But these clients are not exclusive to one platform. I bet you would complain and maybe stopped going there, if, for example, some online retailer shop required specific browser client.

Also browsers and email clients are usually open source. You can choose which you want to use and the use of browser is multi-purpose. I don't think it is fair to compare it with yet_another_mandatory_proprietary_client_for_specific_platform.

That's not correct and this comparison is even false to the ground: The browser is not a client, the email-program also functions without any added account for example Thunderbird. And some of them are even open-source, especially when looking on operating-systems beyond Windows. And yes: A client is always a component for a connection to a server, like an SMTP- / IMAP-server for emails. But that is no dirty word, for example a XMPP-client is flexible and open using an own server for communication. You have to be specific and not generalistic otherwise this is what it is: A relativization and it stays that way. In gaming you can also choose any client you want, for example for communication: Closed-source like TeamSpeak? Or better open-source like Mumble? The Galaxy-client is a proprietary software and besides all the whishes from the community to open that, this will never happen. So it is nice from GOG to write down they would not stop any other implementation from the community: To know more about the API and the protocols you have to save and analyze the complete traffic from this client and do reverse engineering - which is in fact in many countries illegal. Nice one! ;-)

But that's just a sidenote: Clients are only part of usage when the user decides that way, when he or she has a choice. And with your whole argumentation you are justifying the agenda for having only Galaxy accessing the bought products here. With this: There is no further choice. And I'm not missing the point as you try to argument all the time. It's more the fact, that you are doing here a snow job. This is also the reason for our situation now: People have no harsh definition, no line to cross, being lazy and it seems so easy. But when something has an error the big complaining starts! This passive nature, being on the line of the so-called "evolution" is just another lie. There is nothing like "evolution", it's just giving up control for more centralized systems - as we have not enough of them these days. You want the definition easy to handle so your argumentation is always correct, but that's the wrong and generalistic way. Just looking high enough and everything seems "okay"? ;)

A web browser IS considered a client.... [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client_(computing)]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Client_(computing)[/url]. As far is closed source vs open source this is kind of irrelevant to the statement at hand which is we use different types of clients all the time. But that's here nor there really, I was just curious to how far your "anti-client" crusade goes.

Sigh this has officially become a pointless discussion now, GOG is going to do what they want to do, regardless of what we may or may not want. You are indeed missing the point, but that's fine people generally do when clouded by biased (and sometimes illogical) thinking. Little point in continuing this really.

The sad part is, in a way I do agree with you. I've said it countless times, options are good and I do think GOG should provide as many options as possible including standalone installers (or some form of that). But the original point still remains a gaming client on it's own, regardless if it's closed source =/= DRM. That doesn't mean DRM can't be added or that a game can't contain DRM, just that they are not inherently DRM. But somehow we have verged off of that original point of what I was replying too.

I don't know how much more clear I can be... if saying what is clearly true is now justifying the agenda for Galaxy then so be it, but I personally am not justifying Galaxy only, I've actually stated I'm for the opposite of that. But believe what you want, trying to "correct the record" so to speak doesn't mean I am advocating for it or justifying it, but in today's highly divided climate you can't explain something for what it is, without also being accused of supporting it.

What I said in the beginning of this long drawn out argument is true... what we are talking about here is a matter of convenience, not DRM. And from that standpoint it is in our best interest and GOG's to be as convenient as possible and allowing users to download games without Galaxy is part of that. End of story.

I think the important part is that GOG must be reminded regularly that they will lose a lot of customers if every they ever make Galaxy non-optional (for the single player part of games of course). Therefore, I hereby solemnly swear, I will not buy on GOG anymore but switch to Steam, should they ever make Galaxy non-optional for the single player part of any game.

I hope this credible and strong threat is good enough to prevent me from actually having to do anything such ever. :)

The most silly thing in this whole "debate" is that GoG have said countless time, nearly since their creation, long before Galaxy, that their DRM-free promise only extended to the single player part of the games and that they couldn't make any guarantee for the multi-player part if there was one.

Heck peoples also seem to forget that, long before Galaxy, there was already multiple games on GoG that required registration on the dev website or even online activation to access the multiplayer part.

If that's stated in plain view on the game pages of every game that has multiplayer functionality, I'm happy.

Well? And that's a reason for what? Spare out criticism? Yes, customer demand some things ... but when one thing is clear enough throughout this discussion: Some users are just willing or lazy enough to accept everything and they just don't care about possible implications.