Thought there is something to be said about "sane defaults". In my experience as a devops engineer, if you don't help steer devs the right way, many will stumble. You can scream at their "incompetence", but many devs operate under crushing time constraints. While I personally disagree (but I work extremely hard for this, like, investing a lot of my own personal time into this and I don't have children), I need to grudginly admit that devs knowing the ins and out of every tool they use is a pipe dream.

Overall, I think the lack of good DRM-free dev tooling is at least partly to blame for the current situation.

I'm sure store integrations (Steam and now Galaxy) offer some very convenient facilities to devs (for multiplayer matchmaking for example) and because those integrations are not a standard, I'm sure it becomes extremely time consuming for many devs to support a drm-free solution in addition to that.

I mean, put yourself in the shoes of, for example, an indie dev: You have to come up with an entire game and you need to earn a living from it. Unless you live in a country that has completely awesome safety nets (most don't), you are operating under some draconian time pressures.

Now, you have to integrate Steam's stuff (because, gamers on Steam expect it). In addition to that, I don't know what jumps and hoops you have to go through to integrate Galaxy, but I'm sure there are some. Then, will you, in addition to all that, implement your own in-game multiplayer matchmaking for LAN or otherwise come up with and distribute your own multiplayer backend that people can set up for themselves on the internet (for a more drm-free multiplayer experience)? Probably not.

Well, I try to stay close to the widely accepted definition.
You can draw its borders more narrow or more wide.

It does need a lot of bending the definition to get some things into the "it is DRM" definition, you do find in this thread, or in other "it is DRM" threads on GoG.
In fact, very often someone does not like is "DRM".

The biggest time is needed for real interaction.
Monitoring isn't that hard. And I know a few companies, that do monitor much more platforms, then they use to interact with people. Sometimes because of few people who have to do the job, sometimes because you don't relay want any kind of interaction with those very "strong minded" people (to stay friendly here...).

Btw, might I outline the fact, that IN THIS THREAD the many people on social media and other platforms, that joined the shitstorm after the game was not released, where claimed to be a big support for your cause AND to be the now not anymore silent majority of GoG users?
Now you claim the people from China, who warned GoG on social media are not GoG users in the majority.

Either - or.

Not as it fits your narrative at the moment.

Btw, if somebody is naming the elephant in the room you overlooked (GoG would only have to look at other companies in advance...), it doesn't matter anymore who shows it to you.
It is there. And that GoG hasn't seen it is the worst thing about GoGs public picture here. Left hand, right hand and brain work without a connection from time to time.

And as it seems, what the social media handlers did, does fit your description.
They filtered, and when they noticed the elephant in the room, they forwarded.
If you think they should't let anything through, you couldn't be more wrong.

It depends on your contract with the company behind unity.
And no, you can't turn off telemetry all the time...

@Time4Tea

At first, sorry to say that I cut out the quotes, but the GoG forum broke down somewhere and was in the processing hell for something that was not "ok" within the quotes from your post.
And after some time I am feed up to find out what it is...

Why should any country be able to dictate?
And no, I'm saying that I'm always amused, that in this situation the outrage seems to come from the USA to a big degree.
I'm getting strong red flood vibes in here and it strongly seems like people going mad, because somebody else starts doing what they have done for decades.

When people in this thread do write the same thing, couldn't it be, that this is the feeling of a big part of the people outside of north america?

I mean, we do jump between "what I would do (read your country), I would trust anybody else to do" and "what I can do nobody else should be able to do", when looking at the situation from the outside.

We know that there are a lot of things that have been done by the US (we got proofs for it), but that are claimed by the US (without any proof, often enough even disaproofed), to have been done by other nations too. And at last for europe i can say we do see it with some amusement.

I mean, it even seems you react on those things like a certain person reacts on being compared with a comic figure.

While in the end, I think we can say for sure, if it wouldn't be about China, the reaction would be very different...

About the "gamers" from china, as I wrote above.
As long as you claim, that the support on social media platforms comes from (in the forum silent) GoG users to a big degree, we can say, that those messages from china came from GoG users to a big degree.
If you want to claim, that either of those is not right, the other one is strongly into question too.
Pick one, not both.

