Posted July 01, 2019
Post edited July 01, 2019 by clarry
clarry
New User
Registered: Feb 2014
From Other
rjbuffchix
Online/Galaxy required = DRM.
Registered: Jun 2017
From United States
Posted July 01, 2019
Oh, and, even better, when you're on the gamepage to download the updated offline installer, there is no indication of if the installer is even properly updated, or still the existing version you already had! You could re-download the entire thing only to realize it's the same one you had. And that's not all! Recently I read Pathfinder has updated the offline installer, but the filename is the same, so once you download it appears like it's the previous, now un-updated version, even though it is updated! Do you realize that it appears the only way to know if an offline installer is up-to-date is via USER TRIAL AND ERROR, then going in a forum topic about what has just been updated?
The bias against offline installers appears real and goes way further than branding them as "backup" installers. That is my opinion based on my observations. The message I get as a consumer from GOG is that I "have" to use Galaxy, despite lip service that it is and will remain optional. It gets preference across the board. GOG's USP is the DRM-free offline installers but you would never know it because they are hidden away as far as can be. There are message board replies where developers have told us second-class offline users to just use Galaxy to get the up to date version. That is totally unacceptable.
Those of us who rightly point out the discrepancy are not saying "no one can have Galaxy". We are saying those who don't want it should be treated just as valued. In this case, I say if it is good enough for Galaxy users to play, it should be good enough for non-Galaxy users to play.
Post edited July 01, 2019 by rjbuffchix
RainbowDragon
New User
Registered: May 2011
From Other
Posted July 01, 2019
Thank you all for your votes for the feature request and the remarkable number of constructive answers here in the forum - it seems that I am not the only one who feels that gog is really disappointing quite a lot of us when it comes to regularly updating offline installers!
Ashleee: It won't :)
OK, thanks, I DO hope so - can I see that as written agreement between me as customer and you as gog representative, i. e. if you ever do introduce drm for your games I can then request a full refund for several hundred games I have bought from you :-)?!
GALAXY 2.0 aims to bring additional features, doesn't mean we are giving up offline installers. ... doesn't mean we are giving up offline installers.
... well, you may still provide offline installers but the time between the availability of offline installers and galaxy patches now shows a significant delay and that is no appreciated by those of your customers who prefer offline installers to galaxy updates!
Take "Thea 2" and "Fallen Enchantress - Legendary Heroes" as examples: there are obviously patches available for approximately 10 days but no updated offline installers... why do customers who paid the same full price for these games have to wait longer for their updates compared to those who use galaxy (or even other stores like steam)?
timppu: I am not currently using Galaxy (I don't see any reason to do so right now), yet I am not going to sign that feature request. Reason being that it seems to suggest that the offline installers should always be updated at the very same time as the Galaxy version.
I am a realist, and I know that just will not happen, not with the current method they are doing it. Preparing and testing the offline installers most probably still involves some manual work (even if it was simply the correct naming of the installer files), so no, I am not really expecting they'd recreate a new offline installer also for some indev games that may be getting daily patches directly applied by the developer to the Galaxy version.
I might see that as a feasible request IF the "offline installer" generation was fully automated, probably on the client side. Which would mean that there would be no actual "offline installers" at all anymore, but instead you download a game with the Galaxy client, and then generate the "offline installer" yourself with a push of a button in Galaxy, e.g. it generates a zip file and an installer script for you, and that is your "offline installer". I wouldn't be surprised GOG went that way at some point. Naturally that would mean you couldn't necessarily download your GOG games with a web browser anymore, but would have to use the Galaxy client for it (for downloading only, not installing nor playing the game).
And before that can happen, they'd have to make Linux (and Mac?) versions of Galaxy as well.
If you are playing indev or other actively updated games, then I feel you really should use the Galaxy client, if not for another reason but autopatching. Offline installers often mean having to redownload the whole installer again, and reinstalling the whole game. Who wants to do that daily anyway?
In general I agree of course that they should update also the offline installers... at some point. Hopefully sooner than much later. I'm even fine with the idea that they sometimes skip some minor updates on the offline version, as long as they apply the fixes in some later, bigger, update.
Some of the linked discussions pointed out different version numbers on offline and Galaxy versions, but didn't point out what was missing from the offline version. If the "newer" Galaxy version number just e.g. meant some Galaxy-stuff being changed (like related to cloud saving, achievements or whatever), then no, I am not demanding GOG to update the offline installers with that same stuff. After all, they are relevant only to Galaxy users. I try to check for updates at least once a week and always download new offline installers as soon as they become available. And I would not be upset about (very short) delays compared to galaxy updates but it IS bothering me that I have to wait for days/weeks for obviously available updates (for steam and galaxy users). I also buy my games here because I do not want to install any client software in addition to the games I install! This really is what makes gog.com different from other stores like steam: here I can still buy drm free games without the mandatory installation of any unwanted client software.
Galaxy obviously was introduced by gog for those who do not mind client software installations on their PCs, for the less tech-savvy who just want to click on a button and download/install new games or who feel that updating their games via galaxy is easier or more comfortable using galaxy. That's all ok, those customers can use galaxy if it is their preferred installation/updated method but at the moment - or rather for some time now - I believe that gog is failing to update offline installers in a timely fashion and I do not see why customers who paid the same price for these games are let down by gog and made waiting much longer for their updates. And I do not understand the reason for these delays because I believe that a standalone installer should be easier to provide than an installer that has to be integrated in an obviously complex client/download tool like galaxy.
