I should really post a comment about there being yet another game content management system….but the DRM-free nature of this one makes me want to hold back.

Hell, saracen may actually install this one ;)

It's not a Steam beater for me, but it may become one “eventually”. I'm finding myself gaming under Linux more and more frequently now, the only thing really holding me back is Blizzard. Once GoG release the Linux version of Galaxy I'll definitely try it out.

If I can logon using my current email address then Steam and all it's other BS are dead to me.

shaithis
I should really post a comment about there being yet another game content management system….but the DRM-free nature of this one makes me want to hold back.

Hell, saracen may actually install this one ;)

Very doubtful. Very doubtful indeed.

Why? I can't see what it offers me that I want. Things that will appear to others, sure. But, so far, not to me.

I mean, I've only looked, quickly, at the HEXUS article and, first glance at least, it's FAR less objectionable (to me) than Steam, which is absolutely and utterly a non-starter for me.

But, there's two aspects to the install decision :-

1) Anything offered I need/want, and
2) Anything inherent that precludes using it even if there are things I want?

Steam fails on the second. Galaxy, it appears, on the first. I can't see what it offers that I want.

HOWEVER …. the article confused me a little. In one place, it says Galaxy will be “optional”. Fine. So far, I opt not to use it. Then, it says longer term the current downloader will be replaced. If true, how do you download from GOG if you don't opt in to Galaxy?

That might put paid to me using GOG.

There seems to be an implication that Galaxy is a platform, under which GOG games run, and that it handles downloads, updates, etc. Ummm …. no thanks. The machine I use to download is NOT the one I use to game, and my gaming machine is not internet facing. That's one reason I won't use Steam. Inherent, clearly, in that is zero interest in online gaming, multiplayer (in the current sense) gaming, inter-operability with Steam, etc. I do sometimes run multi-player (up to four) but entirely LAN-based, with the LAN not having a net connection, and I haven't even done that in quite a while.

Providing I can carry on as I currently do, downloading, and then on a separate machine installing and running, from an executable, I'm happy. If I'm required to use Galaxy, at some future point, it may well be the end of GOG for me.

I am surprised by Blizzard dragging their heals on Linux support, although I do feel they will cave soon. They were probably the first to reliably support both Windows and Mac OS and seem to have continued that support through all their titles…..they have also branched out to PS4 which like Mac OS X is derived from BSD, you would think porting would be minimal.

My only concern would be graphics though. I multi-boot Mac OS X on my main gaming rig for nothing but educational purposes and have tried running some games on Mac OS to compare them to their Windows counterparts running on the exact same hardware……the Blizzard titles all looked considerably worse running on Mac OS then they did on Windows…….I can't say I noticed the same when comparing Windows to Linux on steam titles.

Update on my last post …. from GALAXY FAQ

13. Is GOG Galaxy truly optional?

GOG Galaxy is fully optional because you don’t need it to play games on GOG.com. If you want to, you can simply download your game via your browser, install it manually, and launch it offline, just like we've always done it on GOG.com. If you decide to use GOG Galaxy for some aspects of the convenience, you can still switch to offline mode at whim and play your games. Optional also means that all features in GOG Galaxy can be turned off. Not a fan of achievements or auto-updates? No problem, they're extras.

Provided it stays like that, I can carry on as I do now. Which is fine by me.

My only hesitation is if most users go Galaxy, whether it will remain optional in the longer term.

If it does, great. If it doesn't, I have a choice - install, or quit using GOG. Until I have a long, hard look at how it goes over time, I don't know which way I'd go. But if I'm prepared to quit Photoshop over subscription-only, prepared to abandon Windows for Linux over MSs apparent intentions, and prepared to give up games I want because they require Steam, I'm certainly prepared to give up GOG, or indeed, PC gaming entirely, if need be.

Saracen
HOWEVER …. the article confused me a little. In one place, it says Galaxy will be “optional”. Fine. So far, I opt not to use it. Then, it says longer term the current downloader will be replaced. If true, how do you download from GOG if you don't opt in to Galaxy?

As far as I'm aware the downloader itself is optional. So yes, this will replace the old downloader but manual download of games and content will remain as it is now.

This is good competition for Steam, which is very much needed. The stranglehold Steam has on digital delivery at the moment is concerning. They seem to be able to do whatever the hell they want with zero repercussions.
Other current services like Origin and uPlay are an unfortunate necessary evil if you wish to play EA or Ubi games, respectively, however they do not offer what I feel is genuine competition for Steam. Its more to do with profits and DRM than it is trying to be a genuine feature filled competitor to Steam.

I have quite a few Origin games already, but I think im going to pretty much call it a day on EA now. They are not delivering a great deal for PC users who are used to the old skool gaming world anymore and Ubisoft haven't for a very long time.

Hopefully GOG will succeed and start to include other features like game recording/viewer streaming/in-home streaming/modding/DLC management

Saracen

shaithis
I should really post a comment about there being yet another game content management system….but the DRM-free nature of this one makes me want to hold back.

