• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

GOG is now using adware-esque tactics to trick users into installing GOG Galaxy

GOG Galaxy—a Steam-like client that adds supplementary features to games purchased on GOG—has always been optional. When the client was first introduced, GOG spent almost half of their announcement video touting the fact that you'd never have to touch GOG Galaxy unless you wanted to. For the past several years, this system has worked perfectly: people who like achievements and automatic updates can download the well-advertised GOG Galaxy, and everyone else can keep downloading traditional installers via GOG's easy and straightforward web interface.

I am firmly in the second group of people. I don't like clients; I don't want my games to be connected to a social network, and I'd rather manage my software through plain-old Windows Explorer. Among GOG users, I'm not all that unusual—if you read through GOG's official forums, you'll see that a dislike of extraneous software is a common reason people choose GOG over Steam. So I'm a bit confused as to why GOG has seemingly decided to start tricking people into installing GOG Galaxy.

Let me back up. About a month ago, I purchased Rime on GOG. Here is what the download screen looked like:
4nG31hk.png
Pretty simple, right? There's a big blue "TRY GOG GALAXY" button in the top left corner, so if you want to go the Galaxy route, it's pretty obvious where you need to click. For everyone else, the standard installers are conveniently divided into 4GB pieces.

Here is what that same download screen looks like today:

Did you spot the difference? I almost missed it. Pay attention to the fine print at the bottom. It says:
The above installer includes GOG Galaxy client [sic] for the full experience and the best support of all features for the game, including: auto-updates, cloud saves.

Once downloaded, these new installers look identical to the old ones...
...but if you click "Options", you'll see an unassuming checkbox which is enabled by default, and reads "Keep your game up to date with GOG Galaxy." If you don't click Options, you'll never know that anything has changed.

But wait! You can still download clean installers that don't have Galaxy hidden inside of them! All you have to do (sarcasm) is:

  1. Go to your downloads screen.
  2. Click the "More Button"
  3. Select "Classic Installers" from the Dropdown

    Eureka! The fine print has changed! Now the downloads won't include GOG Galaxy! Simple and intuitive, right?
Oh, but I forgot to mention—GOG's website doesn't remember this choice. If you ever return to the download page, the website will default back to "GOG Galaxy Game Installer" links. You've always gotta read that fine print—even if you read it before and just happened to reload the page.

Please GOG, cut this out. At the absolute minimum, there should be a prominent account-wide checkbox to toggle the use of "Galaxy Installers", and once unchecked that selection should remain unchecked permanently.

But I'd also question the fundamental purpose of these new installers. GOG Galaxy has been prominently featured on GOG.com for years. If someone isn't using GOG Galaxy by now, it isn't because they don't know about it. It's because they don't want to use Galaxy. And, quite frankly, because a majority of the people who do like clients are using Steam.

I really want to be able to cheer for GOG as the PC Gaming underdog who is always DRM-Free and always stands for user choice. GOG is making that very hard.
 
I'm not fond of GOG. But I don't get why people are against having a client. I mean, are there people really that fond of clicking ugly big icons on their desktop instead of having a nice looking UI ?

But I get the point though, they said it'd be optionnal. As for GOG not remembering the choice, could it be related to your cookies OP ?
 

packy34

Member
I'm not fond of GOG. But I don't get why people are against having a client. I mean, are there people really that fond of clicking ugly big icons on their desktop instead of having a nice looking UI ?

But I get the point though, they said it'd be optionnal. As for GOG not remembering the choice, could it be related to your cookies OP ?

OP spent a long time making this post, so the answer is apparently yes.
 
I'm not fond of GOG. But I don't get why people are against having a client. I mean, are there people really that fond of clicking ugly big icons on their desktop instead of having a nice looking UI ?

But I get the point though, they said it'd be optionnal. As for GOG not remembering the choice, could it be related to your cookies OP ?

People want the offline installers to be safe against the site ever going down. That's one of the biggest draws of GOG vs Steam.
 