[...]

Isn't "this is my red line and you have to fulfill every single point to my liking" to GoG not shoving down your believes into our throats?
Because you want GoG to do what you want, while this would change things for all other here too? While you are cleary not the majority?
Not even everybody who is kinda in support of your protest is ok with every of your points.

[...]

At last where I am from dialog (you claim to be open for dialog) and discussion are 2 pairs of shoes. Just say, that you don't want any kind of dialog but at best a discussion.
But as long as you claim that you want a dialog, I will say you don't.

I don't have problems when people can prove their ideas or stay consistent in their arguments.

I do got a problem when people even admit, that they use their very own "definitions" far outside of widly accepted definitions about the same thing. Just to "prove" their ideas. To begin with, nobody else does know your very own definiton.

I got a problem, when people turn the basically same thing how they just need it for that moment (many GoG users support you on social media, but the guys from China where not GoG users on social media).
This simply doesn't work.

There is only one problem with your idea that I am behind your downvote bots.
I do give a shit about reputation.
It is more that I find it funny, that anybody can think this is any kind of "punishment". While today it looks more like it was a ragequit for loosing the "interpretive authority". (and pointing out the strange automatic gain in rep).
Even more I would proudly acknowledge, that my rep is under attack by somebody who was drowning because his own spin doctor work.

For those of you who haven't been following these things closely, I just wanted to report that GOG has greatly improved its maintenance of offline installers vis-a-vis galaxy installers (item #8 in the OP) since the beginning of the boycott. The list of non-up-to-date offline installers (https://airtable.com/shrldLsErlUf3eHqS/tbltXjS8fxEGG11eD), maintained by WinterSnowfall, has been growing shorter steadily.

Good show, GOG, and keep it up.

While the list is not empty and likely will never be, the improvement is quite dramatic. If that were my only issue with GOG, I'd consider it good enough to stop the boycott.

P.S. GOG, how about adding a store filter to identify games that have online/galaxy-only single-player elements next? You don't have to call it a "DRM" filter if you don't want to. Just implement and maintain it. Hmm?

Well, I guess that's something. For me that was never much of a concern, but still.

Yeah, right. I'm sure they are just dying to draw attention to that.

You used 'should' here in this branched-off discussion: I dont see an 'enlightened rapport'. It also (IMO unhelpfully in terms of the topic) led to me misunderstanding what you meant etc. You can also (respectfully or otherwise) disagree with this...

Are you actually sufficiently familiar with "Web 3.0" to make such statements?
Of course "the web"(3.0) will (presumably) be able to make a fully decentralized shop: The base functionality is similar to the already existing NFT algorithms. And maybe add some friend/validation/democracy system/s against bad actors and for support.
And if such a thing reaches "The Tipping Point" we wont need GOG (etc) anymore and this topic can maybe become a note in some history report.
(And technologically speaking my expectation is that something like virtual nation states can also be built in/upon "Web 3.0".)

There is this thing called "DOCUMENTATION" so people should RTFM before complaining.
It's there for a reason.
That's my stance on the issue.
And if they are too lazy to dig through it then yes, they are CHOOSING to be incompetent.

If you cannot deliver then you don't sign yourself to the task.
That's the first thing.
The second thing is that just because something may be HARD cannot be an excuse by itself.
You either want it (as a developer) or not.
If you REALLY want it then no amount of "it's hard" or "it's time consuming" should be able to stop you.

I'm going to start my response by saying that your language skills seem too low to understand you a lot of the times.
Therefore often people may not understand what you're saying.
Like in that sentence I quoted above.

