Honestly if you're unable or unwilling to have some patience for patches to arrive, GOG really isn't the store for you. I'm of course not excusing patches that take 6+ months or later to arrive, but it simply makes sense to prioritize Steam. That's just how it is.

imo , from what I can tell, GOG is best used as a store for older games (maybe 1-2 years at least?) that rarely receive patches anymore, though I also realize GOG makes much less money off older, on-sale games than brand new releases of course.

Yes, yes. The client does suck.

But like the others have said, it's basically the dev's/publisher's responsibility to ship patches for a game. Maybe a little bit of GOG staff help if something doesn't go right.

What makes it worse?

What is the best client, and why?

Genuinely asking because the little I use different gaming clients (Steam, Galaxy, Epic, EA, UPlay...), I really have no preference between them, they all feel pretty much the same to me. It may be because I merely use them as game launchers, and I am not interested in more "advanced" features like chatting with online friends or shit like that. I just want to play my games, thanks.

Naturally if Galaxy has bugs that prevent one from playing, like cloud saves not working or shit like that, then I agree it is bad. But the little I've used it, I haven't noticed such bugs. It lists my games, I pick a game I want to play and play it, etc... just like with all the other clients. It doesn't really feel any different from Steam or Epic.

-Lutris.-

It isn't Electron, it supports Dosbox, has options for power users, and more. It's just complicated enough to satisfy my needs without being a complete option barf like DBGL. It's largely agnostic, even if in current form it refuses to match any desktop environment and WM. Thanks for nothing, libadwaita!

I hate all game clients/launchers, no exception.
But Lutris is, by far, the one I hate the least.