Yeah, I'm not using it either. I tried it. Was okay and I'll probably have to use it, when the regular downloader is completely phased out or speeds are too slow, but until then, I'm happy with what I've been using.

I'm going to wait for the final version before trying it out.

First Off: No reason to NEED to download the client. That's why they call it the 'Optional Client'.

The reason why I decided to use it? The main reason was so my installations would automatically update.

Okay, so over time I have acquired a fairly large collection of GOG games, and I would download/archive the installer and install the game. Any games that needed updating meant I would re-download the game, delete the old installer, replace it with the new one and manually update any installed games.

Later on I would log in and see a tag that showed 3 games were updated, (for example). I like to keep everything updated, so I'd go to my library first (never fails, did it every time) and couldn't tell what the changes were until I went to the forums. While the download was 75% done, I'd find out that the update was for a content update, or for the linux version. BackAsswards! Never knew why they didn't implement a changelog at the library...

Another reason: I really do like the idea of cross-play multiplayer with other systems like Steam (playerbase is beefed up), plus the fact that these old games will be populated with like-minded good old game lovers.

PS: They've finally implemented a basic changelog in the library now, but you have to drill down in the menus to find it. Not only that but it's not in the galaxy client yet, which I think is weird because the client is practically just a browser...

What CPU do you have?

I'm just glad it is an optional,otherwise it was bye bye Gog....

I'm using it "off and on", It seems it is still using the OS selected Web browser internally for displaying most of the content, but it seems to be squirrelly with the navigation of those '<' and '>' bits.

I do like how it detects when I installed something I downloaded the old fashioned way (into my normal game folder) and added it into my list. It does a fairly sufficient job for what it does now.

However; they really need to get someone who knows how to use window regions and really dress up that "non-client" area of the window that it uses. That's how they'll give it the real 'signature' look (and sometimes, you only get one chance to make a first impression).

It would be great to see the features grow over time.
It seems they're already using the browser internally in the application itself; if they can add more features outside of that, that's where the real interest will be.

Yes,I see they are going to tweak it so that people will not have a choice.When it goes
there,then I will go where they cannot.....

I don't think they'd do that, don't be so pessimistic. I still really like using the Web interface, but I do like some of the perks that BurntSoul mentioned.

I hop between the two just to see what's brewing. By taking advantage of the Web interface, they're able to keep the two in sync pretty well.

I get that, but just wanted to point out that a vast majority of that re-downloading was unnecessary. For example, see my screenshot. I had 56 games marked as updated (because I learned some time ago that most of those weren't really updates to the games)

Out of the 56 marked as updated, only 6 had actual changes to the games. 6 out of 56. That meant to keep the games themselves updated, it only required re-downloading about 10% of the time something was marked as updated. Of the rest, 2 were for Linux versions added (no need to re-download if you're not using Linux), 1 was for a language addition (no need to re-download unless that was a language you were interested in) and 1 was for a 32-bit patch (no reason to re-download it unless you're using a 32-bit OS). So that's only 10 of the 56 that even had anything at all in terms of changes. All the rest were (I'm assuming here, so someone may correct me if I'm wrong) simply updates to the installer itself (so that when you're installing the game, the ads you see while it's installing are updated).

But yes, automatic updates is a nifty feature, and I get why people like that. IMO achievements are completely bogus but I also get that to others those are nifty and well liked too, so that's another plus. And for those that like multi-player, those options are very nice to have as well.

I've always understood why folks like clients (speaking particularly about Steam) but Steam could have done it just like GoG did it, and provided all of those "good things" without adding the extra burdensome DRM. Had they made that choice, I wouldn't be such a Steam critic because I do get why folks like some things about clients. I just don't, that's all. But that's just me. But I do applaud GoG for keeping it OPTIONAL, as it should be.

That's actually cool, you probably indirectly gave them information on how to improve the things you see different without actually alpha or beta testing. nice!

I am not using it and am not particularly interested in trying it. I do appreciate GOG making it fully optional.

I'm waiting for a Linux client before I try it out.

Installed, but not using it. Not really different from the webpage.

I gave it a test run hoping to clear dozens of icons off of my desktop and use it strictly as a launcher. I first became more than mildly irritated that after importing installed games in to the client it automatically verified the games often rewriting community patches and mods, as opposed to putting a nice big flashy button next to the import button that would allow you to veriy if and when you wish.

It corrupted a non-modded install of World of Xeen and after reinstalling from the client the save file was deemed incompatible or some such. Reinstalled from my portable HDD and did not import and the save file worked fine.

The final straw was a previously imported and verified install of Quest for Infamy when the 1 mb patch came out it wanted to download 50+ mb of updates. Even my ISP isn't so terrible that 50 mb is a big deal but I was tired of the shenanigans. But that's when I cancelled the download and uninstalled Galaxy. Once I can import without issue I will reinstall and use as a launcher and downloader one the inevitable occurs, but for now it has not made my experience any richer.

I was thinking earlier this week how nice it would be to be able to customize notifications based on operating system, language and whether or not it is the installer or extra content. Is there a wishlist entry anyone can point me to?

My mom isn't using Galaxy. Oh, my neighbour's dog isn't either (that I've observed anyway, I can't be 100% certain though.) I can think of one. The most compelling reason anyone could have to use it is to look at what it currently does and what GOG's plans are for it to do in the future, and if any of that sounds interesting/useful or one is even just curious to see, to then wait for it to be officially released in a stable form. (I highly recommend NOT using the beta with expectations of stable feature-complete production ready solid software. Many are doing just that, but that's not what a beta is for.) Once it is officially released, possibly give it a whirl if there is any interest or curiousity about it and see if it actually does anything that you find useful on your own metrics and judgment because what other people think or like is not what you're likely to think or like so their preferences and thoughts are less likely to matter to you.

Then if you find it has useful features you would like to have and feel it improves your overall experience with GOG, that very well would be the most compelling reason to keep using it. If none of it does interest you though, then there isn't any compelling reason to.use it.