If you heat up a pizza far longer than it's written on a box it will definitely exceed boundaries of what's "widely accepted".
If you stretch a definition (for example DRM) too far it will too become at some point no longer within boundaries of "widely accepted". "Widely" is there for a reason.
Neither situation means your implementation is automatically wrong tho.
It also doesn't mean that the "widely accepted" definition is correct and that is a point I would like to address here.
Dictionaries vary.
Folk tales too.
Things get fuzzy and twisted when people repeat them to others, at some point enough people multiply a false definition that it becomes "widely accepted" while NOT BEING CORRECT.
I really couldn't care less what is PERCEIVED as correct and "wildly accepted" definition of DRM as usually it misses a point by some (variable) degree.
There is only one true DRM-free and it is "NO DRM, NO EXCEPTIONS".
Not "DRM-free except for this and that".
Example, the
(GOG's claim essentially) "CP2077 is fully DRM-free except for THIS and THAT in-game item (T-shirt)"
IS a DRM.
And it doesn't matter that GOG cooks up their own definition of what is a SINGLEPLAYER IN-GAME CONTENT to make it seem like those TOTALLY SINGLEPLAYER-ONLY IN-GAME items are NOT applicable, and some users just believe it, roll with it, and repeat that lie. They even defend it, to some bizzare amusement of others.
I don't care about people's personal twisted thinking.
THAT is a DRM-ed singleplayer in-game content. No matter how you or anybody (including GOG) thinks it's insignificant, it is STILL in-game singleplayer-only content that is GATED behind pretty clear form of DRM (online verification and activation, external account sign-in also required afaik).

Are you referring to Unity license tiers and how in one of lower ones telemetry is more hardcoded than others?
Yes, that is SOMEWHAT correct.
But there are still ways around that. Afaik there are cvars for that. But I don't feel like teaching Unity here.
And if that fails you can still try to deliberately cripple the telemetry by coding netcode in your game that will block, intercept or screw with localhost ports used by the telemetry subsystem.

Sloppy internal procedures and relaxed usage of internal rules by employees cannot be an excuse to avoid international standards.
This is business. This isn't some private message from a spammer sent to a private entity.
In business you cannot afford sloppy handling. If you allow it you WILL face consequences.

REALLY?
What the F are you talking about? I don't know how you think law works but YES, it DOES matter "who tells you something".
It matters A LOT.
Things AREN'T treated equally regardless of who says them.
Would you really care for opinion of some random (CIVILIAN) douche who never was in your shop?
Would you place it ABOVE OPINIONS of your ACTUAL customers?

If you have lack of connection between left and right area of your brain your brain sides will barely colaborate with each other and you will frequently face situations in which your left hand will want to stop your right hand or your right hand will punch somebody while you will be greeting them with your left one for example.
Perhaps you "overlooked" it.

Oh did they?
Do you have any proof for that or do you actually TAKE FOR GRANTED self-implied correctness of your theory?
Also, if anyone is supposed to believe that it was social media channels and handlers forwarded all the sh*t then:
1.So what is their job exactly then? JUST reading?
2.Like I said:
and if authenticity of it can be proven then why does GOG hide the proofs?
Care to explain?

Also even if it would be authentic there is just NO excuse for blocking the release INTERNATIONALLY.
This is just plain abiding to censorship.

I never said anything like that. YOU! NEVER try to put words in my mouth that I have not said!

Well there is also this thing called "GOG input form has character limit but doesn't say so and hangs instead".

Maybe. Maybe NOT.
But why should it be any different?
If Germany would block international game release because there would be sfastikas in it would you then not be outraged as international customer "because it's not china doing it"?

Nobody claims it. In fact it's the very thing GOG wants us to believe!
It's about how this literally cannot be proven while if real there would be NO NEED for GOG to hide the proofs!
That's the WHOLE F-ING POINT!

How about:
There is so much wrong with and the original tweet is so BIZZARE that it can be picked upon for satirically long time.

And you base that on what exactly anyway? Forum users' country tags that any user can set to whatever they want?
Also, do you REALLY think EVERYBODY who is against the issues speaks in this thread?
Do you really think you can draw any kind of sane analysis of displeased countries citizens' involvment statistics from this thread?

There can be many boycotts based on many different premises.
It's not like this thread has some sort of exclusivity or "you are with us otheriwise against us" agenda.
This isn't about "EVERYTHING or NOTHING".
You don't actually have to BUY NOTHING to boycott.
Even just reducing your purchases is already a form of boycott.
There are many forms of it and not everybody has to use the same one.
Many people get upset in this thread about this but this is the reality.
People don't have to agree or collectively lurk IN THIS THREAD to boycott.

