Thanks for the info.

And the Epic daily free game has started, with one today, and another mystery one tomorrow (less than 9 hours away).
And we presume it will be for 12 days maybe.

Huh? Can you elaborate? One has always been able to download offline installers. It's basically one of GOG's main features, and that hasn't been removed. The only thing nowadays you can't exactly have is older offline installers, but you can still download the entire install of that version of the game as if you used it.

You've replied in the wrong thread.

I made that statement in another thread, not this one.

And it was in reference to the success page after making a purchase.
It has the icons on the left for the game(s) you just acquired at GOG.
And on the right half we now have a huge banner for Galaxy, and some basic instructions on use.
Nowhere does that page mention Offline Installers, last I looked.
The focus is entirely on using the default direct download & install method of Galaxy.
You could legitimately complain, that GOG are keeping new customers ignorant of the Offline Installers.
And are trying to browbeat the rest of us into using Galaxy too, in that manner.

I deliberately put it in this one because this is the purpose of this thread.

Your entire focus on Galaxy is not everything, nor is what you're saying entirely true. First off, one does not even need Galaxy, and nowhere when I make a purchase does it even mention Galaxy. I've been using a web browser like I've been doing from the pre-Galaxy days the same way ever since. Galaxy is hardly ever pushed for that matter. The advertising just shows it exists.

Meanwhile, what you're saying about offline installers on Galaxy is incorrect. It's actually pretty much the same as just going to the games library on a web browser. No, GOG isn't incompetent here, should you know where to look. They don't have to advertise it, but it really is there and has always been there. You're just looking in the wrong place. Ultimately though, i have hardly ever needed Galaxy for anything except to find older installs of games. There is no push whatsoever though.

GOG hasn't ignored anything. Maybe it's largely not well advertised, but GOG isn't incompetent here when it comes to availability.. They're even nice enough to let you install older versions of games anyway.

Epic current giveaway have hit a wall.
Seems like everyone or atleast many are getting blocked by Cloudflare, or if it is Epic getting blocked.

Wow, there's so many trying to access it Cloudflare probably thinks it's a DDOS attack ^_^

The purpose of this thread is about giveaways at other stores. It has nothing to do with what you are discussing at all.

And the rest of your reply, which I certainly aren't going to discuss further in this thread, as it is totally off-topic, just shows you have no clue what I was talking about, you have completely grabbed the wrong end of the stick ... it is almost like you are on drugs.

You are not going to get any further replies from me in this thread.
And if you want further replies from me in the correct place, I suggest you re-read properly what I wrote, because you have things upside down and arse about. In other words, you completely misunderstood what I wrote.

If you're trying not to be ignorant, you shouldn't be doubling down with more ignorance. Your argument is invalid.

LOLWUT??????

First off, you have no idea what I did or didn't do. You can't speak for that. What I can tell you is I've never double clicked on the file. I use the dropdown submenus. Directly under 7-Zip. I do this because mainly I don't personally like using the Windows extractor.

I've inspected directly with the 7-Zip dropdown menu that opens the 7-Zip window. I've also extracted via the 7-Zip dropdown submenu. NOT the Windows one. The only thing you could be correct about is that I am using an older version of 7-Zip. Wow, and it has no problems! So the file isn't the problem.

In the newer version, the files aren't named with slashes. Instead, there's a dot. In any way that you view the file with Windows or an older version of 7-Zip, everything looks normal with its structure. When you're viewing in file explorer, everything should be as is. If the version you're using 7-Zip makes the file look funny, it's not the file. There's something wrong with the 7-Zip program you're using.

But again, as I've pointed out, the game is Windows only, even on Steam. There's no Linux compatibility, so I wouldn't even come close to thinking it has anything to do with any quirks of Linux.

But even if I went by what you think I was using, and extracting with the Windows extractor, it still had the normal result a with the older 7-Zip that I'm using. Therefore, the sum of these facts would tell me only the newer 7-Zip has issues with handling zips, but it's not the zip file itself. So, that's basically down to user error. Any problems you're having with this is either you're using a bad extraction program that can't handle compressed files, or you had a bad file to begin with that no zip extraction program can run with that file, which is highly not the case here.

Ding ding ding Ding!

That is precisely what we have been talking about. That is a flat naming system without actual directories. The "dot' Is the result of 7-zip not recognizing backslashes as directory separators and Windows not allowing any slashes as part of a filename. Any improper character will always be displayed as that "dot".

Also what I stated. Though the Windows OS can only use backlashes and refuses to let forward slashes to be used in paths or directory names in the file system, the Windows ZIP functionality, other archiving programs, and old versions of 7-zip will work with either slashes or backslashes being used as directory separators inside the ZIP file. The newer versions of 7-zip will only work with forward slashes being used while the ZIP file specification for says that forward slashes should be used.

Since the file is inappropriately using backslashes, it will not extract properly with the current version of 7-zip, but will with almost everything else.

Do you get it yet?

Get it through your head and quit wasting everyone's time. If you can't do that, then piss off because I will no longer waste time trying to educate you.

Thank you for moving this, mods.

I have an old zip file where the host OS is also Unix and there is no such weirdness even with running the newer 7-Zip. Still, in neihther case it really can't be said where it came from. Even if you do presume both are based on the same kind of OS, the source for the two is not comparable. Essentially, the newer 7-Zip has no issue with one, and problems with the other. I care not for its source, but it's apparent by your arguments, the issue is just with the newer 7-Zip specifically, not anything else. Even without that knowledge, I still wouldn't begin to pretend to complain it has to do with the file and its source. Besides, this problem has been overcome elsewhere.

Again, what you're trying to talk about is even less about the condition and origin of the source file itself, and more to do with the creative decisions Igor Pavlov made for newer 7-Zip versions working with zips particularly for Linux compatibility. That's the red flag. The newer versions are handing these things in ways that is not an issue for Windows and elsewhere.

You had the gall to assume I wasn't using 7-Zip to even inspect the file proper. Now you still want to make up the excuse that it's in the file names because of where it came from. Yet, I have an older zip file that is presumably from the same kind of system without this weirdness. I'm increasingly doubting your argument.

Overall, if the newer 7-Zip has an issue that wasn't present in the past, this is not an issue with the file.

So if you don't get that, you are wasting your time arguing.