claim rather than whining without facts

In 1999 it would not have taken one hour, but closer to two months. Assuming no network interruption or slowdown.

Of course you would have been unable to use a phone during this time, and anyone trying to call you during the download would have interrupted it.

Actually OP, apologies, the troll is the guy below who replied to me. Saw this guy responding very frequently and didnt notice he wasnt OP. OP has 393 games which I can understand being more frustrating if each game takes a long time to download but the speed doesnt seem to be a major issue and again, GOG isnt shutting down any time soon.

Is this because I had the unfathomable idea that Steam may go down somtime in the future and everyone on there will lose all their games unless they get bought out by some hedge fund or major corporation like EA or Microsoft? lol.

Has there been any game which came even close to that size in 1999? Probably not. :)

It would have been more like a week or two, as DSL and cable internet already were available at that time. But comparing with 1999 anyway is moot as people mostly got their games as physical copies on disk at that time, right?

56 kb modems was the standard in 1999... if people got internet at all... which was not always the case because internet was still a luxury back at those very old days. Nowadays it is a expected standard but with the exception of my country i know no other country which was setting a "internet connection" as a "human right by law". So if iack a connection i can demand a connection, backed up by law. Although, the exact speed is not defined but 100 Mbit is nowadays pretty much the lowest speed usually provided by any cable and perhaps 50 Mbit for a mobile connection.

Anyway, downloading 35 GB with 56 kbit = 0,056 Mbit : 8 = 0,007 MB/s
35 000 MB : 0,007 MB/s = 5 000 000 seconds in order to reach the required value.
5 000 000 seconds : 60 = 83 333 minutes : 60 = 1388 hours : 57,8 days in a row!!!

So, GOG in 1999 should be able to deliver your game in 57-58 days... happy waiting!

There was probably a very good reason a physical disc was WAY MORE popular those very old days and the devs did not release completely broken Alpha games that may need 100 updates because they knew "we can not just flush all the missing bits in a single hour through the standard cables and even standard mobile waves".

Besides: DSL as a STANDARD (which is important, so no high end users at a privileged place only) was only widely available many years beyond 2000 in almost any country... and only big citys in usual had DSL available. The "fast internet" is not that old... it is a pretty new invention.

Of course the very first DSL was nowhere the speed we got today... is was more like 1 MB/s... and this was already considered fast!

My very first DSL... and yes i am old enough able to experience it... was around 0,5 MB/s and it did not change for more than a decade. My luxury fiber connection with, in the beginning, 1 Gbit, and some years ago even with 10 Gbit, SYMMETRICAL (as well cutting edge, very new invention) is a very new luxury invention... i do value a lot but this is "state of art", not even standard.

EDIT: nvm, it's ~10 MBps.. not too bad indeed

Nevermind, mixed a couple things up. :P