PROVE THEN that those were
1.Coming from social media
2.Coming from chinese GOG CUSTOMERS.
I don't think you can prove either and that's one of the biggest points here - the original tweet is bizzare beyond comprehension and how GOG provided NO PROOFS only enriches and ENCOURAGES speculation.

Ah, just fucked up the whole post.

For roughly 25 years I'm using forums and I have never seen something like GoG. No resizing of the post window. Problematic multiquoting. It is a chore to use it.

Bah...


About your question
In fact, very often something someone does not like is "DRM".

As I said, I hate posting in this shitty forum.


About the standards.
I think we can stop this here.
There is an widely accepted definition, that is used by companies, law and science.

You don't accept that definition, because you don't feel it is right.
Fine, but we don't have to talk about it in any way.


About unity.
So, talking about how devs would have to work around things that are active in unity by default sounds more like a retreating battle on your end...



Now social media.
At first, yes, for most social media guys READING is the biggest part of their work.
They usually read at many more places then they use to post news. Or to interact with users (usually even less places compared to simple newsposts).
They use that places to see if somewhere is fire and if there is an "official account", you can reach the social media team by that account.
It doesn't say, that they will answer you. But the chance that someone will read it is very high.

So if something is cooking up, those guys will take notice and they will forward it. That IS international standard.

By "law", when somebody sends and anonymous message to the police, that some shady stuff is going on with quite some details, the police will usually investigate (else swating wouldn't work...) and when this does lead to the court, nobody will care who send the message in advance.
It will only matter if it was right or wrong.

To decide if there is fire behind the smoke is the work of the social media people.

Not sure what you want to make up here btw...


And "you", (some people in this thread, not you in person), did claimed that the social media shitstorm against GoG was, by a large degree, coming from GoG users that just don't show up at the forum.
While at the same time people like you (in person) claim, that the users from China are not GoG users.
I would call this working hand in hand...

Btw, where is YOUR proof, that the chinese government did it?
That GoG won't show you the messages? boys...


About GoG, where sometimes one part does not know what the other does.
Well, yep, that is GoG.
It hasn't been the first time and I fear it will not be the last time they fuck something up.

I mean, all this chargeback for the console version of cyberpunk, without talking to the console manufactures, was nothing more the shooting from the hip, that broke a lot of glass.
In that case asking your guys who work with this other companies could have prevented a lot of damage. But this way they not only damaged their connections with Sony and MS, but they fucked up their own support too. Anybody in charge would have know, that the support would be overwhelmed in an already critical situation.

So yes, GoG surly got a problem with the coordination of the left and right hand and the brain, eyes, ears and sometimes everything else.


About censorship by other countries, that got an world wide influence.
There were games that were build from the ground without symbols, that are forbidden in germany. That way you could save the costs for the rework for germany.
Just say, the outrage was very small. You could even add Ubisofts "unpolitical" games with a lot of politics in them to that list.

I think the outrage about the changes to the sexual relationship in Let me in lead to an bigger outrage and even that one was very small (FYI, scandinavian book and movie a boy falls in love to an androgynous but male vampire. In the US-movie it was Cloe Mortez with at last an B-Cup size).
In fact, that stories from outside the USA is "reworked" for the USA is a common thing, but the outrage here is not that big. It is more seen with an slight amusement and a little sigh.
Never releasing stuff that would be allowed in certain countrys but would lead to problems with the USA - well, it does happen for sexual content in Appsstores or US-Storefronts that do work internationally.
Not many fucks are given...

And I do know that there are quite a few games that are against USA. You will never find them in an us storefront. Regardless how bad games from the "west" will talk about other parts of the world at the same time.

And to answer your question, why I think it is something very stongly US related.
It is because there are generel high tensions between US and China, and those do involve a lot of fear from the people from the US.



And for the last, what the idea behind this thread is, is something only the OP can realy answer.

This forum CMS is just from dark ages. That's just a fact.

Except usually law, companies and science DON'T accept EXACT same definitions.

