A forum boycott will not kill GOG...

... but...

... GOG does not exist in a vacuum with only one pressure at a time.

Follow their expendatures vs revenue the last few years.

If this boycott - extended to the customers who stopped buying from GOG in frustration without saying so here - were big enough to hurt GOG, they would react to it. Eventually. Their decision may be weird and sometimes stupid, but still they aren't so stupid to go voluntarily under without trying to row back on their errors, once they feel the financial pressure to do so. As they have done in the past.

Not to the "normies" who don't pay attention to such issues and the like.

Also for the rest of us, of course, they might believe it works anyways....like game companies thinking drm works in some cases.

=-=-=

Tbh I think some of GOG's own decisions(like the Cyberpunk fiasco) and it's low userbase and popularity compared to steam, among other things, are more likely to possibly lead to GOG closing up shop than this or any other such boycotts.

=-=-=

Like when they apologized for 2077 and then started issuing refunds en masse.

Great minds think alike, but apparently it never really gained significant enough traction.

Yes, looking at Steam only, Steamspy estimates sales between 10M and 20M. So that's not bad at all. You then need to add the sales from gOg to it (ignoring concoles now, it should never have happened)

The Evil Within 1: preorder bonuses included in GOG release (on Steam only if you preordered or bought day one edition)
The Evil Within 2: same situation as above, plus in GOG release there is included the infamous 1.05 patch that elsewhere requires Bethesda net in-game login to obtain
Prey: same as TEW 1
to name just few examples.

Huh, it's almost like certain wishlist entry for certain game being in top 5 throughout long periods of time.
Yet it was ignored.
Gee, it's almost like GOG is a bunch of biased hypocrites /s

Normally I wouldn't respond at this point as you openly ignore proven things (thus a lost cause in my eyes).
But you seem to dare to falsely accuse me of things so I will attempt at strightening some things out.

I never claimed / said / implied these things.

You know what shouldn't happen?
You thinking that it actually matters while it doesn't.
You digging your own grave here while aggressively waiving fingers at others trying to accuse others of doing that (digging the grave) by themselves for you instead of you doing it.
You should stop jumping to baseless conclusions.

Oh, so the conversation is going to go in this direction?
Well, I don't feel like fighting these kinds of claims as people excercising these claims usually fail to reason due to being too heavily cemented in their beliefs.

Some people may choose to not hack your perfectly unsecured router when conducting large IoT takeover operation during an automated worldwide network scan (for unsecured routers, which btw happens ALL THE TIME).
Some people may choose to not eavesdrop on a conversation you are very loudly attemtping in a train.
Some people may choose to ignore your "any tresspassing is welcome" sign.
But don't misunderstand.
Leaving something open to abuse does not warrant that even just one entity will show up with good intentions and not abuse whatever is left open.
Deliberately demanding netcode that is intentionally devoid of reliable ways of stat / realm / hit / whatever verification is ASKING for disaster.
Expecting at that point that "everybody will be all nice and cool" is exceptionally foolish.
In fact expecting ANYBODY AT ALL to be like that and taking FOR GRANTED that "surely somebody will" is down right idiotic.

It's not even remotely a simple question when I am not aware of YOUR PERSONAL DEFINITION of "old methods".
Either define the precise list of them or don't bother asking as otherwise you are just seen as provocateur.

You are free to choose to wait and see what happens.
But many people have enough life experience to know that if somebody shows signs of going rouge they are very unlikely to get better by themselves other time.

That could be a problem only if community demands would not be publicly outlined. And they clearly have been at the very least in this very thread.

Okay.
Here you go:
https://www.gog.com/wishlist/games/devotion
8910 votes as of this post timestamp.

This is laughable.
It's GOG that enforces both DRM rules on their own platform and what can or should be said on product card.

It's profoundly easy answer for me.
GOG advertised itself as 100% DRM-free store wide in all games (they advertiseD as they dropped the "100%" part some time ago from their marketing materials apparently).

What you said is some extreme hypocrisy or lack of understanding.
What GOG does is strafe from it's sole purpose of being exclusively DRM-free platform, the moment they put DRM in even just FEW games they are no longer 100% DRM-free store. And that time has come.
Do you seriously think GOG would correct course when left alone?
When they decided to openly lie and deceive their customers?

...

It is neither.

