It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion6 community members went to GOG HQ(1041 posts)(1041 posts)
(1041 posts)
Pages:
1
10
20
30
40
41
42
43
44
45
60
70
This is my favourite topic
Posted October 13, 2017
avatar
Wishbone: Holy shit, GR00T... I feel bad now for complaining about my train delay :-D

I'm glad you did finally manage to get home, but 34 hours?! I'd have been dead O_o
Heh, yeah by the time I got home I kind of smelled like a goat and I was a wee bit tired... :P
Posted October 13, 2017
avatar
JMich: This does actually make me curious. Can you please link me (preferably in chat) the posts where this happened? Just to see if I can identify people through those posts.
avatar
HypersomniacLive: This is exactly the thing I didn't want to happen, so I'd rather not.
If this was a mafia game, I would be accusing you of making up facts. But since this isn't one, I will be trying to look for said posts by myself tomorrow.
Fair warning, I will be posting any I find back in the thread.
Posted October 14, 2017
high rated
avatar
HypersomniacLive: The host here is GOG, which is a business. The guests are customers of GOG. The (primarily) purpose of the event was to discuss business related matters, not to socialise. Within this context, GOG mentioned its customers that were invited and didn't attend to those that did in ways that can uniquely identify them - let me say it one more time, customers were mentioned to other customers by uniquely identifiable names. That's a violation of their privacy if done without prior consent/permission, perhaps even a violation of business code, and certainly bad practice for a business, and no amount of NDAs changes this.

So, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I really don't see that this is an issue, and certainly as one of those invited I have no problem with my name being mentioned. Being invited to something says absolutely nothing about an individual, only about the person doing the inviting.

I could say I invited Steven Hawking, Beyonce and Dave Grohl to my birthday party I don't see how that is in anyway an invasion of their privacy.
Yes, GOG is a business, but in this instance they are not inviting their customers, they are inviting their community, their fans (and from what has been said their opponents too). The two overlap, but if they had invited a group of game developers to come to their offices I don't see why they wouldn't be allowed to say who they invited or why.

Sure if they were to give out real names, addresses, telephone numbers or emails that would be a breach of data protection if they didn't have our consent but all they provided (by the sound of things) was a username (which is publicly available anyway).

Most of the people who may or may not have been invited can probably be worked out with relative ease. For example I'm in no way surprised JMich and BKGaming were invited, they were among the first two names to come to mind when I received my email. As I'm sure no one was too surprised to know I was invited.

I did not consider my communication with GOG about this to be so private that they should require my consent to discuss it with anyone else.
Posted October 14, 2017
>by uniquely identifiable names.

Only things that were published: *GOG username

That's for sure against privacy laws.


.... enough internet for today ....
Posted October 14, 2017
I see HSL's point.

It's poor business etiquette to reveal client information without express permission. And users are clients.
If people had entered a contest, the Terms usually include acknowledgement that the winners names become public.

Those who agreed to go might have given up the right in whatever contract they signed, but those who did not take the opportunity did not give up any such right.

In short, it's fine if those who got invited acknowledge it themselves, but it isn't ok for GoG to name the names of those who did not take up the opportunity without their permission. That never should have happened.
Posted October 14, 2017
avatar
MarkoH01: Thank you HypersomniacLive. You really made your point and it makes absolutely sense. You are also correct when saying if the model is still in place that the few not participating in it cannot be important enough - did not think about that. You don't happen to be a lawyer by any chance? Your arguments are spot on imo (yes, I am really impressed here).

However there is one tiny little point I still would like to disagree and that is the statement that customers are WILLING to pay the price that is set through regional pricing. Because (if my English is not mistaken) willing is basically meaning that they want to and I for sure don't want to pay that price but because of missing alternatives (if I still want to play that game) I have no real choice. "Want to" sounds as if I would actually like to pay that price.
I'm of the view that people are willing to pay $xyz for a product or service if those same people actually pay $xyz for the product or service. It's important to note that the given people may not be thrilled to pay $xyz for something, and may even be upset or angry about it per se, but if the money leaves their wallets and they purchase the product or service anyway, then that's pretty much the definition of "willing". Unwilling would be people keeping the money in their pocket.

I think it is fair to say that this is true for any product or service that one spends money on which is not absolutely necessary to survive or sustain life. (all joking aside)
avatar
adaliabooks: I really don't see that this is an issue, and certainly as one of those invited I have no problem with my name being mentioned. Being invited to something says absolutely nothing about an individual, only about the person doing the inviting.
...
I don't know if they mentioned I was invited, but for the record I don't have any issue with that if they did.
Post edited October 14, 2017 by skeletonbow
Posted October 14, 2017
avatar
MarkoH01: Thank you HypersomniacLive. You really made your point and it makes absolutely sense. You are also correct when saying if the model is still in place that the few not participating in it cannot be important enough - did not think about that. You don't happen to be a lawyer by any chance? Your arguments are spot on imo (yes, I am really impressed here).

However there is one tiny little point I still would like to disagree and that is the statement that customers are WILLING to pay the price that is set through regional pricing. Because (if my English is not mistaken) willing is basically meaning that they want to and I for sure don't want to pay that price but because of missing alternatives (if I still want to play that game) I have no real choice. "Want to" sounds as if I would actually like to pay that price.
avatar
skeletonbow: I'm of the view that people are willing to pay $xyz for a product or service if those same people actually pay $xyz for the product or service. It's important to note that the given people may not be thrilled to pay $xyz for something, and may even be upset or angry about it per se, but if the money leaves their wallets and they purchase the product or service anyway, then that's pretty much the definition of "willing". Unwilling would be people keeping the money in their pocket.

