GOG Galaxy client to be open source, if voted in by community.

[Kiyuubi]

If you haven't heard already GOG is making their own solution to Steam, with their DRM-free Galaxy client.  To add on to it, they are having a vote of whether or not the client will be open source.  I have already voted, as have others, and I hope people here take the time to do so.  DRM-free content is the future, and so is FOSS.

[Trik'Stari]

Do I have to have purchased a game from them to vote yes?

[Adriel]

Voted, was logged in so not sure if owned games are needed.

[Master Disaster]

Just got a beta invite today. Open source, men, don't really care.

[dalekphalm]

Just got a beta invite today. Open source, men, don't really care.

Indeed. Open Source might be nice. But it won't "magically" just make the platform better.

[qwertywarrior]

i really dont see the point in open sourcing it 

and we already have Desura for that

[Kiyuubi]

Indeed. Open Source might be nice. But it won't "magically" just make the platform better.

i really dont see the point in open sourcing it 

and we already have Desura for that

 

It is better to have a FOSS client than a proprietary one.

[TAK]

.

[dalekphalm]

No, it makes it better by definition.

How? Making it open source won't magically mean it suddenly has more features, is more stable, or more secure.

 

It can potentially enable those things, but it isn't some magical word that has supernatural powers.

[TAK]

.

[Misanthrope]

That would just make extra sure no AAA dev would come to GOG, they already would never do it due to their no DRM rules.

[cesrai]

That would just make extra sure no AAA dev would come to GOG, they already would never do it due to their no DRM rules.

Then FUCK them, GOG is great and I hope they get more titles.

[cesrai]

I don't think it should be open source and I mean why ?

[Opcode]

Indeed. Open Source might be nice. But it won't "magically" just make the platform better.

Depends on who pushes fixes and improvements to it regularly. I may be interested in this project if it does hit a GIT repository.

[Guest]

Meh, Open Source doesn't mean it'll be free-as-in-freedom. After all, it's built around connecting to a single specific service.

The only benefit would be seeing that there's no data mining going on, but I trust GOG to not do that anyway.

[LAwLz]

Yes please. For us consumers, open source is objectively better. Don't like something about the client? Just change it (assuming they use a good license)!

There are lots of potential benefits and 0 drawbacks so why not?

 

Edit: I can't find anything on the page confirming that GOG will open source it with enough votes. Is this just some suggestion made by a user? Kind of disappointing news if that's the case.

[dalekphalm]

Depends on who pushes fixes and improvements to it regularly. I may be interested in this project if it does hit a GIT repository.

Indeed, I'd rather not have 40 forks of the GOG Galaxy Client, with people constantly splitting their efforts. Also, who is going to verify and test each build to make sure it's stable after dozens, or even hundreds or thousands of volunteers start adding their own code.

 

The problem with Open Source is that not everyone is a good coder. I trust GOG to hire good programmers at least - I mean they do work for CD Projekt after all, and while the Witcher series aren't the best games of all time, they're at least solidly made.

[LAwLz]

Indeed, I'd rather not have 40 forks of the GOG Galaxy Client, with people constantly splitting their efforts. Also, who is going to verify and test each build to make sure it's stable after dozens, or even hundreds or thousands of volunteers start adding their own code.

 

The problem with Open Source is that not everyone is a good coder. I trust GOG to hire good programmers at least - I mean they do work for CD Projekt after all, and while the Witcher series aren't the best games of all time, they're at least solidly made.

Ehm... Have you ever seen an open source project? It doesn't sound like you know how it works.

It isn't a free for all where they just release a .txt document with the source code on pastebin and then go "do whatever you want". It doesn't matter that everyone isn't a good coder because the code changes has to be approved before being added to the build. CD Project would still be 100% in control over what code is added to their client and if you trust that their programmers are good then they won't add badly written code the community has contributed.

 

Like I said before, there would be 0 drawbacks to making it open source.

[NeatSquidYT]

Am I the only one that just really likes Steam? I mean, there's an offline mode if you want to be offline.

[DeViLzzz]

Indeed, I'd rather not have 40 forks of the GOG Galaxy Client, with people constantly splitting their efforts. Also, who is going to verify and test each build to make sure it's stable after dozens, or even hundreds or thousands of volunteers start adding their own code.

 

The problem with Open Source is that not everyone is a good coder. I trust GOG to hire good programmers at least - I mean they do work for CD Projekt after all, and while the Witcher series aren't the best games of all time, they're at least solidly made.

I agree with dalekphalm.

[Derangel]

Am I the only one that just really likes Steam? I mean, there's an offline mode if you want to be offline.

 

I have issues with Steam and Valve but over-all it's okay. It's no longer the best digital platform like it used to be though. Beyond that we need someone to come up with decent viable competition to keep Valve on their toes. At this point I'd almost say EA has the better digital platform with it's only major problem being the company that operates it.

[dalekphalm]

Ehm... Have you ever seen an open source project? It doesn't sound like you know how it works.

It isn't a free for all where they just release a .txt document with the source code on pastebin and then go "do whatever you want". It doesn't matter that everyone isn't a good coder because the code changes has to be approved before being added to the build. CD Project would still be 100% in control over what code is added to their client and if you trust that their programmers are good then they won't add badly written code the community has contributed.

 

Like I said before, there would be 0 drawbacks to making it open source.

Assuming they have the manpower to oversee the increased amount of submitted code, then sure, that could definitely work.

[LAwLz]

Assuming they have the manpower to oversee the increased amount of submitted code, then sure, that could definitely work.

Even if they don't, it's still won't have a negative effect on the client's quality. There are only benefits no matter how much manpower CD Project dedicate to it.

They could make it a part time job for a single guy and we would still end up with at least the same client as if they kept it closed source, but with the potential for other benefits (such as forks, modding, things submitted being added to the main branch etc).

 

Why are you trying to argue against them making it open source? Third time saying it, there are 0 (zero) drawbacks to it. Only benefits.

[TAK]

.

[Commander Llama]

Indeed, I'd rather not have 40 forks of the GOG Galaxy Client, with people constantly splitting their efforts. Also, who is going to verify and test each build to make sure it's stable after dozens, or even hundreds or thousands of volunteers start adding their own code.

 

The problem with Open Source is that not everyone is a good coder. I trust GOG to hire good programmers at least - I mean they do work for CD Projekt after all, and while the Witcher series aren't the best games of all time, they're at least solidly made.

 

I fully acknowledge your concerns, and for a client like this there's an obvious benefit to having a dedicated team working on secure, stable releases of the client, which I imagine CDP will.  I think most of your points fit within the scheme of open sourcing if they do it right.  CDP continues to work on the GOG client, they hopefully would not be so naive as to say "Well, here's 1.0, we're tossing it to the wind, good luck all!  Bye!"  What they ought to be is the trunk of the tree, so to speak, continually working on the client with their own team and improving it as they see fit.  But each stable release gets put out open source, and folks can modify that how they want.  It's the best of both worlds.  The average user (that likely gives no crap about installing a custom GOG client) gets a secure, stable client.  The tinkerers get to tinker with the client, improving it in their own view/preference.  The power user gets to pick from the buffet of tinkered options and optimize their experience.  Win win win.

 

There's dangers too, of course.  You know, some team's mod client becoming really successful and then they turn around and plant some miner malware or some shit (cough uTorrent cough).  There's always danger though.  We're on computers.  It'll be up to the community to check itself before it wrecks itself.  Anarchy at work.