What is not apparently seen as an international standard by GOG's HQ is treating all nationalities' customers equally.
"They are reading it"?
So let me get this stright:
It is implied they (social media handlers / or support / or both) made an uber flex and processed some implied exceptionally large amount of "feedback" from one group of people within just few hours but then completely ignored feedback from another, this time provably large, amount of people giving opposite feedback?
Because the latter can be proven while the former is in the realm of what you believe in and what you do not (such as bizzare PR messages).

If the implied job was even done in the first place then it was done improperly.

Many people largely disagree in this thread and jump to each others' throats.
I am personally trying to calmly assess the situation in a calculated way based on facts.
Tweet was beyond bizzare. Fact.
Used wording was confusing, unpforessional, and left WAY TOO MUCH room for interpretation. Fact.
Words from the tweet were never proven by GOG. Fact.
To date there is literally no proof if what was described by GOG actually took place. That's a fact regardless of what people say.
So there is no official info if "gamers" existed, same for messages and their numbers. Exact same for SOURCE of those.
The tweet in question actually DOESN'T specify the source either so it's open to speculation.

NO. I do NOT.
Please be bloody precise or don't bother.
What I claim is that it is a FACT that there is no proof that any chinese implied "gamers" that allegedly messaged GOG are GOG's customers at all.

Except this is actually exceptionally incorrect.
Please read some criminal profiling books or something as I don't feel like explaining why that specific bit of information is frequently crucial to an investigation.

1.Did you just assume my gender based on NOTHING?
2.That's right. THERE IS NO PROOF. There is very evidently no proof what ACTUALLY happened and THAT'S THE POINT. GOG made exceptionally bizzare message written in a way leaving unusually large room for interpretation. Then went radio silent. Interpret it as you want. And people do exactly that here. People speculate. And unless we will someday get insider info on what ACTUALLY happened people will still be left in the dark and speculate some more.
But the actions of GOG and timing of those are beyond suspicious.

Yeah. No. This is just BS.
Usually only assets require modification so unless you have offending symbols all over the place the work required for regional version is usually rather small.
Think Wolfenstein 2.
Not much work per se. Therefore not really much bigger costs.

Ummm? Nani..?
Eh?
Dude, if there is a problem you cannot fix and you cannot make someone responsible fix it then yes, you go ahead and work it around.
That's dead simple.
It's certainly better than going all "well we cannot make them change it so we will just give up on working it around and instead do nothing about it".

Well I was boycotting regardless of existence of this thread.
De facto long before it was created.
So if this thread would suddenly dissappear it would change literally nothing for me.

No you don't ;)

Well well well, since you seem so eager to try to falsely accuse me I feel entitled to correct your blasphemy :P
Normally I wouldn't bother, as this is laughing material, but some people may read your messages and jump to wrong conclusions, so if you excuse me... ;)

Incorrect. And I don't feel like explaining this to you but TLDR I am here to maybe conduct conversations with various people, and maybe sometimes to try to change somebody's views for the better. Maybe also to find new clues. Maybe other reasons.
In any case I have certainly far better things to entertain myself than some toxic thread on obscure forum that doesn't even properly send notifications unless I get quoted ;)
So you are just blatantly incorrect in this statement regarding my thread activity ;)

If you think both law and academic personnel accept EXACT same definitions for EVERYTHING then you must seriously have been living under a rock for past 2 decades.

Well I wouldn't call that a "warning". But whatever. You are probably just going to ignore my reasoning yet again anyway so...

Do they tho?
Your argument here would maybe have some basis for being of value if it would be correct at all. Which it is not.
Steam has special "chinese" sandboxed variant, a closed garden if you will. Special Steam version JUST FOR CHINA, "Steam China" literally ("Steam Platform" if we are supposed to translate official name from chinese). I'm not going to discuss if the decision of making it was right or not as I already spoke about it in either this or another thread (don't remember which one) and basically in short I think that it was one of better possible outcomes as the international "normal" Steam is mostly intact and kept away from predatory chinese gov hands while "Steam China" is a containment sandbox for chinese gov to do their idiotic business and censorship decisions.
So no, china gov definitely DOES NOT "ignore Steam". You are very wrong here and you should educate yourself and do your research before you speak.