Hell, saracen may actually install this one ;)

HOWEVER …. the article confused me a little. In one place, it says Galaxy will be “optional”. Fine. So far, I opt not to use it. Then, it says longer term the current downloader will be replaced. If true, how do you download from GOG if you don't opt in to Galaxy?

That might put paid to me using GOG.

There seems to be an implication that Galaxy is a platform, under which GOG games run, and that it handles downloads, updates, etc. Ummm …. no thanks. The machine I use to download is NOT the one I use to game, and my gaming machine is not internet facing. That's one reason I won't use Steam. Inherent, clearly, in that is zero interest in online gaming, multiplayer (in the current sense) gaming, inter-operability with Steam, etc. I do sometimes run multi-player (up to four) but entirely LAN-based, with the LAN not having a net connection, and I haven't even done that in quite a while.

Providing I can carry on as I currently do, downloading, and then on a separate machine installing and running, from an executable, I'm happy. If I'm required to use Galaxy, at some future point, it may well be the end of GOG for me.

You don't need to use the current GOG downloader. It's merely a ‘download accelerator’ - if you lose connection, etc, it will pick up the download where you lost it, etc. You can do a standard download with no problems. Just click the switch to off.

Galaxy's stated intent (and given GoG's history, one I believe) is simply to provide a simpler, DRM free option to Steam, with the user having complete control over the features. I like the idea primarily because I don't always bother checking the GOG site for update/patch info, and an automated process in that vein doesn't bother me. I've no interest in the other features, other than the game time tracking, and possibly the achievement stuff.

While I don't think Steam is inherently “evil”, there are things about the company I don't like. I've yet to find anything about GOG that I don't like. And there aren't many companies I can say that about with a straight face.

GuidoLS
You don't need to use the current GOG downloader. It's merely a ‘download accelerator’ - if you lose connection, etc, it will pick up the download where you lost it, etc. You can do a standard download with no problems. Just click the switch to off.

Galaxy's stated intent (and given GoG's history, one I believe) is simply to provide a simpler, DRM free option to Steam, with the user having complete control over the features. I like the idea primarily because I don't always bother checking the GOG site for update/patch info, and an automated process in that vein doesn't bother me. I've no interest in the other features, other than the game time tracking, and possibly the achievement stuff.

While I don't think Steam is inherently “evil”, there are things about the company I don't like. I've yet to find anything about GOG that I don't like. And there aren't many companies I can say that about with a straight face.

I don't think Steam is inherently evil, either. Anti-competitive, maybe, but not inherently bad. I'm quite aware a lot of people like Steam, or at least, like enough about it to be prepared to put up with what they don't like. And … fair enough.

For me, the balance between like and dislike falls distinctly on the dislike side. The downside is simply much to dominant for me to be prepared to put up with it for the upside. If it were a choice (and fortunately, largely due to GOG, it isn't) between accepting Steam, or entirely giving up PC gaming, I'd give up PC gaming.

But just because I'm not prepared to accept the compromises doesn't mean I think they're evil, or that everyone else, with different priorities and red lines, shouldn't use Steam.

For me, Steam is a non-starter but I understand why other use, and even like, much about it. Not me, though.

And yeah, I think your take on Galaxy appears to be the right one. I probably won't go that way, but it apparently won't stop me using GOG.

Saracen
Update on my last post …. from GALAXY FAQ



Provided it stays like that, I can carry on as I do now. Which is fine by me.

It sounds like you can download, and then do a backup of the game. ISTM that logically walking a backup of a game over to your target machine is equivalent to walking a downloaded installer, just involves one extra backup step? That or the restore at the target could be unworkably painful, but that seems an implementation issue rather than fundamentally different.

From my point of view though, wake me up when there is a Linux version. If I can “yum install gog” on my Linux box and start playing, then I expect I am in. ISTR it took a “yum install steam” and a few clicks to get Civ 5 up and running.

DanceswithUnix
It sounds like you can download, and then do a backup of the game. ISTM that logically walking a backup of a game over to your target machine is equivalent to walking a downloaded installer, just involves one extra backup step? That or the restore at the target could be unworkably painful, but that seems an implementation issue rather than fundamentally different.

….

Not sure I understand that.

If you mean download the installer, walk it to the target machine, and let it connect and DL/install games, no, because the target has no net connection.

If you mean walk the installer, install it, then manually dl a file, walk it over and feed it to the installer, then yeah, but I can't really see the point in the ‘platform’ if that's what I'm doing, which it is.

I'm perfectly happy dl'ing and manually installing a game, then updating and maintaining it. And, by the way, the ‘target’ isn't necessarily the same machine all the time.

How is this working out for people?

Corrupt, canceled downloads and a slow download had me wishing I had the steam version of my game. My prayers were answered and if its failed again when i get home; I'll give this a go.

Been fine for me. Downloaded quite a few games with no issue. Not really played any but that's more a time issue!