Dunno about the first(personally, I mean), but a staffer confirmed to me via PM(many months back) that they do not control most(if not all of) the content of the game cards.

Of course I cannot prove this atm as I forget which staffer it was and don't know if I even still have those PMs, so it's up to y'all if y'all want to take my word on it or not.

All I know is this: I informed GOG of some typos and other things that were inaccurate(lore/etc) on game cards, and was told essentially something along the lines of "the rights holder controls the game card content, and we cannot make any changes to it without their approval...sorry

There is a pretty sharp difference between allowing publisher to self maintain product card versus allowing publisher to get away with ANYTHING.
Ultimately the control of the page is GOG's. They merely hand most of it to publisher.
But it's not like GOG cannot step in and change something if for example publisher violates platform policy by for example introducing DRM and not changing page info accordingly.
Any form of GOG's "we are sorry but we cannot do anything about it" is just a bunch of BS excuses in order to cover up GOG's a** for negligence in enforcing page rules on publisher.

I assume that it's more likely that GOG gives control of the pages(to a high or full degree, barring things that are illegal/would somehow affect gog's image/etc) to the rights holders as part of the partner negotiations/contract.

Might be...might be......of course I personally lean towards my guess above as being more plausible/likely.
(i.e. the rights holder controls the majority of the page content to some degree, and that GOG legally cannot change said content without their permission...barring certain exceptions)

-

Still, in the end, the main thing is that there are many things about GOG(company/site) that need or could use some improvement....game card info/content being one of them.....i'm guessing on that much we can agree.

Let me spell it out for you
Your anticheat measure argument doesnt hold up
If players want to cheat or hack they will do it¨
no matter if the hosted game have anticheat measures or not
\
The concept of boxing people in in various groups using scary tactics like ohhh
they can hack us if we give them opertunity to us by giving them acces to the ability to mod is just same damn argument any publisher will use
to the public each time they implement any form of DRM in their games
Like : we cant make our games drm free because they are all pirates annyway
even if proven that copy protected games is just as much pirated

Secondly
If youre gonna use the router argument my pc or whaver else strawman
be sure to apply it to the so called secured anti cheat legit multiplayer measures that you used earlier in your comment
which by the way doesnt always protect the players either so thank you for proving my point
that i dont have control even in that case
and neither does the host 100 % unless offcourse hes/shes beeing a total dictator and jerk about it
but then he probably wont have much luck finding players to join the hosted game in the first place.

Third
You also missing the point that somone have to host the damn game
You cant really act like a dictator and brainwash people to join or something like that
or making it so difficult to join you
because you are so scared of the hacking skills of the player base that you see ghosts in broad dayligth
And if you host you also have to acceptt certian risks
such as people beeing able to cheat or hack into your game
or beeing a burden to other players in your hosted game on occasion
and even if you catch the cheaters and boot them out because the anticheat measures or reports or whatever or are skilled enough to discovver them, new ones will over time show up and it doesnt even take a long time
and some times
you can even find repat offenders if the player base is big enough and the offender in question are skilled enough in the art of decception or ways getting in the game several times even with various anti cheat measures.
And the host isnt a super human either
he/she has to sleep, shit, eat or work like the rest of us and during this downtime shit can and will happen especially if the host is hosting a game thats hes planning keep going for more than a day
Thats kinda the nature of playing with other people

And no thank you
in not going to risk getting banned by posting an how to do hack tututorital of old methods
if you want that loook it up yourself
but i can make an example
It is possible to hack any pc on a local Area Network(LAN). to make an example
are you gonna keep trolling?

Youre kinda doing it
against the other in the trhead as well
especially when theres opinions that do not align closly with yours

You know what GOG cannot legally do?
Have a product card openly dismissing DRM presence in a game (not properly informing about it) while simulataneously advertising their platform (GOG's) as DRM-free (the ENTIRE platform).

You, and many others may actually misunderstand what "publisher controlled product page" actually means.
I spoke many times to Valve directly (to people much higher than support, through emails) and sure, the platform gives a high level autonomy to publisher and it's publishers' responsibility to keep the page properly updated, but if there is something wrong and the publisher fails to correct it the platform can and very well should step up and do so themselves, heck, they often have to based on legal footing.
Because ultimately the underlying platform belongs to a company and NOT publisher given autonomy and it's THE PUBLISHER that has to abide to PLATFORM'S rules and NOT vice versa.

