ACK, For me growing up po' I always treasured the few games I could afford. Still to me I can only understand getting rid off a game if it can go to someone else (Not something I can see happening here on GOG though). I'm happy to see all the 290 titles (about triple the PC games I was able to get from 1996-2013) shown

This wasn't intended as a dig to you (past or present) It's just I personally don't understand when play basically one playthrough & that's it.

Yes I would like the option to permanently delete game from my account without contacting customer support as it is just a 'freedom' option and I'd rather just keep my list of games easy to account for and treasured games. I can't see why gog wouldn't do this as it cleans up the servers better ect.

That's right. About time I looked at my Steam library and deleted what I obtained on GOG.

EDIT: Finally deleted The Binding of Isaac. I feel fresh. I feel good.

The GOG account is one of your online identities, which is, in a big way, defined by what games you have on it. Some games might be so bad people WANT them taken off their account and off their identity.

GOG's new Hide is terrible at hiding, it just puts the games into an alternate, easily accessible collection. Good for sorting your collection (I use it for games I own but can't run), not good for trash disposal. I have 1274 games, singling out Douchebag Simulator 2014 (My collection: 1273 | Updated: 0 | Hidden: 1) doesn't help me forget I ever bought it in the slightest.

Wow lots of posts, not read them all, just first and GOG's response. I'll read rest in a minute
So first Thanks Konrad, I was'nt aware that was possibe, yes they are all Freebies.
Not all freebies I've got are hidden, just the ones I don't want.

Also I made another feature request that's not so easily provided.
I want the Abillity to block updates for the platforms I don't want.
I use Windows 7, GOG's LInux and Mac support is great if you want it.
I don't want to know about them though.

Both these are about recieving update notifications for things I don't use.

@Smannesman You really didn't read my post at all, did you.

I detest Steam and have just decided, I've had enough of it.
I hope to get all my existing Steam Games on GOG eventually an d I will delete steam from my life at that point.
XCOM 2 is the last game I buy on Steam.

GOG is great, though I hate Galaxy and all online clients, GOG's client is optional, even better for modders who do like Galaxy, each games updates can be set differently.
The worst thing about STEAM is it wants to monetize all mods, even for non Valve games.
To do this it must first control all modding, ths it tries to do with Steam Workshop. That control, by it's nature attempts to limit what and how you mod

Though this can never work, Steam meddles with modding games, frankly it's none of their goddamn business what mods I choose to use, I don't want Steams greedy claws anywhere near my mods. AS for their right to sell mods, they have no right, they sell no mods.

DOTA2, TF2 and CS:GO can't be modded, Valve doesn't allow modding.
What Valves calls mods, is actually DLC. Not because it's sold, free DLC and Sold mods can also exist.
It's DLC, because it's selected by Valve.
This would be true for Bethesda's so called console Mods, if selected by Bethesda.
The same content, can be a Mod on PC, with no publisher selection, yet DLC on consoles if selected by Bethesda.



GOG knows what and how I mod, is none of it's Goddamn business, it just sells the games and updates the games when I choose to apply it.

Sadly not possible. At least as far as I know.

Don't know why you would remove them, if you ever thought you might want them.

As for Hidings good enough, ignore updates commentss

How do you know what's updated if you ignore it, I want some updates.

As I also said, the second problem Is updates for platforms you don't use.

You can't usually tell just by looking, what GOG's site calls the updated version, doesn't match the file names.
This is getting better, but it should never have been like that.

The only way I can be sure the updates is for me is, by starting the download to see the filename.
Often it's a Linux and Mac update, I don't want to see those.

@Omega64 I know, hence it's a feature request

Valve wants to give the option to sell to modders, it isn't forcing mods to be sold. That's quite a difference. If anyone chooses to sell mods, it's the people making them. There will always be places like Nexus and the like for mods which aren't allowed on Steam anyway (adult etc)

The deal with Bethesda was actually one of the first times modders actually *got* the right to sell mods. Rather than the case it is now where they don't have rights to at all, which is the main reason there has been no selling of mods at all.

I realize it can be a double edged sword, as good mods may come out of it, maybe even more professional ones if it's commercialized, but at the same time the mod community will be less 'sharing' and more cuttthroat probably (at least some of it).

Personally I don't begrudge modders making some extra money off their time spent if they choose to do so.

They would have to get a handle on the system's issues though like stolen content, content ripped from games with copyrights etc etc. But if they had a proper system up I think the results have potential to be interesting.

In Soviet Union game remove user.

Valve do not sell mods.

Mods are made by users and all must be available to other users, regardless of price.
DLC is publisher seleted whatever the price, whoever made it.

Just because Valve calls them mods, doesn't mean they are.

Mods are not controllable by any publisher or game devs.

TO be mods, all usermade content must be available to all users.

Only the user gets to select what they use.

Any Selection by anyone other than the users, makes the content DLC.
Whether it's free or sold.

I've no objection to a new franchise starting with a paid mods system.
When an existing free and largly open source (All should be, but that's another subject) community gets this thrust upon them by an outside source (even the games publisher is an outside source for the mods), then no it's not right for mod creators get paid.

No mod author is an Island, they are the tip of a communal iceberg, code is freely shared acrooss mods and the interdependancies of modding rely on this. All rely on previos games and knowledge

Free and Open Source can't mix with profit and private code. I don't think it would work, if planned that way.
Trying to shoehorn profit into an established community was always doomed to fail.
Valve had no right to charge for Skyrim mods at all, not their game, they are a retailer and modding is none of they're business, they need to stop meddlling.

Even when they are the publisher, like Bethesda, modding is none of their business either, I welcome their Tools.
That's why I buy Bethesda's crappy games, they are good modding platforms.
I never even played the Skyrim DLC or finished the Vanilla game, yet I bought it all purely for modding.