StereoVsn

Member
I'm not fond of GOG. But I don't get why people are against having a client. I mean, are there people really that fond of clicking ugly big icons on their desktop instead of having a nice looking UI ?
The whole point of GoG downloads is to be able to back them up if you want to play through later on. Imagine that GOG itself dies. If you have "classic" installers then that's no issue, but if it has forced Galaxy install then you are SOL.

It's good to have the Galaxy client option for patching, etc... but they shouldn't force it on GOG.
 

RRockman

Banned
I'm not fond of GOG. But I don't get why people are against having a client. I mean, are there people really that fond of clicking ugly big icons on their desktop instead of having a nice looking UI ?

But I get the point though, they said it'd be optionnal. As for GOG not remembering the choice, could it be related to your cookies OP ?

Yes. Ugly and big aren't even objectively correct descriptors since people can customise the size of thone icons and some of them have good designs too.
 
I'm not fond of GOG. But I don't get why people are against having a client. I mean, are there people really that fond of clicking ugly big icons on their desktop instead of having a nice looking UI ?

I'm just a minimalist. I'd welcome improvements to the Windows UI in general, but I don't want an extra software layer handling it. I should be able to make that decision. Other people may have other reasons.

But I get the point though, they said it'd be optionnal. As for GOG not remembering the choice, could it be related to your cookies OP ?
No, this is happening to everyone. And seeing as I'm logged in to an account, this shouldn't be stored in my cookies anyway.

People want the offline installers to be safe against the site ever going down. That's one of the biggest draws of GOG vs Steam.

To be clear, the "GOG Galaxy Installers" still work offline.
 

Joey Ravn

Banned
I'm not fond of GOG. But I don't get why people are against having a client. I mean, are there people really that fond of clicking ugly big icons on their desktop instead of having a nice looking UI ?

The point here is not whether people should prefer one thing or the other. The thing is how GOG is trying to push their client. When I read the title of this thread I immediately thought OP would be exaggerating. But after seeing the difference between then and now, yeah, I completely agree. They are masking the information you need to understand and accept that you're installing a program in your computer. It's just not a good way to make users adopt your client. It's the same strategy used by programs that install a IE bar or McAfee Antivirus. Nope.

For the record, I like GOG Galaxy and use it frequently. But I chose to download it, install it and use it. Companies shouldn't take "shortcuts" that directly affect user experience.
 

Accoun

Member
Aren't those installer options remembered between installers? At least I think my installation path/"don't create shortcut" are (don't remember if the latter is off by default).
 
I've never quite gotten why GOG is pushing GOG Galaxy so hard, when Steam does pretty much everything it does and more.

Like, if I want a game on a client I just get it on Steam. GOG is for games I want to put on a flash drive.
 

1upsuper

Member
I'm not fond of GOG. But I don't get why people are against having a client. I mean, are there people really that fond of clicking ugly big icons on their desktop instead of having a nice looking UI ?

But I get the point though, they said it'd be optionnal. As for GOG not remembering the choice, could it be related to your cookies OP ?

You are missing the forest for the trees. Asking why people dislike something you like is completely irrelevant here. People have preferences, GOG respected that, and now they're abusing peoples' familiarity with the GOG instal page to trick them into using the client. I buy from GOG over Steam whenever I can because I hate using clients like that, so this is frustrating.
 

kraspkibble

Permabanned.
So it's still optional, right?

How dare they try push their own software!

I think you're just looking for something to get all worked up over.
 
Not cool at all.

If I was into clients, I'd just opt for Steam. The whole appeal of Gog for me is that it let's me buy games without forcing a client on me. If they make this mandatory, I'll stop buying games from them.
 
If you don't go to options, does it install gog galaxy automatically? I'm assuming so. That's pretty awful if true.

Correct.

Aren't those installer options remembered between installers? At least I think my installation path/"don't create shortcut" are (don't remember if the latter is off by default).

...y'know, I'm actually not clear on that point. Because you're right, if you change the installation path once, future GOG installers remember that setting.

Regardless, it will be checked the first time you use a new installer, and if you don't read the print, you won't know that you need to go into options in the first place. (And this is all aside from the fact that the website does not remember your setting.)
 

