Store talk:GOG.com

There is a file removed from wiki with strange argumentation. Unused and empty at same time. If it was noneme its obviously vandalism. But why than?

EA Origin (EA App) also did use similar builds DOS+DosBox only and similar to GOG Launcher-configurator file, also have launch for Network play. I dont remember if a saw same Network pre-launcher in GOG, and which games, and which build (GOG/GOG-Galaxy).

Its important launcher in any way for any build. @hile GOG default Desktop link lead to game exe, i use Start Menu DosBox launcher link instead and recommend both use it and cover it here. I mean, bring it back here, to more specifically.

At least one - old picture file - per all GOGs DosBox releases. And one per EA Origin ones.

Ideally find differences in it and upload them too. For some reson one of "recent" DosBox releases - Warcraft 1 use older prelauncher 2ith few options missed. Odd that GOG did fix that for MacOS releasing an "Hotfix update" but not Windows one.

Using Internet Web Archive it is easily to bring file back same as full list of articles it was used on. All used on articles listed on one page for pre-last saved date, and there is 4 more listed on latest on same page (second page unavailable for 4 titles of W-Z).

It is still available on PCGW content host provider http://pcgamingwiki.ams3.digitaloceanspaces.com/a/a0/GOG.com_DOSBox_Configurator_v2.png and not on Web Archive.

http://web.archive.org/web/20191214211215/http://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/File:GOG.com_DOSBox_Configurator_v2.png

here is 99 articles (look to W-Z) http://web.archive.org/web/20151030044621/http://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/File:GOG.com_DOSBox_Configurator_v2.png

as seen on this pic there is no Network tab. Im not sure i rid saw such on one-some builds from GOG. They present on one/some EA Origin DosBox builds. As you know GOG have separate Network link file which lead to same game exe with alternate conf file argument. But not to DosBox Configurator pre-launcher. Subj useful only as singleplayer pre-launcher... alas there is builds with Network tab?

The launcher image was removed from PCGW due to it being unused at the time. The screenshot was once a staple on DOSBox related GOG releases which included it but the site went away from covering the same third-party non-game specific tool everywhere (as part of our move away from duplicating unnecessary info everywhere, no doubt).

If the tool is going to be covered, it would be on either Store:GOG.com or DOSBox, probably, but I personally do not see much relevance for it to be covered since it's ultimately seemingly just a simple frontend for editing the DOSBox configuration file.

Original text on this page prior to its migration to StructuredDiscussions:

I don't understand the intent behind the system requirements: it is unclear what they are for (Galaxy 1.2 client ? Games ?) and there is no ref. Shouldn't they better be removed ? Galaxy 2.0 requirements could be added instead, but note that such information will quickly become updated. --Kaede

Well, as the user never responded, I am of the opinion that a gaming client evolves so much over time, that minimum requirements shouldn't be listed as they are very fluid.

Sorry, I wasn’t reading any of the posts I actually migrated over (waaay too many for that).

On this topic I’d say that it depends on whether there’s actual official system requirements posted or not.

Like Valve for example doesn’t post any, so its “system requirements” comes down to having a Windows, macOS, or Linux machine, which is hardly worth having a whole section for.

But if GOG Galaxy 2.0 (as 1.whatever is obsolete) has official system requirements then we could just as well lost them just for completion’s sake.

Oh, migrated over? Didn't realize that. Was this post then much older? This is the only requirements for GOG Galaxy: https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/360003936597-What-are-the-system-requirements-for-GOG-GALAXY-?product=gog and unknown if that page was properly kept up-to-date. That info is on the PCGW page, but would say it could be a short note maybe at most, but whole System Requirements table shouldn't be needed right?

Yeah, this and many other talk pages were recently migrated by me as part of my job to enable the StructuredDiscussions (Flow) extension on the namespaces, as previously they didn't feature these proper talk pages and instead had a basic wikitext page that needed manually editing etc.

This particular topic from Kaede is from, as far as I can see, from May 11 2020, hence why they do not reply. They'd probably not even get notified of these replies unless they actively visit the wiki and check their watchlist as they aren't "subbed" to this topic since it was first created as part of my migration.

As far as the system reqs, those should be up-to-date as I remember that GOG recently (within the last few years) removed support for Windows 7, which received a somewhat negative response by some of the community, so the support page does line up with that.

Though yes, the whole system req tables aren't necessary — two bullets below the system requirement header detailing the same the support page details is enough.

Agree

Original text on this page prior to its migration to StructuredDiscussions:

This was taken off the page, but GOG Galaxy is still vulnerable to CVE-2020-24574, a privilege escalation attack. They were [called on on Reddit a month ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/gog/comments/putc8m/gog_galaxy_20_serious_security_issue_over_1_year/). There's no fix listed in the Galaxy [release notes](https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/360003936637-GOG-GALAXY-Changelog?product=gog), and even if there were they've claimed to fix this once before. In the time since reporting, they've accumulated similar issues [CVE-2020-15528 / CVE-2020-15529](https://daniels-it-blog.blogspot.com/2020/07/gog-galaxy-escalation-of-privileges.html), also unfixed. --47.5.174.115 21:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)