I actually like this idea. However the only downside is that both projects are licensed as GPL3. So GOG legally can't keep their source code changes as "secret sauce" if that's what they would care about as an organization.

Exactly that.
An added benefit would be the online multiplayer Steam-replacement that Galaxy supposedly provides. I'd have needed it exactly once (Northgard), but it failed to work, so this point is weak.

WRT GPLv3: this may be an issue if they want to keep control on what the client does and does not, so they can feature it like they do Galaxy. Otherwise, they'd have to make sure it works as intended at all times, because users will have to enter their credentials and thus hand over their account to the program. At least I'm very reluctant to give such details to programs that don't come from the original vendor.

re GOG Downloader: I once installed and used it after GOG introduced 2FA, and you know what? My login credentials just worked without 2FA at all. I wouldn't be surprised if that's a reason why they completely disabled it and directed people to use their working product in its place.

re ditching Galaxy: yes the reason I'm here is 100% the DRM-free aspect, which is materialized in the form of offline installers. Yet I would like GOG to keep Galaxy around. Without Galaxy we'd be getting way less games on GOG, and of those we get we won't have features like multiplayer, and then cloud saves for those who appreciate it and then time tracking/achievements on the least useful side. Ditching Galaxy means GOG ditching their position in the race and falling behind.

re people confusing GOG with Galaxy: yes please, GOG is GOG, Galaxy is Galaxy.

No I don't. gogrepoc is much much better.

I also recall GOG downloader acting up quite often, I'd start several game downloads on it and when I came back the next morning, they had all failed, greyed out, no explanation what had happened. Shit is shit even if you fry it in pee.

ROFL, that is not even close to my experience. GoG Downloader was the best downloading client for GoG Games. It was as fast as the Galaxy client. and faster than direct downloading from the website with a browser (any one) and allowed queuing of a bunch of games, resuming interrupted downloads, and limiting downloads to a specified number of concurrent downloads. It would easily get me to close to my max download speeds at time.

gogrepoc is not great and is slow to do anything. Update, download, etc.. The only real advantage of it is you can keep a local record of your library and try to sync them though I wouldn't because of the speed problem with it. Ever since they killed off GoG Downloader I can't get fast downloads from GoG anymore. It's a rare thing to see more than 10 MB/s on my Gigabit line (as I type this I am getting at most 4 MB/s for 2 concurrent downloads that are running on my chrome based browser). Compared to EGS or Steam that even when my network is being used by other people to stream shows with I still regularly get 50-60 MB/s and as high as 75-80 MB/s when it isn't being used too much by other members of my family.

I don't have a problem with Galaxy, other than GOG's focus on it and implementation.

Links for Offline Installers are hidden away, and very much secondary.

And thus the basic use of Galaxy that GOG push, is very much anti DRM-Free. They aren't talking about or promoting Offline Installers in any way. And it is Offline Installers where DRM-Free truly lies ... and Game Preservation.

I get it, GOG want their customers to be reliant on them, to help with survival and profits.

Being reliant on GOG though, means you aren't really engaging in DRM-Free. Sure it is still a bit better than the Steam model, but at best we are talking DRM-Free Lite ... and that's only if you backup your game install folders, which I suspect many don't do. And how many install their whole collection of games from GOG anyway, to even begin to back them up ... not many I should think ... probably none if we are talking a large collection.

This is an issue that can be more or less resolved internally. Personally I download the installers and then use Gal- Heroic to track time and achievements post-install. Plus, even if you don't use offline installers and rely on Galaxy's "install" option, it's still good that your game still doesn't need Galaxy to function on a basic level.

But, without Galaxy we'd have even less games to toy with, less stuff to backup, less offline installers, less choices to pick from and also a smaller userbase. It's necessary to get some of those AAAs. Or the indies that would otherwise not be uploaded to itch.io.

Source?

Itch has Dwarf Fortress, we have several knockoffs but not the genuine McCoy. The same can be said for several other titles I want.

That could well be the case ... a necessary evil, for want of a better description.

I just wish they had the care, to also support Offline Installers more openly. As without that, it just makes many of us suspicious of their true intent.

And they do these marketing campaigns that just seem designed to hoodwink the gullible.

You might have noticed by then that they seem spread too thin, so it's not just the offline installers that don't seem to be receiving a lot of care. And that's how I see the issue, it's not about malice. But yes, precisely, we might disagree on the "evil" part but you could call Galaxy a necessary evil.

AFAIK it's also brought forth a backend for devs to use to update their games directly to users without having to first wait for GOG to do their thing. Which was a complaint devs had before, about how GOG not being streamlined enough to effortlessly push updates.

They do indeed seem spread thin, and I wasn't really calling Galaxy itself as evil, but the promoted use of it, but only for want of a better word to describe that. It's not encouraging new customers to do the right thing DRM-Free wise, but rather remaining reliant on GOG, which is a Steam kind of thing. I wouldn't call that malice, but it is certainly not doing the right thing.

Well, I've always debated some of the truth of that.
GOG are a specific type of store - DRM-Free, and that has some accountability issues.
If GOG fail in that just once, a good number of customers come down on them real quick and hard.
So it has long been in their best interest to stay in control.
That means making sure the game provider doesn't try and slip any DRM elements in with an update ... which has happened a number of times in the past.
Many who provide to GOG are fair weather providers ... if even that.

Those getting into bed with GOG should know what is expected of them, and if they don't then they haven't done the homework they should have. So their complaints often feel like poor excuses to me.

That I agree with you, but sadly a lot of devs join here out of optimism or because a few people asked them to, end up finding they're unable to handle the processes and come out jaded, ultimately this hurts us before it hurts them because then we'd be crawling back to steam to get, say, those updates we're missing, and why? You or I already spent the money here, made the choice to stay here, why then have your choices invalidated and leave GOG for that game? Their complaints, their poor excuses, become our problem when they shouldn't be, I just want to play something.

Some of these devs then say GOG this, GOG that. Of course it'd be harder for them to make that excuse if GOG gave them no excuses whatsoever - and this has been the main driving force behind Galaxy and its backend for devs.

There has been some developers that say they didn't release their game on GOG because of Galaxy even though the game is already DRM-free on other stores like Epic and got ported to failed consoles like Wii U and PS Vita...

But do they really? I certainly question that.

I suspect some try to appease customers, but in reality have no real intent to support GOG, just do it to seem like they are, and then complain about GOG, so they can then avoid GOG, claiming they gave them a try, but it failed.

Anyone truly serious about being on GOG, would surely do their homework.

Alas, I feel like a good number of game providers also see GOG as some kind of advertising portal and an opportunity to get extra profits via double dipping, due to eventual dissatisfaction of a customer at GOG.

I wouldn't do GOG's job if you paid me, too much to worry about and try and deal with. It wouldn't be easy, and I'm somewhat amazed they have lasted this long.

These last two promotions seem a bit like desperate acts, especially as I have no idea why they didn't do either years sooner. They should have been promoting Game Preservation years ago, and Community Wishlists. Doing them now, in the face of a bunch of other things, make them feel like acts of desperation ... at least to me.

I could be wrong with that last paragraph, and I hope I am. But so many factors have contributed to me thinking that, and I'm not alone.