There is a sharp difference between letting someone have autonomy versus letting just about any shit fly "as long as it's not illegal" (btw, false advertising, such as failing to inform about presence of DRM, IS ILLEGAL).

GOG is evidently lenient and negligent in regards to enforcing own policies on publishers in all sorts of ways, including product pages.
And it doesn't help that GOG apparently also lacks standards.

Actually mine DOES hold up, yet you keep not understanding it and instead keep clinging to your sinking ship instead.

It's not about if players DESIRE to cheat or not.
It's entirely about if you LET them BY DEFAULT.
Which would be entirely the case for a type of netcode that is flawed by design and is build in a way lacking proper authorisation of data like in the concept you so desperately desire.

If you so pretenciously believe in general public's average innocence then you are free to test people's goodwill.
Run an experiment.
Set up a honeypot on DMZ in your home network and see what happens. Make it specificly in a manner informing everybody visiting that you want them to be nice and all and not hack it.
Oh, wait, that would actually topple your point so you would likely not have the guts to do that.

Don't mix up DRM and anti-cheat.
Anti-cheat is not DRM by itself.
Those are 2 unrelated concepts.

Router point.
You misunderstood it completely.
That example DOESN'T apply to heavily fortified anit-cheats as most routers have beyond satiricly shit security by default.

Except I never went against specificly the "host" part. The game can be P2P no problem.
I specificly went against your desire to have no control whatsoever of ANY kind, no preventions of ANYTHING, not preventing modding, ALL things in ANY multiplayer participant's control.
(your point's existence proven by your words that you want to be able to do ANYTHING without anybody preventing you from doing LITERALLY ANYTHING and if there would be ANY preventions you call it "DRM")
Also, I never said host with proper central authority would be 100% shit proof.
I am specificly saying that what you desire (a system with no central verification of certain data such as stats or mods or cheat detection [wall-hack can be seen as mod by many btw] by for example "host") is basically 0% proof BY DESIGN.
And any proofing and security in your desired system ENTIRELY stands on top of HOPING for end-user goodwill.

Unfortunatelly it's YOU that doesn't understand the points.
I carefully read what you're saying and check that against the reality.
Whereas YOU casually dismiss what I'm saying and instead resort to trying to accuse me of trolling.
The conversation is going nowhere this way, but if that's what you desire...

The host isn't a human (just a server) and nobody cheat detects by themselves in real time.
There are these things called "scripting", "autoadmin" and such.

Okay?
And did I ask you?
Did ANYBODY ask you for that matter?
Because you act like somebody did with your "and no thank you" while I for certain did not and I don't see anyone who did unless I'm missing something.
Also, you keep talking to me about things that I DO know and knew for LONG, you say so in a way like you're some "know-it-all" that talks to some "idiot" and I see such behaviours as one of the most aggravating existing.

Any? As in ALL? Not neccesarily. Tho that still depends what you mean by hack and if you mean REMOTE by it. (which you clearly did not specify)
Major amount? Yes.
How? There is like a billion of books on network IT sec. I don't feel like writing one in this forum thread.
But it's a fact that majority (basically almost all private ones at least) of network infrastructure is attrociously unsecure on default settings. And most private users leave those default settings. And even if you go pretty far into the settings most home routers still expose telnet or tftp, often on the wan side too.
There is quite an attack surface on average home network.
I will not go into details but it's sarcasticly easy to prove.

I counted more than 3 people (me, you, and "the other person") in this thread so I don't even remotely know who you are even implying.
I really couldn't care less if someone's opinion aligns with mine.
I personally respect others' right to have a different opinion than mine and I'm okay with it.
What I'm not okay with is letting some obvious bullshit slide so when I see it, while knowing someone is wrong, I may choose to intercept and try to correct that someone.
Sometimes I succeed.
Sometimes I fail.
But ultimately it has NOTHING to do with someone's alignment of their opinion with mine or lackthereof.
So take your false accusations and shove them back where they came from.

-----
On a side note:
Oh, I see, so the bots were asleep / busy. That's interesting.
I think at this point I have pretty solid grip who is targeted for auto-downvote (scripted) versus who is downvoted manually.

Honestly this discussion is becoming more and more complicated to even read anymore. I mean the post above me is like an unfocused movie script.