B1tF1ghter: don't confuse "cannot disable telemetry (when coding the game)" with "not educated enough to know how to disable telemetry (when coding the game)"
Magnitus: 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.
(...)
devs knowing the ins and out of every tool they use is a pipe dream.
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.
Magnitus: jumps and hoops you have to go through to integrate
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.
randomuser.833: In fact, very often someone does not like is "DRM".
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.
mrkgnao: Exactly. And some of the people in this thread have drawn the line in a very reasonable way --- different than yours and mine, but still valid and reasonable --- so that according to them GOG is already selling games with partial DRM. And I respect that.
randomuser.833: Well, I try to stay close to the widely accepted definition.
You can draw its borders more narrow or more wide.
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).
B1tF1ghter: awfully inaccurate
(...)
"cannot" disable telemetry
randomuser.833: It depends on your contract with the company behind unity.
And no, you can't turn off telemetry all the time...
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.
B1tF1ghter: before it gets forwarded authenticity of it should be VERIFIED
randomuser.833: And I know a few companies, that do monitor (...) 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...).
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.
randomuser.833: it doesn't matter anymore who shows it to you
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?
randomuser.833: if somebody is naming the elephant in the room you overlooked (...)
Left hand, right hand and brain work without a connection from time to time.
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.
randomuser.833: 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.
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:
B1tF1ghter: before it gets forwarded authenticity of it should be VERIFIED
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.
randomuser.833: If you think they should't let anything through, you couldn't be more wrong.
I never said anything like that. YOU! NEVER try to put words in my mouth that I have not said!
randomuser.833: GoG forum broke down somewhere and was in the processing hell for something that was not "ok" within the quotes from your post
Well there is also this thing called "GOG input form has character limit but doesn't say so and hangs instead".
randomuser.833: While in the end, I think we can say for sure, if it wouldn't be about China, the reaction would be very different...
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"?
randomuser.833: 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.
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!
randomuser.833: Pick one, not both.
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.
randomuser.833: 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.
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?
randomuser.833: Not even everybody who is kinda in support of your protest is ok with every of your points
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.
randomuser.833: 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.
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.