MUnited83

For you.
CDPR have already made it clear that all future games starting with Gwent will require the client for multiplayer. Nothing wrong with that.

It's quite possible that 2077 won't be on Steam.

Considering how much Witcher 3 sold on Steam, that would be a dumb, dumb idea.
 

kraspkibble

Permabanned.
Considering how much Witcher 3 sold on Steam, that would be a dumb, dumb idea.

I agree but you can't blame them for wanting to push their own client. I think they'd be stupid to not put it on Steam. I'll be buying it through GOG anyway but they need to put it on Steam.
 
This is what it looks like for me as a standard:



I don't find any way to actually change it to the install files which include the Galaxy client.

It depends on the game—older games don't have the integrated installer. I'm not sure why they decided to upgrade some titles but not others.

Edit: GOG's initial list of games using the new installers (although I don't think it's up to date, since Rime isn't included).
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CuRw1E44ZSEgY-pjuimEjBHZPgBEa-mUVmmAkgyIkmU/edit
 

Rellik

Member
CDPR have already made it clear that all future games starting with Gwent will require the client for multiplayer. Nothing wrong with that.

It's quite possible that 2077 won't be on Steam.

Then I'm done with there games on PC.

I'm not using that company ever again after they robbed my money and wouldn't refund it. Thankfully banks know what is up and gave it back to me.
 

Lucumo

Member
I've never quite gotten why GOG is pushing GOG Galaxy so hard, when Steam does pretty much everything it does and more.

Like, if I want a game on a client I just get it on Steam. GOG is for games I want to put on a flash drive.

Shareholders are pushing for it...is my guess.

I feel like people are being waaaaay too alarmist over this.

One step at a time to slowly move to "client needed for everything". It's not that hard to comprehend.
 

sgjackson

Member
i don't use gog or really have a strong opinion about this, but the distinction you're making is kinda weird. the galaxy installer looks like the only option in both the before and after shots, and if i'd wanted to hunt for a non-galaxy option i'd be clicking the more button each time.
 

kraspkibble

Permabanned.
Then I'm done with there games on PC.

I'm not using that company ever again after they robbed my money and wouldn't refund it. Thankfully banks know what is up and gave it back to me.
Care to explain exactly how they robbed you?

If you bought it through Steam you'd have got refunded no problem. If it was GOG then I believe you're only entitled to a refund if you can't get the game to run and they can't help you get it working. If it doesn't run because your PC doesn't meet the specs I imagine that doesn't entitle you to a refund either.

And since you say their game then you mean a Witcher game. None of the games are broken and run just fine on any recent Windows OS.
 

Shotpun

Member
Yeah, they should have done a bit better job separating the galaxy versions from the non-galaxy versions, nearly downloaded a game that came with galaxy before I noticed what was going on, but calling it adware-esque is pretty strong. It's still optional, just use your eyes to see what version you are about to download, it does say does it have galaxy or not.
 

Tohsaka

Member
Galaxy is garbage. When I played The Witcher 3 it tried and failed to download a patch, so I just downloaded it manually. After I applied the patch, Galaxy still kept trying and failing to download it over and over, so I just uninstalled it.
 
I'm not using that company ever again after they robbed my money and wouldn't refund it. Thankfully banks know what is up and gave it back to me.

I don't know the details, but GOG is definitely less lenient about refunds than Steam—because they have to be. You can't really "take back" a DRM Free game; once the user has downloaded it, they've downloaded it.

i don't use gog or really have a strong opinion about this, but the distinction you're making is kinda weird. the galaxy installer looks like the only option in both the before and after shots, and if i'd wanted to hunt for a non-galaxy option i'd be clicking the more button each time.

That's because they made the interface purposefully confusing. Read the fine print at the bottom.

Its a good client though

Wonderful! So why do they have to trick people into installing it?

It's still optional, just use your eyes to see what version you are about to download, it does say does it have galaxy or not.

But this is exactly what sleezy adware installers do! You don't have to install the Ask toolbar, just find the hidden checkbox in the installer and deselect it.

