Orkhepaj: boycotts dont work this is a fact
The_Puppet94: Saying boycotts don't work is like saying demos dont work. It is true for small boykotts as it is for small demos. Noone cares if there are 100 people demonstrating for something millions of people dont care. Same goes for boycotts. Its the numbers. If for some reason a large number of people is boycotting something it sure does work. The numbers are just too small (yet). However this does not mean you cant make a statement and join the boycott for your own peace of mind.
And yeah I know I dont support the Boykott yet I am just sympathetic to the concept. The reason for this for me personally I dont think a full boykott is necessary but others may feel it is and thats good.
Actually it really doesn't matter how many PEOPLE do this.
What is important is how much potential spend is lost in the process.
Few high spenders can make the same impact as a whole plethora of casual spenders.
So number of PEOPLE doesn't matter BY ITSELF.
There is at least a bunch of people here in this thread alone that are loyal customers and had regular spend on GOG in past years.
Now that that's gone it punches a hole in GOG's revenue. How big is a question I cannot answer.
But it's not "non existent". It does make an impact.
If we would manage to collect here a whole lot of HVT's then GOG would get considerably financially impacted and would maybe "already" notice that the problems they produce will not go unnoticed.
But since boycott adoption rate is slow it's also slow to gain HVTs here.
That's why it's important to gain as much supporters as possible regardless of their spend size so that we EVENTUALLY punch big enough hole in GOG's finances for them to start noticing and doing something about it.
Saying "oh it's only ~100 people so I will not join
because the boycott is small" is basically admitting to refusing to take actions on a problem, refusing to get out of your comfort zone and use your will to change what's wrong with this world.
It's only adding to the general insult.
coffee_darkness: is it "I can download an offline installer, run it and play the game totally offline?"
That's what GOG advertises and as customers we shouldn't expect the company to lie in our faces.
But GOG does anyway.
coffee_darkness: but where do you draw the line I guess... expect every developer to post their game and all updates on a totally open website? or at least allow them an unobtrusive method of at least not allowing moochers to get the game for free?
You are basically suggesting using some form of DRM in this day and age is justified for the sake of actual customers.
Which it is really not.
coffee_darkness: But I bet the OP thinks that GALAXY == DRM which it isn't
You know, basically like every other page someone like you turns up who doesn't understand that:
A.GOG Galaxy is explicitly called
by GOG themselves as
ALWAYS OPTIONAL B.If some piece of in-game content is locked behind a launcher (which, mind you, is severely reducing game run capabilities since it has higher system requirements than many old games, therefore if you want to play an old game with Galaxy you either have to use new system or you just can't while if you would play without it you can play it on an older system) it
IS a DRM. And at that point Galaxy is no longer "optional" - it's not "Galaxy is optional to get this content" - it is "Galaxy is mandatory to obtain this optional content".
coffee_darkness: But as for pushing galaxy or not.. meh.. I personally don't mind it and kind of like the experience since I don't have to open my browser up for becoming a game maintenance platform
"convenience over freedom"
Seems like alarmingly growing trend these days.
coffee_darkness: I don't mind letting GOG get some information for the price of running the client and watching what I do with it... of course if I found out it was watching more than just what I did with the gaming I wouldn't use it anymore but I'm hoping they have sunk that deep. Fact is galaxy could be a decent tool but what incentive is there for them to make it? if they ask for SOMEinformation as the price I'm ok with that as a form of payment and the incentive are nice too though I never noticed any offers "only in galaxy" but I'll take your word on it...
Basically though I think it's just one more item exchanged for the asking for some usage information which is fine... but I think here the OP is just whining because they wanted something for free and didn't get it.... basically it wasn't free, it was for the cost of using galaxy instead..
people complain that facebook for example tracks them... well guess what? FB isn't free really what it is is an site the costs your privacy for the convenience of posting stuff and hosting stuff. The same is true for galaxy but hopefully no where near to the extent of FB... if you don't like it, don't use it, but also don't complain about the payment for something that requires work to produce
You sound like those people who don't realise or are ok with the fact that EGS freebies are not actually free just you pay with data on your private persona instead of actual money.
coffee_darkness: which would be a horrible thing for security purposes.
How you deal with your personal computers' security and how you possibly allow through your negligence to get your browser contaminated to the point of endangering downloads made through HTTPS by cross-site attacks is not a justification for pushing an "always optional" client software as mandatory or "better" than browser based downloads.
The_Puppet94: As soon as it starts phoneing home weird shit it gets shredded into bits and bytes and good bye Galaxy.
I hate to break it to you but it definitely does have telemetry.
At the very least it definitely scans and uploads info on your hardware/system config and I personally don't see how that is related to or could help
your gaming experience and
your personal life business.
