So what would you call something which is sneakily (currently there are lots of cases, even I have done it, where forgetting to check something means this gets installed) installed onto your machine? Then there is the connection to the net, anything which connects outside should be viewed with extreme caution. Are gog trustworthy, probably to a point so malicious may be low, incompetence however is shown daily one the website and at every release.
And then there is the advertising, I am sure even the most noble of "clients" spend most of their code base capturing various elements of data about people, this is effectively what the internet is. Do I want this on my machine, no, is there a way to ensure this doesn't happen, no. So it is acting against the will of the user in this case me, hence fulfils part of the definition of malware as given by Wikipedia. Is it spreading itself around without users realising it, check.
You may call it PUP or gray ware, or whatever the going keywords are, I frankly can't be bothered with modern day gibberish, to me this program is an unwanted dangerous piece of software which, until removed from games it malware. The keyword is optional, and hiding your software in other software with the intent to have it installed by accident or intent is not the workings of an upstanding company.

You mean the kind of software that's bundled with a different program in the hopes that someone will unwittingly install it and that later deletes a shitload of your files for example?

https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_galaxy_has_just_deleted_my_entire_games_folder/page1
https://www.gog.com/forum/general/gog_galaxy_has_just_deleted_my_entire_games_folder/post96

And if the intended purpose was to harm your system you'd be right.the "mal-" in malware means malice, or mal intent. They aren't trying to damage your system. They're just inept, and it only happens in a very very few isolated cases (which are possibly even due to user error) else it would be ALL OVER the place.
The whole point of a PUP is something you may not want that others do. It's the very definition of it. "Hey, this does some things you may not be aware of, you might not want it on your system." It's not about labels as much as it's about function. there is no mal intent to destroy your files.

Yeah, I don't give a flying fuck about this splitting hairs bullshit. It's software that can and has caused many people's systems harm, distributed in a way designed to have it be downloaded and installed without the users knowledge. That's malicious enough for me.

You don't care about splitting hairs (it's not) because it doesn't fit your argument. "Someone told me I'm wrong, and demonstrated the point. I know, I'll ignore it and claim it as semantics!!"

No point in discussing things with someone whose mind is made up to spread FUD and has an agenda based on the fact that they personally don't like something rather than hard fact. The fact is that a few isolated cases have occurred wherein someone's files were damaged. It wasn't intentional, else it would happen everywhere, and by the same token, it may not be GOG's fault at all as the person could have installed the program improperly or uninstalled it improperly. But yes, take the side of some mostly tech unsavvy folk. I've never run into an issue with it, and neither have the majority of others. Isolated cases are bugs, not standards.

But I'm done discussing it because you'll dismiss it with a handwave as "bullshit", "smoke and mirrors", or "splitting hairs (semantics)".

Just know that it's not the case. You don't have to like a software. I think it's fine. I also think it's grade A bullshit that they try to trojan horse the installers (now THAT is a term that almost makes sense in the context, though it's not entirely because you know the program is installed when it gets installed unless you're particularly thick) and say it's because people are too stupid to figure out how to download it themselves. It couldn't possibly be that people didn't WANT to download it themselves, right? Maybe, JUST MAYBE people know what they want and didn't want to install your shovelware on their system, and that's why number are down. NOT because people couldn't read the advert banners you slapped ALL OVER the fucking place. But that's nonsense.

You didn't demonstrate anything You said "And if the intended purpose was to harm your system you'd be right.the "mal-" in malware means malice, or mal intent".
To which I responded that GOG's underhanded way of spreading a potentialy harmful software, in my opinion, is "malicious".

And apparently you do agree that what GOG is doing with Galaxy installers is wrong, so we really are arguing nothing but the applicability of the word "malicious". So yes, this is semantics.

There. I think you've found a term everybody will agree with.

Actualy no, that does not apply at all. Shovelware is about "quantity over quality". There is only one Galaxy client being pushed, not multiple clients, so "shovelware" makes no sense in context.

It's software and it's being shoveled down our throats. That's shovelly enough for me. Anything beyond this is just splitting hairs.

Oh snap! Somebody call the fire department, I just got burned!

As I see it, Galaxy is itself a PUP, and becomes malware when it is bundled with another program and then set to install by default, because that will unquestionably result in some unintended installations. And the fact that this isn't freeware we're talking about makes it all the worse.

+1 for shovelly. lol

Have to disgree with this, I don't know why people keep spreading this as if it is fact or something. All indications, as reported in the CDP financial reports, etc show a steady rise of Galaxy users (even before this change). Which tends to favor their explanation for bundling, that they were recieving to many support request from people who didn't understand they needed Galaxy for certain Galaxy features. There could be a number of reasons as to why this was the case, but I don't think bundling it was actually needed.

This Galaxy is not popular so GOG has to force it is wishful thinking... at best.

This could simply mean the number of people playing/trying out Gwent has kept increasing, though I have no doubt there's a percentage of GOG users that doesn't mind a client at all. Long term the way it is going to number of users who are particular about DRM/averse of clients is likely to keep diminishing compared to the people who don't with a fair number coming in just because they want an alternative to Steam or with long time users simply becoming so used to starting their gaming session with a client that it really doesn't matter as much anymore if a(nother) game happens to release that required Galaxy for multiplayer, online elements, achievements. It's a constant erosion basically.

That's crazy. When I was in college, I had a similar situation, and I just gave both professors the same paper. The only thing they both did was verify I wrote it, after that they were fine.

Then again that was in Flagstaff, AZ, and they were a little more relaxed than they are here in the midwest.
I use Galaxy, but none of my games requires it to run. I don't have a problem with an optional client, and don't feel like GOG is rubbing my face in it by asking me to use one to have access to cloud saves, which is the main reason I use it.

When I stream, I do not use Galaxy, because it has a habit of showing on my overlay no matter how I set the windows, but that can be solved by running the game once in Galaxy afterward to get the cloud saves to sync.

Cloud saves are a nifty feature, especially for someone who does OS maintenance regularly and goes between 7 and 10 for testing purposes often.

This is not to say Galaxy is welcome or even needed, just that for me, I use it mainly for the cloud saves, and also to have easy access to all my GOG installed games. It's really that simple. It's not like Galaxy is sending GOG my credit card details, or my social security information.

It's also not an erosion of principles on my part. I still do not deal with mandatory DRM when using Galaxy, so I choose to use Galaxy. I won't even get into Gwent and why CDPR shouldn't have even released that game on its own platform. That's a totally different discussion, and Galaxy got caught in the crossfire of it.

Oh come on, Missouri isn't that uptight. As of 2006 it's no longer illegal for a minor to check "Slaughterhouse V" out of a library without a parent present. :P