I think it is fair to say that this is true for any product or service that one spends money on which is not absolutely necessary to survive or sustain life. (all joking aside)
Yeah, it was just a translation problem on my side. I thought "willing" would be the same as "wanting" which it is not. Like you said. I am not happy with higher than base prices and that was why I had problems using the word "willing" if it would mean "wanting" which again it is not (thanks to google translate and the community here ;)). So stop thinking about what the German said who just made a translation mistake :D
Post edited October 14, 2017 by MarkoH01
Posted October 14, 2017
avatar
MarkoH01: Yeah, it was just a translation problem on my side. I thought "willing" would be the same as "wanting" which it is not. Like you said. I am not happy with higher than base prices and that was why I had problems using the word "willing" if it would mean "wanting" which again it is not (thanks to google translate and the community here ;)). So stop thinking about what the German said who just made a translation mistake :D
The what who the huh? I dunno what you're talking about, something about a ... wait, what was I saying? :)
Posted October 14, 2017
avatar
MarkoH01: Yeah, it was just a translation problem on my side. I thought "willing" would be the same as "wanting" which it is not. Like you said. I am not happy with higher than base prices and that was why I had problems using the word "willing" if it would mean "wanting" which again it is not (thanks to google translate and the community here ;)). So stop thinking about what the German said who just made a translation mistake :D
avatar
skeletonbow: The what who the huh? I dunno what you're talking about, something about a ... wait, what was I saying? :)
And I actually panicked a bit before I saw the smiley at the end. I was about to stop posting in English at all .... *puh* that was a close one. :)
Posted October 14, 2017
No Pictures.
Posted October 14, 2017
avatar
SalmanAnees: No Pictures.
You can find a lot of pictures browsing through this thread (if this post should be a request for pictures or a complaint about misisng pictures).
avatar
RWarehall: I see HSL's point.

It's poor business etiquette to reveal client information without express permission. And users are clients.
If people had entered a contest, the Terms usually include acknowledgement that the winners names become public.

Those who agreed to go might have given up the right in whatever contract they signed, but those who did not take the opportunity did not give up any such right.

In short, it's fine if those who got invited acknowledge it themselves, but it isn't ok for GoG to name the names of those who did not take up the opportunity without their permission. That never should have happened.
So again. What is the problem here? Is it the fact that we now know that a sepcific nickname is on the list of people invited or is it the fact that we now know that he could not make it for whatever reasons? I just fail to see the harm that is done here. We are no politicians so it should be possible for us to explain this not just in terms of "normally that is a thing you should not do" but instead saying "this is a problem because it means..." imo. Also a little addition: the only "contract" I signed was to no tell about future buisiness plans, partners of GOG ect. that is not public knowledge.
Post edited October 14, 2017 by MarkoH01
Posted October 14, 2017
avatar
MarkoH01: So again. What is the problem here? Is it the fact that we now know that a sepcific nickname is on the list of people invited or is it the fact that we now know that he could not make it for whatever reasons? I just fail to see the harm that is done here. We are no politicians so it should be possible for us to explain this not just in terms of "normally that is a thing you should not do" but instead saying "this is a problem because it means..." imo. Also a little addition: the only "contract" I signed was to no tell about future buisiness plans, partners of GOG ect. that is not public knowledge.
Both. It's private information between GoG and that user. Revealing it was wrong without permission. Just as GoG shouldn't discuss their interactions with developers. That you were told anything about it is unprofessional.

Seems to me the GoG travel bribe worked as intended. Pick influential forum members. Give them a free trip, and now they only see the bright side of everything GoG does...
Posted October 14, 2017
avatar
RWarehall: Both. It's private information between GoG and that user. Revealing it was wrong without permission. Just as GoG shouldn't discuss their interactions with developers. That you were told anything about it is unprofessional.
Section 8 in Privacy Policy. Our NDA does make us GOG partners. Legally, GOG is covered.
So no, GOG didn't share any private information with outsiders. They shared information with partners.
Posted October 14, 2017
avatar
RWarehall: Both. It's private information between GoG and that user.
The only information shared was "we thought X was worth inviting" - what exactly is private about that? It doesn't really say anything about the person being invited, more about the people doing the inviting.
Post edited October 14, 2017 by plagren
Posted October 14, 2017
avatar
RWarehall: Both. It's private information between GoG and that user. Revealing it was wrong without permission. Just as GoG shouldn't discuss their interactions with developers. That you were told anything about it is unprofessional.
It was wrong WHY? Why can't anybody revveal to me what harm was done here? It was wrong becvause it was wrong ... OMG. It cannot be so difficult to explain this logically for me or is it? I just cannot see any CRUCIAL private information being revealed.

avatar
RWarehall: Seems to me the GoG travel bribe worked as intended. Pick influential forum members. Give them a free trip, and now they only see the bright side of everything GoG does...
Calling me influential just shows how you don't know me so it's probably better not to discuss this with you but no, I don't only see the bright side of GOG now - never did and never will. But if people are complaining at least there should be a logical explanation for it that I do understand. I ask for the same explanation when GOG made decisions I did not like in the past.
Post edited October 14, 2017 by MarkoH01
Pages:
1
10
20
30
40
41
42
43
44
45
60
70
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion6 community members went to GOG HQ(1041 posts)(1041 posts)
(1041 posts)