Incorrect yet again tho. Gee, I am starting to sense a trend here...
Let me enlighten you:
A."GOG situation" - game got officially announced by GOG publicly. Product card page went live and stayed so for several hours - I would like to point out one important frequently overlooked thing here - you can only bring the product card live AFTER already signing distribution contract with developer/publisher. Not a second earlier.
GOG then proceeds to give The World some exceptionally Bizzare PR statement in which they claim that a bunch of people from unspecified source and in unspecified number messaged them and so they decided to forteit INTERNATIONAL release of the game. Here note: the version of the game was most likely already without the "offending material" since it was to be distributed long after Steam release got that patched out.
Ergo:
Game removed by distribution platform (GOG). The version in question was possibly "cut".
GOG broke already signed contract with publisher/developers and provided possibly false reasons for doing so in PR statement (I am not 100% sure if they are lawfully allowed to lie to customers while saying truth to contractors but they certainly cannot lie to contractors about reasons of forfeiting ALREADY SIGNED CONTRACT and if the PR statement was also what was given to contractors then GOG should be HELD LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for that as it is LITERALLY ILLEGAL to provide such cryptic inaccurate reasoning to contractors).

B.(Steam) Game WITH the "offending content" was put live. It did not break Steam's product guidelances. The product page was live and buyable for approx 6 days ( https://steamdb.info/app/1006510/ ). Then it was taken down by DEVELOPERS of it. And official statement BY DEVELOPERS was released:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1006510/discussions/0/1796278072845376475/
Ergo: Steam didn't have ANY issues with "uncut" version of the game.
Game was being normally sold (in UNCUT version) for around 6 days.
Game taken down by it's DEVELOPERS.
End of the story.
If you don't see the difference then I don't see this conversation.

Be careful with your "a**hole cockiness" as it may otherwise get forwarded "somewhere" too.

Like I already said before a few times, they have to consider if they want to potentially loose large chunk of EXISTING estabilished PROVABLE userbase (because of spreading loss of trust caused by HQ decisions) in return for a group of POTENTIAL customers with POTENTIALLY higher income but 100% unwarranted in the longterm and far more risky (after all chinese market has stricter regulations, one wrong move and "you're out").
It's their choice.
But everybody in the forums going all "oh it's no brainer, china has more money so it's only logical to not want to anger them so we should avoid doing things which may" is at least partially a coward, ignorant and would apparently have no issue with freedom of expression (which includes art, which in turn includes games, which includes SATIRE in games) is thwarted.
Life isn't only about money.
Would you do ANYTHING for money?
Even if it would cost you loss of face (public picture)?
I definitely wouldn't. And many corporations wouldn't either.

Haha. Yeah, well, nice try. Made me laugh.
But you are incorrect and evidence is public for that :D

Maybe in some jurisdictions investigations are sloppy and people don't care but it's not like that EVERYWHERE so STOP GENERALIZING.

GOG comes from a country where the messanger ISN'T automatically deemed "non important" like you suggested (with "it doesn't matter who shows you that").

Wow... You're behaving like such an a**hole...
Unbelievable...
I'm not going to bother to respond to this one.
And you clearly didn't research level of changes in Wolfenstein II while I did.
I am somewhat involved in gamedev btw. "Just so you know".

Actually I knew you would say that and die from your own sword again.
"Dude" is generally seen as slang. In that form it can be used and IS often used when speaking to BOTH genders.
So no, I actually didn't assume your gender with that word ;)
Whereas "boy" or "boys" by ITSELF is seen as assumption of gender.
"Oh boy" (which you DID NOT use in ORIGINAL picked upon post) would be a saying, maybe slang.
Know the difference.
And please learn more of the language you are trying to use here so that you don't write nonsense accusations.

You seem to know more about this contract between GOG and the devs than anyone. Do you have a link to a copy of this contract?

Why are you trying to twist this into being about the US? The actors involved here are China and GOG, who appear to be conspiring to censor the game Devotion from gamers in the rest of the world outside China. This has absolutely nothing to do with the US.