OK, thanks, I DO hope so - can I see that as written agreement between me as customer and you as gog representative, i. e. if you ever do introduce drm for your games I can then request a full refund for several hundred games I have bought from you :-)?!
GALAXY 2.0 aims to bring additional features, doesn't mean we are giving up offline installers.
... well, you may still provide offline installers but the time between the availability of offline installers and galaxy patches now shows a significant delay and that is no appreciated by those of your customers who prefer offline installers to galaxy updates!
Take "Thea 2" and "Fallen Enchantress - Legendary Heroes" as examples: there are obviously patches available for approximately 10 days but no updated offline installers... why do customers who paid the same full price for these games have to wait longer for their updates compared to those who use galaxy (or even other stores like steam)?
I am a realist, and I know that just will not happen, not with the current method they are doing it. Preparing and testing the offline installers most probably still involves some manual work (even if it was simply the correct naming of the installer files), so no, I am not really expecting they'd recreate a new offline installer also for some indev games that may be getting daily patches directly applied by the developer to the Galaxy version.
I might see that as a feasible request IF the "offline installer" generation was fully automated, probably on the client side. Which would mean that there would be no actual "offline installers" at all anymore, but instead you download a game with the Galaxy client, and then generate the "offline installer" yourself with a push of a button in Galaxy, e.g. it generates a zip file and an installer script for you, and that is your "offline installer". I wouldn't be surprised GOG went that way at some point. Naturally that would mean you couldn't necessarily download your GOG games with a web browser anymore, but would have to use the Galaxy client for it (for downloading only, not installing nor playing the game).
And before that can happen, they'd have to make Linux (and Mac?) versions of Galaxy as well.
If you are playing indev or other actively updated games, then I feel you really should use the Galaxy client, if not for another reason but autopatching. Offline installers often mean having to redownload the whole installer again, and reinstalling the whole game. Who wants to do that daily anyway?
In general I agree of course that they should update also the offline installers... at some point. Hopefully sooner than much later. I'm even fine with the idea that they sometimes skip some minor updates on the offline version, as long as they apply the fixes in some later, bigger, update.
Some of the linked discussions pointed out different version numbers on offline and Galaxy versions, but didn't point out what was missing from the offline version. If the "newer" Galaxy version number just e.g. meant some Galaxy-stuff being changed (like related to cloud saving, achievements or whatever), then no, I am not demanding GOG to update the offline installers with that same stuff. After all, they are relevant only to Galaxy users.
Galaxy obviously was introduced by gog for those who do not mind client software installations on their PCs, for the less tech-savvy who just want to click on a button and download/install new games or who feel that updating their games via galaxy is easier or more comfortable using galaxy. That's all ok, those customers can use galaxy if it is their preferred installation/updated method but at the moment - or rather for some time now - I believe that gog is failing to update offline installers in a timely fashion and I do not see why customers who paid the same price for these games are let down by gog and made waiting much longer for their updates. And I do not understand the reason for these delays because I believe that a standalone installer should be easier to provide than an installer that has to be integrated in an obviously complex client/download tool like galaxy.
Post edited July 01, 2019 by RainbowDragon
kblazer883
New User
Registered: Nov 2012
From United States
Posted July 01, 2019
The end result is that the more they become like Steam, the more their target audience changes. I have nothing against GOG going after whatever market they prefer, but straying too far to one target audience or the other will certainly affect the buying patterns and loyalty of those who have been with GOG from early on, compared to their current iteration.
If you can't understand how these are two different target markets, I suggest you take a course in economics or marketing to assist you further in understanding. You could also try Investopedia.
GALAXY 2.0 aims to bring additional features, doesn't mean we are giving up offline installers.
You're welcome.
Post edited July 01, 2019 by kblazer883
JAAHAS
100% Steamless
Registered: Sep 2008
From Finland
Posted July 01, 2019
Yes there have been long delays with some games, but many of those seem to boil down on the publisher/developer not providing a GOG version for the patch in a timely fashion, not being aware of the dev-portal and using other slower methods instead, the latest patch was made available by them only as "experimental" on the client's beta-channel, GOG had to reject a buggy patch and is still waiting for a new one or there was some other miscommunication that caused the delay.
But I have no problem at anyone urging GOG to do their best to keep the delay minimal just as long as they understand that the offline patches have never been available here within minutes after the Steam version was updated.
I also agree that delta patching should be the goal always, but that requires even more time to prepare and test properly than simply replacing the full installer with the latest version.
GamezRanker
Disagreement Verboten!
Registered: Sep 2010
From United States
Posted July 02, 2019
low rated
No. Of course not.
All of us can post anything here now.
I'm not accusing Ashleee of being biased, I'm accusing her of not doing her job period.
But I'm tired of talking about it and worrying about it.
I'm going to watch Sunday Night Baseball and do some fishing.
I'll leave you to give me shit about this post, and whatever ones I continue to make, because I really really don't fucking care anymore. God Bless You
So your solution to the problems you see on GOG is to make more problems? O.0All of us can post anything here now.
I'm not accusing Ashleee of being biased, I'm accusing her of not doing her job period.
But I'm tired of talking about it and worrying about it.
I'm going to watch Sunday Night Baseball and do some fishing.
I'll leave you to give me shit about this post, and whatever ones I continue to make, because I really really don't fucking care anymore. God Bless You