Obviously, GOG Galaxy isn't the same as a potentially malicious toolbar. But the tactics are indeed the same.
 

Head.spawn

Junior Member
I've noticed that it defaults to that sometimes, but it isn't with every single game; it literally depends on the particular game. Click on some other titles, they will come up with Classic. One of their own games, Gwent, doesn't even give you a Gog installer option at all.

Either way, all the information is on the screen and seems fairly obvious to me, without even looking at the not-really fine print, there is bolded words that says "GOG GALAXY GAME INSTALLERS" on the screen. This doesn't seem as obscured as you're making it out to be and it's probably up to the developer/publisher which one it defaults to.
 
CDPR have already made it clear that all future games starting with Gwent will require the client for multiplayer. Nothing wrong with that.

It's quite possible that 2077 won't be on Steam.

*looks at TW3's 3.5m Steam owners and laughs*

They might resort to some kind of shady "early access" exclusive to their subpar client but no chance they ditch Steam.
 
I'm not fond of GOG. But I don't get why people are against having a client. I mean, are there people really that fond of clicking ugly big icons on their desktop instead of having a nice looking UI ?

I loathe unnecessary processes running. But what are you on about icons? I run a completely iconless desktop even on Windows. If I want to launch something I press windows key then type its name then hit enter.

That all said I still don't use GOG because I have too much of my catalog in Steam already and my hate for clients is less than my hate for splitting my library up.
 

ultrazilla

Gold Member
I *was* a fan of GOG until they made me wait for what seemed like close to a month for the first big Yooka Laylee patch that Playtonic released. Apparently GOG has to add or do things to developer patches so it works with GOG tech, end user-customer be damned if you're waiting!

So it was a very simple decision. No more buying CURRENT GEN games on GOG under any circumstances.
 

Wulfram

Member
I loathe unnecessary processes running. But what are you on about icons? I run a completely iconless desktop even on Windows. If I want to launch something I press windows key then type its name then hit enter.

That all I said I still don't use GOG because I have too much of my catalog in Steam already and my hate for clients is less than my hate for splitting my library up.

You could just add the GOG games to steam after you downloaded them. Since they don't need their own client it'd be pretty seamless.
 

horkrux

Member
I'm not fond of GOG. But I don't get why people are against having a client. I mean, are there people really that fond of clicking ugly big icons on their desktop instead of having a nice looking UI ?

desktop23kj5b.png


I've got my nice looking UI, so I'm good ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

Wulfram

Member
As long as I can start up the games without starting up the client I don't really care. Having to either let unnecessary clients run on my computer all the time, or have to wait a little extra for the client to start up/log in is a pain.
 

Head.spawn

Junior Member
Galaxy is garbage. When I played The Witcher 3 it tried and failed to download a patch, so I just downloaded it manually. After I applied the patch, Galaxy still kept trying and failing to download it over and over, so I just uninstalled it.

No client is perfect. I can't install Mortal Kombat X on Steam because it keeps repeatedly re-installing the entire game over and over the last few times I tried it.
 
I've noticed that it defaults to that sometimes, but it isn't with every single game; it literally depends on the particular game. Click on some other titles, they will come up with Classic. One of their own games, Gwent, doesn't even give you a Gog installer option at all.

Gwent is multiplayer-only, so it requires Galaxy. That seems more-or-less acceptable IMO (although I will point out that multiplayer games existed before clients).

All games with the new installers default to the new installers, and all games will have the new installers going forward. Plus GOG seems to be updating more and more of their back catalog. This isn't publisher dependent.

I *was* a fan of GOG until they made me wait for what seemed like close to a month for the first big Yooka Laylee patch that Playtonic released. Apparently GOG has to add or do things to developer patches so it works with GOG tech, end user-customer be damned if you're waiting!

So it was a very simple decision. No more buying CURRENT GEN games on GOG under any circumstances.

Your choices notwithstanding, this is almost certainly on the developer. I have in the past emailed indie devs to get them to push updates to GOG.
 
Top Bottom