The fact that I live in the US is irrelevant and circumstantial. The people who have signed up on the boycott list so far come from many different countries around the world, with a common link that they are angered at this blatant attempt at censorship. By the way, I may live in the US, but I am actually British, so you may be making some inaccurate assumptions about my background.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Why would there necessarily be a link between gamers who are visibly posting on the GOG forum and on the Devotion wishlist request and these invisible 'many gamers' from China, which no-one has seen any evidence of? I struggle to see your logic here.

No, not even close. All I have done is post my opinion, which is that I strongly dislike many of GOG's recent actions and general direction. And I have said what would need to happen for me to continue spending my money at this store. That is not in any way 'shoving my beliefs down your throat'. Because, I am merely stating my opinion and not forcing you to do anything. If I was 'shoving my beliefs down you throat', I would be taking concrete actions to force you to do what I want, e.g. remotely taking control of your GOG account and forcing you to stop buying games here.

However, back to the reality: all I am doing is voicing my opinion and asking who feels a similar way (which it seems many people do). I have every right to voice my opinion and I have every right to choose whether or not to spend my money at this store (the same rights that you have). If you don't agree with the premise behind the boycott, then don't join. If you don't agree with what is being said in the thread, then don't read it. You have every right to disagree and to not take part, therefore nothing here is being 'shoved down your throat'. Other people are merely stating their opinions, which it seems you disagree with,

Where I come from, 'dialogue' and 'discussion' mean exactly the same thing. Perhaps you mean 'debate'?

This may be a cultural thing, but I am not aware of any definition of 'debate' that includes rules that one or both sides have to change their positions. In my experience, most debates involve two sides that are strongly opposed in their views on a particular topic and they take turns to explain their reasoning and why they think their position has more merit than the other side's. In most debates I have seen, it is very unusual for both sides to reach an agreement by the end of it, since they are both usually quite entrenched in their views.

Besides, you need to bear in mind that, as I said before, any 'ground rules' for a debate that apply to me must also apply in exactly the same way to you. And again, I have not seen any sign that you have an open mind or are willing to change your views, in response to what others have been saying.

As far as 'prove my ideas': I am not under any obligation to 'prove' my ideas or opinions any more than you are. In fact, I see it as quite unreasonable to expect someone to 'prove' their opinions. A person's opinions are often based on their perspective and circumstances and on their life experiences. It is often not as black and white as one person's opinions being right and another's being wrong.

Tbh, given that it seems we can't even agree on the fundamental 'terms of engagement' for a debate, I doubt we are going to be able to have a very productive 'dialog'.

Here, as I said before, you seem to have a misconception. There is no 'widely agreed definition of DRM'. If there is, please tell me where it is coming from and who is this widely-accepted authority that has defined the term. I asked you before to please show me where GOG.com has clearly posted their definition of DRM, and you haven't done so.

All I see is you stating what your definition is and trying to project that as if it were a widely accepted definition. Which, actually, is the exact same thing you are criticising me for doing. I am not the one here that is trying to claim that my personal definition of DRM is somehow absolute - you are the one doing that. I have stated what my personal definition is and that I accept that others may have different definitions. So, does it not seem that I have more of an open mind than you do, in that regard?

Do you see the difference? Perhaps you should listen to your own advice and stop trying to project your definition of DRM onto everyone else?

And you base that on what exactly anyway Mr "new user low rep (who btw doesn't seem to know what trimming quotes when not otherwise undesired means) didn't bother to change avatar and all that presumably due to low amount of forum activity"?
What? My understanding of law?
No, I do not have insider info about the contract.
But I am somewhat involved in gamedev, I am therefore somewhat interested in law merits of it, and so I for example know that you just CANNOT show a product card in digital store BEFORE signing a contract for distribution with corresponsing product's makers/publishers.
Doing so without having a valid contract first would fall under all kinds of law breaking including but not limited to false advertising.
Any more questions? Or are you going to start paying attention to what I am ACTUALLY saying?

So if you don't have access to this contract, I am not sure how you can claim this contract was broken. Have you ever seen or read a contract of this nature between a storefront and game devs/pubs?

I am not going to bother to respond to this if you cannot be bothered to read what I have already said for past several pages and if counting all pages in this thread then several times.