XCOM, never played Vanilla, 1,286 hours on Long War Mod , according to Steam.

They got my money for there content, they have no right to any from mods.
Mod Authors are the only ones with any rights to profit from selling mods.

However that must be clear before I buy the game, not changed years later.
If I buy a game like Skyrim and it's clear that no mods can be sold, then no-one has the right to change that after my purchase.

Also by "Right" I mean Morally, not legally, the laws irrelevent, the existing community will not stand for it, we saw that.

Todays a good example of the Issue 5 updates, 3 are for windows so great, want those.
Could have been for Linux//Mac though. the 4th was as I already have latest windows release.
5th is a game called Warsow, one of the hidden ones.
This is the 10th notifdication for this game, again for Linux/Mac, that's ridiculous

I don't see any reason why this would be the case. That seems like a personal opinion. Agree it shouldn't have been done with a game with an already established mod community. Better to do it with a new game. And that might change if it's monetized and the modders themselves decide that means no more sharing. Disagree here. As it is Mod authors have zero right to sell a mod. The Bethesda/Valve paid mods thing finally allowed them to (think there's a flight sim game somewhere that allows it too). Valve takes a cut for providing the infrastructure/payment systems etc (amounted to 25% if the modder assigned a third party for the extra 5%). The rest was split between modders and developers, and yes Bethesda did a huge disservice putting their cut to 45% and the modders cut to 25%, they should clearly have benefitted the modder there. Disagree with this. Mods aren't part of your purchase of a game. Moddability may be but that doesn't change if a game allows paid mods later in it's life. The only issue I see there is because you don't want to support the concept of paid mods, which is understandable, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to do so, even after the game is released already (though again, as mentioned above, better to do it before a modding community exists, but if for example modding tools don't come till 5 months later or something and in that time they announce they'll allow paid mods, that's fine imo) The problem is which existing community. I saw plenty of complaining and whining from the 'community' who just leeches mods and saw their free toys being taken away. The community that actually mods seemed at best divided on the issue, not as 'clear' as the ones who got their toys taken.

@ Phease, it doesn't matter if you don't see why it must be the case.
But I'll give it another go
Because by it's nature modding is an end user controlled process. NO dev or publisher can control that.
No-one else can choose my mods for me, because I refuse to give them that power.
I'm not asking for anyones permission and no-one can stop me modding the game to my desires.

Therefore mods are defined by what mod users decide, nobody else.
It is the same for all modded games, if anyone selects a restricted group of user content as approved and another group as unapproved, they are still mods, because that selection is optional.

However when a Publisher or dev, does this, they are selecting DLC. It's not so much defined by what's included,
any user content excluded, by force, makes the included content DLC.

ThIs is true, whether made buy the original devs, 3rd party devs or users.

Does that help, basically nobody but me can restrict the user content I can use. When the game maker/seller tries, the content is DLC and not mods.

This isn't debatable, I don't allow any debate.

Note: for the above, the term I represents all users as individuals Not just me..

Which communities, all of them, every user bought the game knowing mods couldn't be sold, of course their was a lot of indignant posturing by what you described as "Leeches", that's always gong to occur, thios is tthe internet.
Many of us actually involved, discussed these issues in detail, respecting each others right to disagree.
Just like this debate, there were many trolls as well, as is their nature, they bite the nearest legjuciest meat.

However, eveyone bought the game, knowing mods couldn't be sold.
We all made that deal to get the game, leech and creator alike.
Where game publishers go wrong, is they think that deal is a legal clause they can unilateraly change.

The deal we made with each other, wasn't defined by their EULA though, so though there was a lot of hysterics and finger pointing, between different cliques.

The only justifications offered in defense of Valve and Bethesda were whether the law allowed it.
Most knew that EULA was irrelevent, each user mods there own game, that deal we made was written in our actions.
Not a lawers office.

No such thing as a leech, we are all modders, whether we add to the community or not.

Though it's irrelevant as I said, I will make it clear what I have contributed.
Mods None, though I make my own patches they are for my entire setup and not useful for others.

Help and Support, 18 months as one of the main Official Moderators on the Mod Organizer Forums and Wiki's.
I'm soley responsible for MO support moving from Nexus (Great host, Awful place to support mods on) to STEP.
This is the thing I'm most proud of, MO support is by MO users, by design MO's Author, Tannin, mostly ignores pleas for help. That's because he works Full Time and codes MO as a hobby, all by himself.

MO users want his limited time spent coding, not answering the same stupid questions with RTFM.
We do that for him, (First we had to write that Manual).
MO is the best supported MOd Manager on the Nexus, I wasn't alone, don't think that, but I started the move to STEP and organised it.
I've not modded Skyrim for a year, after 18 months of nothing else, I stopped having fun.
Even so if you go to MO's Support Forum, I'm still listed as a Moderator..
Many do this ttype of thing as their contribution to the community, do they get a cut of paid mods.
Tools like LOOT, MO FNIS, SkSE we all use these for every mod. do they get a share of all of them.

NO leeches, we're all just modders.

I was going to step through that post but this is sort of the kicker. No matter what you would like to be true, most of your strong statements in your post are demonstrably false, and the line I quoted is probably the best example. You have no rights to use the software you buy, except as granted by license, because you never own it. The rights holders absolutely can unilaterally change the deal, and all you can do is accept the change, or stop using the software.

This, as you say, isn't debatable.

So, when you say 'right', you just mean 'what I want'.

Then I won't bother discussing anymore since that basically means your problem with paid mods comes down to 'what i don't want'.

"I have every right to do everything but that company has no right to allow modders the right to sell mods they made for that company's game for money"

Incredibly selfish stance.