Firstly, I would like to say that I'm pretty sure no one dialed up GOG to tell them to remove the GOG downloader, certainly not me. It's all GOG's decision on their own.

That said, is there a big reason why the Galaxy client can't function as an alternative? The Galaxy client is not like Steam/Origin/Ubisoft's client. It's not compulsory. It can simply be used as a downloader to merely grab the stand-a-lone exe files. In fact, if you use Galaxy, the file is downloaded in one neat .exe instead of in parts (should that be your preference). Plus you can pause/resume your downloads in the case of your connection dropping. And after you get the .exe files, you can completely remove the Galaxy client from your computer. You don't need it anymore.

I get that the GOG downloader is working perfectly fine and there is no need to "Fix things that ain't broke", but some people are acting like Galaxy is no alternative and I'm wondering why. If you are saying that the Galaxy client can't work or start up on your computer, I completely understand, as it was one of my issues too. However, that doesn't seem to be issue for everybody, so I admit to still not seeing fully why.

These ARE signs whether you want to believe them or not. If this was just one isolated event on its own, you would have more of a stronger point. I think it was the other topic where I said how non-Galaxy users have gotten worse treatment my entire time on this site.
(copied from my post in my own topic):
For one thing, I wouldn't want to pad their numbers. The number of users on Galaxy, even if some are only using it to download offline "backup" installers then log out, is data that can be wielded by GOG in future decisions. The main concern is that if they get enough of these numbers (however inflated they may be, by virtue of things like obscuring the browser download links), GOG could go Galaxy-only.

There might be, but as of now either of us is as likely to be right(as neither of us has solid proof atm).

What I "take issue with" is when such statements are posted by anyone as if they are fact and not the person's suspicions. If anyone doing so posted it and clearly stated(with the right words) that it was their opinion i'd be less "bothered" over such.

Do you really think if 1 million and one people used galaxy instead of 1 million it'd make much difference? The numbers are likely big enough that one more or less person using it wouldn't change much in the eyes of those looking at said data to make decisions.

Just asking/curious: Have you ever thought of maybe thinking more positively....if only just a bit....about such things?

The answer is easy: GOG wants to push Galaxy on everyone. So they remove alternatives. Next step will be blocking third-party downloaders.

That was some time ago but I was not able to "completely remove the Galaxy client". It required me to research and manual OS interference to make it right. Galaxy needs many privileges that should not be mandatory in any application except for trustfully security applications.

It shouldn't refuse to install without those privileges.

For me it doesn't matter that steam and other lunchers/applications need it. They are drm and if you don't care who rule in your OS it's your choice, aware or unaware. I refuse to agree to it, that's why I'm here.

Every application with administrator privileges is potential source of future backdoor. Every application which are able to make changes to your OS without your knowledge makes your OS more vulnerable to malware. OS itself is not excluded from this.

Why is it so hard to understand it nowadays? Is it because people used to selling their privacy, their rights and secure for few free services and applications? Is it because many of them do not know that things can function differently because it is the only world they know and they did not have a chance to taste another?

Sorry for my english. Feel free to correct me, maybe it will help me to improve my skills.

You're spewing pure flowers.
The GOG Downloader served a very specific and central purpose : the ability to conveniently download the offline installer with as little fuss as possible.
That's the cornerstone of the spirit of GOG, being able to get games without the mandatory crap that litter games today.
It CAN'T be "obsolete" because it FILLS EXACTLY ITS PURPOSE.
No, even as a software developer his post is downright poor. We don't flag things as "obsolete" when they work. That is actually more a marketing decisions, when they wish to push consumers toward a specific direction instead of providing strictly what is required and useful. A dev provides code that fits a need with the best efficiency possible, and the GOG Downloader was just that.
This guy is not "a dev".

[Modded by Bookwyrm627: Please refrain from insulting the other users.]

Two reasons :

1) Practically, the whole point of buying things on GOG is to NOT have to deal with shit like DRM and clients and the like. The GOG Downloader allowed to DL the actual goods (the games) without undue interference. Galaxy is a much heavier client that gets in the way.

2) Conceptually, the insistence of GOG on forcing Galaxy down the throat of users is not a good sign. It's not mandatory, it's not Steam/Origin/Uplay, yes. YET.
But it's becoming less and less "optional" as time passes, and deliberately removing the unobtrusive downloader looks pretty much like strong-arming people into using Galaxy, and I don't see what would be the purpose except, you know, actually making it mandatory and more and more like a Steam-light client.

No, as a software developer you flag stuff as "obsolete" when they are not longer supported, whenever they still work or not and whenever there is a replacement or not is totally irrelevant. (And to be more correct, 99% of the time it's not the dev that decide that anyway but the project manager)

Re: the phrase "software dev"...I apologize if I used the wrong term as I was only speaking casually. My point though remains that people here are not looking at things from a consumer point of view. The consumer that used GOG Downloader with no problems, did not consider it "obsolete". So upon it being taken away, the consumer wants to at least know a compelling reason as to why it couldn't remain the way it was. A proclamation from on high that it is "outdated" is not a compelling reason. In fact it is extremely tonedeaf and outright irrelevant when viewing things through the consumer's perspective.

I heavily used it while it worked. Last time i tried to use it last year it wouldn't connect, or log in or something. I don't know.

Why not just use torrents? Make an encrypted network and multiple versions of the game can be avaliable seeded by other community members. And if you don't own the game the encrypted torrent rejects you.

Doesn't really matter i suppose.

Regardless of what the saying says, the customer/consumer isn't always right & I don't think they/we deserve to get every little thing they/we want just because we want it.

(Not trying to be too rude/crude, it's just that it seems like you and others are trying[every so often] to use the pro-consumer stance seemingly just to "guilt" companies into giving us stuff, as if a company needs to give us everything we want else they're not pro consumer)

With all due respect those are strawman arguments. Please let's try to keep on track. No one is even talking about who is "right", just the reality of there being confused customers. Whether you like it or not, customers are not satisfied with the official reasoning. Because from the customer's perspective, it doesn't follow.

Had GOG just come out and said: we're disabling Downloader because we really want as many people on Galaxy as possible, I'd have expressed more disgust but would at least be able to respect the honesty and more importantly know where they are coming from due to more open communication.

The current "answers" have left nothing but confusion since they don't jive with people's experience: that is, Downloader was not at all "outdated" to any of us. I'm pretty sure it's not in a company's interest to look tone-deaf and incompetent particularly to loyal customers.

They DID say that, when Galaxy was first announced they said that it was meant to replace the Downloader as the official Gog client; they didn't say "when" it would happen but they were pretty clear that is was the idea in the long run.

I wasn't there but I'm talking about the present day. None of that reasoning was clearly expressed in the staff posts in these Downloader topics now.

Yes it does because they just assumed people knew this information already.